Talk:Gay agenda/Archive 2

message: How goes it? How does it look?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndyinMN (talk • contribs) 17:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think we got it. Nice discussion too.AndyinMN 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions? Comments? Scathing rebuttals? 

message: This article is listed in the category "logical fallacies," but it refers to a specific issue, not a flawed mode of argument. All political entities have agendas. If "Gay Agenda" is considered a logical fallacy, then shouldn't "Pro-Choice Agenda" and "Anti-American Agenda" also be considered logical fallacies?
I believe this article should not be listed in the category "logical fallacies" because it is not a general mode of argumentation. A logical fallacy should be regarded by most everyone as logically inconsistent ("ad hominem" and "ad nauseam", for example). There is a "Gay Agenda" just as there is a "Pro-Life Agenda" and an "Anti-Immigration Agenda." Contentious issues cannot be defined in one direction or another as logical fallacies... it violates the concept of a debatable issue.
::We have an agenda? I'm gay and this is the first Ive heard about this. I live with my partner of 4 years, we are loyal to each other, we dont cheat, we dont go out in tight shirts with spiky blonde hair and go clubbing and calling people "darling", we dont speak with a lisp or mince around, we dont try and make people gay, we dont push it in peoples faces or go on about our sexuality, we're just two normal acting guys who happen to live together and be in love. Is that the agenda? Or is it something a bit more James Bond Villainy?
:You know...after reading the comments before yours, I'm even more sure that "gay agenda" is a logical fallacy.  The very idea that it is not is pure bigotry, and among the worst of POV.  I'm recategorizing it. - Gilgamesh 03:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the categorization as "conspiracy theory" is more accurate than as "logical fallacy".  The error which people who refer to the purported agenda make is not an error in deducing things from established principles, but rather in considering a principle established for which there is no evidence.  Not everything that doesn't exist is a logical fallacy.  And in a way, it does exist in the minds of conservatives.--Bhuck 11:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be a tad inflammatory for me to say, but I can't think of a better way to put it:  Since when do American conservatives count in the real measurable world?  The American conservative platform is overflowing with fantastical logical fallacy that is totally out of tune with logical thought in the rest of the world, and I can't think of a clearer logical fallacy than this one. - Gilgamesh 19:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you live? There are many places where social conservatism is far more popular than social liberalism. In fact, I live in the Southeast United States, and have family in the desert southwest, and social conservatives are popularly elected overwhelmingly in both regions. I think the only places that conservatism is not a force these days is parts of California and the Northeast... oh, and France. DavidBailey 03:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regardless of whare you live, or what your "Agenda" is, the term "Gay Agenda" while sort of stupid, is not a logical fallacy, (which term has a specific meaning). It may be a "Conspiracy theory" as someone else suggested.  It may be a kind of political movement.  But it is not a logical fallacy.  That term has a very specific meaning and it does not include "things I do not like or disagree with and think are stupid".  
Incidentally, if the term or concept of "Gay Agenda" was a logical fallacy, that would suggest that Gays are logically incapable of having an agenda.  Do you really mean to insult them in this way?
If Gay Agenda is listed as a logical fallacy somewhere it should be removed.  
64.178.145.150 14:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a logical fallacy? 

message: It seems to me that some will often connect things they oppose to things like the "gay agenda" or "homosexual agenda" in order to garner support for their position.  Even if the subject at hand has nothing to do with sexuality of any type, much less homosexuality.
JesseG 01:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps people that are opposed to the stated objectives of the gay rights movement use the term "gay agenda" because it has become a common phrase used to speak about it. DavidBailey 02:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems to be a favorite 

message: I recently reverted due to edits that seem to suggest that this page should be used to discuss the benefits of being homosexual. This is not the gay rights or gay rights opposition page. It is not a page for those who support gay/lesbian lifestyles to promote their view. It is a page that seeks to explain what the "gay agenda" is from a NPOV stance. Please discuss before making POV changes so we can keep balance. I do think the point about specific rights for heterosexual couples in a nuclear family vs. adding specific protections or rights for homosexual couples is appropriate in the article, and have rewritten the opening paragraph to reflect this. Thanks. DavidBailey 23:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a child is being raised by two lesbians (conceived by one of them via sperm bank donation), why would the co-mothers and child not be considered a "nuclear family"?  The issue is not about the "nuclear family" but about privileges for heterosexual couples.--Bhuck 06:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bhuck, can we discuss these changes prior to the edit? Please read what nuclear family means. The fact that you are trying to redefine the word is a good example of the topic of the article. Also, the rights/privileges sought by proponents of the "gay/homosexual" agenda or LGBT groups, at least in the United States, are ultimately to have the "same protections" as given those of other groups (religion, gender, color, etc.) in the United States Constitution/Bill of Rights/Amendments, where historically there have not been protections based on sexual orientation, so in this sense, it is definitely an expansion of rights for homosexuals. Also, proponents of the idea/term "homosexual/gay agenda" do feel that LGBT groups are seeking special, or additional, protections under law than currently exist, and I don't think you can argue that point. I've edited the opening to be more clear on this point. DavidBailey 10:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, my problem is more with the word "premise" at the moment.  The premise of an agenda can only be determined by those setting the agenda.  You seem to imply that the agenda is being set by LGBT leadership.  Social conservatives are therefore not setting the gay agenda, so their view as to what the premise might be is not very relevant, or is itself POV.  Can you find a way to phrase that without using the word "premise" (if you want the subject of the sentence to remain "Social conservatives" or "They")?--Bhuck 12:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bhuck, I originally had it "The social conservatives state that the premise of the gay agenda" ... or something similar, but edited to reduce length because I thought it was too wordy. Does the above sentence help to put the statement in context? DavidBailey 03:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: How is this?  "Social conservatives assert that the premise of the homosexual agenda..." DavidBailey 14:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is more the case that "Social conservatives assert that gay and lesbian leaders and their supporters intend to redefine religion, marriage, and the family..."  Can you find an example where a social conservative states "The premise of the homosexual agenda is..."?--Bhuck 15:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're saying. That's cool with me. Made the suggested edit. DavidBailey 16:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The unqualified use of the term special rights is POV.  Not everyone agrees that "special rights" exist.  The article should reflect that the existence of so-called special rights is not universally accepted.--Bhuck 12:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that the link would explain what special rights means. How about "and related laws that support that structure, and/or oppose what they term special rights for gay and lesbian people". When you say "what they perceive as", it sounds to me as though it is discrediting the perspective. DavidBailey 19:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "...what they term..." is, in principle, ok, too, though I am a bit uncomfortable with "term" as a verb--I think it would help if the so termed term were in quotes then, to show exactly what the term is that is being so termed. :-)  If you're comfortable with that, then I think our problem here is solved, too.--Bhuck 08:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I wasn't even consciously aware that this was a noun that had been verbed. Now that I think about it, I see what you mean, although it is so commonly used I think it can stay that way. As far as quotes go, I see them all too often used when the author does not agree with the term (See Ultimate Style Guide:Quotation Marks:Distancing effect or Scare quotes), so I don't think it is NPOV. The term is highlighted with the link and I think that offsets it well enough. Can you agree with that? DavidBailey 14:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The link does help, you're right.  What about italicizing the term in addition?--Bhuck 13:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the italics are helpful to alert the reader to the POV  phrase "special rights."  All guaranteed civil rights are dear or special.  Special rights is an idiom; comprehending the phrase literally would be misleading.  Thus, the italics are appropriate. GilliamJF 13:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that's fine. DavidBailey 13:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempts at balance 

message: GilliamJF... this article keeps shifting to a gay-centric POV. The recent rewrites have been an attempt to neutralize the POV. Here are the reasons why I reverted your recent edits. 1. Bhuck can probably speak to the third paragraph better than I can, but it is my understanding that some gays/homosexuals don't like the term "homosexual agenda", but think is a politically cleaned-up version and prefer "gay rights". 2. Religious beliefs have nearly EVERYTHING to do with why social conservatives oppose an expansion of rights specifically targeted to lifestyle/homosexual issues. 3. Whether you like Dr. James Dobson or not, unless you've been living under a rock, you'll have noticed that he is ALL OVER the media commenting on this issue. I realize that this paragraph probably fits the definition of weasel words, so it needs a rewrite. Help us to find a better way of stating this, rather than just dropping it from the article. People need to understand that he is a leading commentator/activist relating to this issue. DavidBailey 14:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David, thank you for the sources.  Now this article is far better sourced than most other Wikipedia articles.  However, I agree that the third paragraph still needs work, and I believe that the revision I offered before is more accurate.  I find your statement that religious beliefs have nearly everything to do with gay rights opposition a bit ethnocentric.  A person's civil rights varies from country to country and society to society.  There are certainly some incidents of bigotry and injustice in the history of our country, and they also play a role in opposing an attempt at civil rights reform for homosexuals.  I appreciate your feedback and will work more closely in improving this article.  GilliamJF 19:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gilliam, excellent edit! And I willingly admit my efforts at being NPOV, indeed anyone's efforts, are colored by their own experiences and background. However, in this particular case, I may be rescued from my somewhat untenable position by the fact that this article is about the term "gay or homosexual agenda", not homosexual rights in general, and the term did in fact originate in the United States, largely from religious and political opposition to changes in the culture and law related to accomodation of homosexual views. Thanks for being patient with me. <grin> DavidBailey 20:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please discuss before making major edits that effect POV