Talk:Gay agenda/Archive 6

message: As I edit the section that has become the psychology section, I begin to think that this paragraph has no place in this article. It seems a broader discussion that would fit better on Gay rights opposition because it really has very little to do with the homosexual agenda. What are your thoughts? DavidBailey 02:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just cleaned it up a bit, but I agree that the article might be able to survive without it. Al 04:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That section doesn't seem to have much at all to do with the topic at hand.  I agree that it can go.--Bhuck 08:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved the section to Gay rights opposition. DavidBailey 11:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keeping the article focused

message: It needs to go. Like the above, it belongs in Gay rights opposition because there's nothing in it about a "homosexual agenda." CovenantD 13:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CovenantD, it gives one of the best discussions about the conflict between homosexual viewpoints and natural law. Although it does not specifically state the term homosexual agenda, I think it is relevant to the discussion within the paragraph. DavidBailey 01:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not relevant to the phrase "homosexual agenda." It belongs on a page that specifically addresses such issues. CovenantD 15:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Readers may not be aware why natural law is in conflict with the homosexual agenda. The other references only use it in passing reference, but without discussing why. This article discusses why. Did you have another reference or article in mind that would do the same? DavidBailey 03:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference No. 10

message: I propose replacing the term "pro-homosexual" in the first sentence with "certain" until we can find a term on which we all agree.  For the interim, the sentence would read: The homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe gay and lesbian activists' goals of increasing public support for certain policies, media, and culture.  That still leaves the problem open that the assumption which opponents of gay rights are making (that activists have goals of increasing public support for certain policies, media, and culture) is reported unquestioned (since it is not clear that this is actually the case), but we should take one step at a time.--Bhuck 09:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Fireplace 16:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that is a fine change as long as "anti-homosexual" is removed later. NPOV, right?  With regard to whether these activists goals are real or not (and seriously they are real... just talk to lobbists for these efforts), is irrelevant.  Wikipedia is not concerned with the truth but with verifiability and reliability.  Arguing about whether there is such a thing as a monolithic "gay agenda" is completely off the beam for Wikipedia.  If that were seriously a valid critique the whole article would be a candidate for deletion since such a thing as "a gay agenda" is at least to some extent fictional. (More generously and perhaps closer to the truth, it is "Shorthand language" or "Soundbite language" for describing a political/social effort promoted by some rather than some universal marching order dictated to all).--64.178.145.150 16:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Bhuck, please put the entire text of the paragraph including your edits to here so we can discuss. Thanks. DavidBailey 03:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion referred to the then current version, which you can find in the version history of the article.  When you refer to that version, I am sure it will be clear (from my extensive quote) which paragraph I meant.  As long as the presently current version (in which the term "pro-homosexual" does not appear) is in effect, however, I do not feel that this change would be as fitting as it was in regard to the previous version.  The time/date-stamping of user comments in discussion is quite useful, if you want to check which version of the article was current when comments were posted.  Should you feel the need for further discussion of the change which I am not currently advocating, I see nothing which should hinder this discussion, and I do not believe it is necessary to put the entire paragraph text here in order to enable such discussion.--Bhuck 10:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interim measure

message: The "Religious and philosophical" section just includes cursory statements which aren't clearly connected to the topic of the phrase "the homosexual agenda".  Analogous to DavidBailey's comments about the recently-removed Psychology section, I think this section should also be removed. Fireplace 19:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right - this article should just be about the term and it's usage. These sections are really about the rights and wrongs of homosexuality in the eyes of various groups which really belong in the main homosexuality article.  Sophia 22:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree. These arguments are key to understanding the perspective behind the opposition to the homosexual agenda. DavidBailey 02:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry you're so hostile and confrontational. It makes working with you extremely difficult and does your opinions a disservice. DavidBailey 02:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry Alienus has to be so condesending too, but it doesn't change the fact that at best these are mislabeled and at worst irrelevant. CovenantD 15:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that what the "religious and philosophical" section is discussing is Gay rights opposition.  Like the "psychological" section, it should be moved to that article.  To accomodate David Bailey's argument that one should explain the motivations of those who use the term, I would suggest that we wikilink "opponents" in the first sentence to link to the Gay rights opposition article.  Those who want to learn more about the opponents and why they think the way they do should then follow that link.--Bhuck 10:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of wikilinking to gay rights opposition. CovenantD 14:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The current version of the intro does explain very well why the term is used so a link to gay rights opposition should cover all that is necessary in this article.  Sophia 14:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have moved the section to gay rights opposition and left a brief paragraph and a link. DavidBailey 00:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove religious and philosophical section? 

message: Can I suggest we find a new way of organizing this talk page? I can't be the only one who is finding it virtually impossible to keep track of the conversation? David L Rattigan 20:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On pages where a simple "put the newest message at the bottom" doesn't work, I've found that patterning the talk page after the article works. That allows people to find easily where to leave their comment. CovenantD 03:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: It refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from traditional morality.  I believe that it is better to use active voice.  Instead of "is seen" we should write It refers to what XY see(s) as an attempt...  Otherwise it sounds like everybody sees it as such an attempt, which is inaccurate.  For the interim I would suggest the phrasing It refers to what certain people see as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from traditional morality until we can reach a more precise agreement on who sees it this way.--Bhuck 10:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Fireplace 16:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agree.  Sophia 19:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bhuck, please the entire paragraph with your proposed edits here so we can discuss them. Thanks. DavidBailey 03:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, using the version history function, you should be able to place my proposed edits in the context in which they were made.  Currently, the article has a sentence in this place which is in the active voice, and is more specific than "certain people", as it instead uses the phrase "many opponents".  I consider this to be an improvement over my suggested phrasing, and a big improvement over the previous phrasing.  However, I think there is also room for further improvement.  The term "opponents" appears twice in the first paragraph, but there is no explicit statement of what it is, exactly, that they are opposing.  Are they opposing gay rights activists?  Or are they opposing the homosexual agenda?  I think this should be more clearly stated, and I think to say that "the homosexual agenda is a term used by people opposing the homosexual agenda" is a bit self-referential, so we should probably define the term "opponents" by something else.--Bhuck 10:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are certainly correct that I can do that, but it makes discussion unwieldy. I believe it is better to the complete text here in discussion so all can easily view and comment on it. You may want to terminate this discussion thread, and add your recommendations to the paragraph that is being discussed further down so we can keep this discussion together instead of having it in so many places. DavidBailey 19:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Passive Voice in the Second Sentence