Talk:Gay agenda/Archive 4

message: Oct 7 2005  Gay Peoples Chronicle uses the term Gay Agenda in a headline to discuss gay political activisim. http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories05/october/1007051.htm
July 8 2004 - GayLink Editorial Article commemorating the 25th anniversary of the 1st March on Washington says "Gay Agenda" http://gaylinkcontent.com/storydetail.cfm?storyid=1170
Sexuality and Gender Activism (SaGA) is Carleton University's LGBTQA activism group.  They use the term "Gay Agenda" to refer to their plans for upcoming meetings.  http://orgs.carleton.edu/saga/agenda.html
The Gay Agenda was a Monthly periodical for gays published at Postbus 10757, 1001 ET Amsterdam, The Netherlands from 1985-88.
A memorial website for Mattachine, says: the American gay movement evidences our leaders' desire to pursue a gay agenda without a sexual revolution.  http://www.jtsears.com/mattachinephotoessay.htm
Gay friendly student journalist says:  Had they not taken the actions they did, Bush would have continued to ignore the gay agenda and marginalized the issue of equal rights for homosexuals. http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13257&repository=0001_article
I have not found examples of vacationing activities being called Gay Agenda but I could.  I hope this puts to rest the notion that there are no contrary examples.  It may be an offensive term to some but we often get to choose what we are going to be offended by.64.178.145.150 23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I'll comment tomorrow, as tonight's discussion has left me rather weary. Interesting quotes though. An initial thought, however: There is a difference between using "gay agenda" (or any noun) as a proper noun ("the Gay Agenda") and as a common noun (a "gay agenda"). But some interesting examples there of the proper noun being used by gays. Will say more tomorrow, when I guarantee you this page will be twice as long! David L Rattigan 23:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I look forward to your comments.  But please note that I was only seeking to respond to the quest for examples.  There are probably more, I did not look long.  The point really is this:  It can be inoffensive.  I have never argued that it is not offensive.  That would be silly.  The word "Potato" can be offensive to some people.  So arguing that something is not offensive at least sometimes is a loser.  I have never made that suggestion.  Only that the offensiveness of this phrase is probably more related to 1) the intentional choice to be offended, 2) the sickening feeling of being attacked or 3) the idea of being lumped in with a group that you may not necessarily agree with.  It may also be a propaganda device.   I do not think any of these reasons rises to the level of requiring this phrase to be absolutely offensive.  And I think in keeping with NPOV, it is simply appropriate to point out that some folks claim it is offensive -- and be done with it!  Its not universally offensive.  Anyway, at least the argument that there are zero examples has no longer gone unanswered.64.178.145.150 01:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  You did not look very closely.  You are wrong that they all refer to 'a' and not 'the'.  Earlier I wrote that I doubted that answering the question someone posed about finding examples of non-offensive use would settle the issue.  It is clear that simply showing the plain evidence asked for is still insufficient for some folks.  You would think that they have... an agenda!64.178.145.150 01:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There are one or two examples in there of "the gay agenda". David L Rattigan 00:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are we close to agreeing that some find the term highly offensive, some find it mildly offensive, some are indifferent to it, some find it amusing, and some are trying to make use of it in some way?  ;-) CovenantD 00:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well at least there is a concensus now that there is no concensus!  That is perhaps an improvement of sorts!  However, You are ignoring the examples of "the Gay Agenda" that I presented (do you suppose ignoring them makes them go away?) and the article does not explicitly distinguish between 'a' gay agenda and 'the' gay agenda.  I am not sure if either of those things exist in the way I think of them but I'd be curious to know what the difference is relative to the article!64.178.145.150 01:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Al, just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean that they aren't good examples. Try to stay NPOV so we can create a balanced article please. DavidBailey 00:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I pointed out what's wrong with them.  You chose not to address these issues, which is why I must disregard your claims.  Thank you for understanding. Al 00:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  you did not really address them.  You dismissed them -- as you said "out of hand" without due consideration. 64.178.145.150 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of apparently Non-offensive Useage 

message: As such, I'm changing it back. CovenantD 00:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: alleged is biased. As such, I'm changing it back. Thanks. DavidBailey 00:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not use the term alleged. And pro-homosexual is not biased. It is literally true. The LGBT movement is trying to get changes made that benefit homosexuals. Also, if you want to edit, please don't revert. Edit. DavidBailey 00:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, I wondered what that was about. Thanks for explaining. CovenantD 01:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand that the term itself shows a bias of a sort. But to claim that the article should not exist is like saying that articles on any controversial topic should not exist. There are some good guidelines at WP:POV that talk about articles that, of necessity, must include particular points of view. The key is not to use the article writer voice to present those perspectives, but to label each perspective so that they can be contrasted by the reader. DavidBailey 01:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not know how to reference a specific version here but I think the current version (01:48, 31 May 2006 ) is a pretty good introduction.  (I wish we knew when and how the term was first used though.)  It shows balance and neutrality.  64.178.145.150 01:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you click the history tab, you can click on the date/time stamps and view any iteration of the article. DavidBailey 02:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks!  What I meant was that (I think) I have seen people who were able to actually include a link to an old version in the talk page. It is that hotlinking that I am not able to do.  But I appreciate your help!64.178.145.150 02:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know the official way to do it, but you could just copy one of those links and put them between single square brackets in the talk page. DavidBailey 02:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's quite simple. Because "alleged" takes the perspective that such a thing may not exist. However, it is demonstrable that it does exist, within portions of the gay rights activism. It is a term that is used enough, I think any search can prove that, that it deserves its own article. DavidBailey 10:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexual-friendly is POV

message: A quick read of the reference (stanford.edu) used for natural law finds no mention of a gay agenda or homosexual agenda. In short, the reference doesn't seem to apply to this article at all. Thoughts? CovenantD 03:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its inclusion here seems arbitrary. The article is not about criticisms of homosexuality, per se, but about the term and concept of the "homosexual agenda". David L Rattigan 07:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally added this link back when there were calls for complete removal of this article. The point is to show the grounds on which various groups oppose the "homosexual agenda". I don't think that only articles which specifically reference the agenda are relevant. Obviously, this is not the Gay rights opposition page. However, the tendancy of many is to: 1. mock the fact that anyone think such a thing exists. 2. discredit the perspective that there are relevant reasons why someone should be opposed to it. This link addresses issue #2.  DavidBailey 10:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you find something more directly relevant? CovenantD 20:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about these? Pro  and con  DavidBailey 23:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Natural law

message: I have archived off a bunch of stuff from yesterday. You can see previous discussions by clicking on the archive links at the top of the page. As the discussion is moving quite rapidly at times, I have created a few more blank archive links where old stuff can be transferred any time this page gets too full. :¬) David L Rattigan 07:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive 3

message: In light of the discussions of the last 24 hours, I'm leaning towards an opening paragraph beginning something like this:
:"The homosexual agenda" is a rhetorical term used mainly by Christian fundamentalists and social conservatives to describe negatively the alleged program and activities of gays, lesbians and the gay rights movement. It is often used pejoratively, and frequently with connotations of subversiveness and threat to society. David L Rattigan 10:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  David, I've explained why this terminology is biased and have tried multiple times to write a more neutral paragraph. Here are my problems with your paragraph. 1. "rhetoric" is used. It is not merely rhetoric. 2. It is used primarily perjoratively. Although some do, others simply use it as shorthand for describing all pro-gay activism. 3. a conspiracy exists. There is no secret about the intensions of the pro- and anti- camps on this, and it's a little silly to continue to promote this idea, regardless of some quotes. DavidBailey 10:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) I did ask earlier on for an alternative to "rhetorical", but you declined to provide it. "Rhetorical" isn't a value- or truth-judgment, just an acknowledgement that it is used as a rhetorical device in political debate. 2) As regards how the term is used, we took ages just to come up with a handful of instances of "gay agenda" or "homosexual agenda" being used in a context supportive of gay rights - compared to dozens upon dozens of examples of it being used negatively. I don't understand the reluctance to admit that it is a term used primarily negatively by people opposed to gay rights. 3) "Conspiracy" is your term. My terms were "subversive" and "a threat to society", which seems precisely to be what most of the people using this term are claiming - an attempt by gays to subvert traditional morality and a threat to traditional values. David L Rattigan 10:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just yesterday, you were explaining why the etymology of words isn't a good measure of its balance. Frankly, the word rhetoric has often been used to describe bluster and political argument without reason behind it. Using rhetoric makes it sound as though the debate is over something that does not exist. I realize that this is your view, as well as Alienus, CovenantD's. If you want to add a paragraph to explain that view in the heading, please do so, but we're already covering that in the Political section. Just because its use is popular with opposition, doesn't mean that it doesn't get used in valid, non-political, non-rhetorical ways. Using "subversive" and "a threat to society" makes it sound very conspiratorial to me. DavidBailey 11:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that "rhetorical" can be used in that way, which is why I asked if you had a better alternative. It shouldn't be any more controversial than "alleged", although you seem to think that implies falsehood, too. "Threat to society" is precisely the kind of language used by tons of the groups using the term "the homosexual agenda". The way you want to define the term appears to be to strip it down to its bare minimum and empty it of all its offensive connotations. That's just misleading - it's a loaded term. I'm looking for examples to convince me otherwise, here, but all the loudest speakers seem to be using it in that heavily loaded way. David L Rattigan 11:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One of your links is particularly intersting.  It takes the position of some here that the term "Homosexual Agenda" is a "Branding Term" "invented" by their enemies and asks -- "What is the Homosexual Agenda?  A:  Promoting the reality that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.  It goes on to quote:  "I love gay people. I think we're better than other people. I really do. I think we're smarter and more talented and more aware and I do, I do, I totally do. And I think we're more tuned in to what's happening, tuned into the moment, tuned into our emotions, and other people's emotions, and we're better friends."  It is interesting in a number of ways and that last quote is just funny. Despite that quote, it might be a good site to link to the article because I think it accurately conveys the sense of how some people feel while at the same time promoting one of the very things that opponents seem to dislike hearing: "nothing wrong with homosexuality".  (the site had me chuckling) 64.178.145.150 13:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know a term to convey what you wish to convey without making a statement about the term that isn't universally true. I don't believe that everyone believes that the "homosexual agenda" is a "threat to society". Some might just consider it a nuisance. By using "threat to society" you are making it out to be more dire than many might think, and therefore discrediting the term. I realize that you feel the term is innappropriate and want to show just how ridiculous you think it is. The appropriate way to do this in an encyclopedia article is to quote and link to authoritative sources that cast doubt on it, or refute it in a clear, factual, unbiased way, not to edit the article prose to sound hostile or petty. Also, the loudest speakers are typically not the most thoughtful speakers. DavidBailey 22:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraph: What I'm leaning towards