Mr. Blackwell
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2015
- Messages
- 59
- Reaction score
- 26
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
To those who typically warn of a "gay/homosexual agenda": Is this what you mean by the term? The idea of a systematic and wide spread push by government, the media, and/or pockets of society to instill a moral belief throughout our culture?
To those who believe there is no "gay/homosexual agenda": How do you figure? How do you square a notion that it's simply about constitutional rights in relation to other things pushed by the movement/suppoters of the movement that have nothing to do, or tangental at best, to constitutional rights?
I have only read the first 10 comments and the last 10 comments from this thread so please forgive me if I address something that has already been covered.
From my observation, when people (like Rush Limbaugh) talk about the "gay agenda" they use the phrase pejoratively to describe a specific set of actions which they conclude is destroying the long ascribed moral fabric of America as viewed from the conservative religious right. We have all seen the proclamations and prognostications about how the world is going to end now that homosexuals can get married in all 50 states. We have all read the self righteous "I told you so" from the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who frequently point to natural disasters as God's retribution for homosexual tolerance. I suspect that most people who ascribe to the "gay agenda" conspiracy lean more towards the Limbaugh approach than the latter but I could be wrong. They point to Hollywood and Academia as a prime example of evidence to support the theory that the agenda exists. Ellen Degeneres and films like Cold Mountain come to mind. Educational programs, like Best Practices adopted by various school districts also reinforce their belief that the agenda is an organized government funded program to push a moral view upon us which is anathema to their own personal beliefs. In many ways it does seem like a coordinated effort by many interested parties to change the shape of the collective point of view into a more inclusive environment for all of us.
I believe there is an agenda but it is not monolithic. It is most definitely a civil rights movement and one that needs all the support it can get. Calling it an agenda is just a way to make it sound as sinister as they think it is for everyone to have equal rights. I take comfort in the fact that the people who are against equal rights are being pushed further away from the middle and closer to the fringes. Their moral authority is being marginalized. I see that as a good thing in this specific case.
Last edited: