Talk:Gay agenda/Archive 1

If Dobson gets six lines, I think that LGBT folks deserve a response. I added a cite. Hopefully that's sufficient. Dave 08:55, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

While homosexual agenda redirects here Homosexual Agenda is an article covering a famous darkly satirical text about what people who actually think there's an evil gay conspiracy (drag ninjas!) might believe its goals to be. --Kizor 17:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is clearly not NPOV, but I'm damned if I'm going to rewrite it to suggest that all homosexuals really are pursuing a nefarious agenda aimed at the overthrow of civilization as we know it. This is the problem with inherently silly views. Donald Ian Rankin 21:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite, attepted neutrality
I've rewritten or modified the entire article and I took care to show both points of view.

AndyinMN 05:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)AndyinMN

this is written from POV now
I just read all the changes and it seems to me that this has been rewritten the article gay agenda almost completely from the pov of gays and lesbians. If the term itself is a political tool then it's a polarized issue between two or more groups, to represent one groups pov only would be unfair to the issue itself. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndyinMN (talk &bull; contribs). 21:27, January 21, 2006


 * Most of the article is a reordering of the text that was there before. What do you consider to be POV? Wuzzy 22:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Answer: The POV of gays are in there now, but the pov of those who believe a gay agenda exists is gutted. On a personal note, I find the american politics of this situation an extrordinary study, but that's all. Upon reading this article I come away with the impression that the idea of a gay agenda is a load of tripe and although I agree that it is, it doesn't make it so. Moreover, there's a significant percentage of the population that believes it exists today. Are they wrong? Again, I would say yes, but since this is an acticle about what is essentialy a religous/political viewpoint all sides of that view must be taken into consideration. When I rewrote this there had been a cleanup request on this topic since oct and I thought the hardest thing was staying neutral on a topic where people invairably are not. It is important to point out that to many people a gay agenda of sorts does exist (if you use current data that number would probably be about fifteen percent of americans, though it's not known, but it can be extrapolated by looking at other polls on similar issues). This is something that must be acknowledged.. To write them off or give them one sentence when rest is sent to debunking them is disrespectful to what I believe the principal of wiki is about: Education. Furthermore, in an area like this there lot's of anecdotal evidence from both sides that support their claims, but in the end facts are hard to come by and belief in this idea or in its falsehood is what defines it. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndyinMN (talk &bull; contribs). 22:41, January 21, 2006


 * Would you please copy here the specific passage(s) to which you are you are referring. Otherwise, we will never get to the bottom of this. Wuzzy 00:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll do another edit in a few days, till the take a look at my last on the twentieth and the one today. There's been some added to it by Autiger that makes it a bit more balanced (I believe) but the article as a whole seems to streess more about the lack of an agenda than why so many believe it's out there. I'm also tired of vandalism and I believe that balance is the best way to counter it. On one of your notes: You said "truly believe is a POV" (I used that phrase in the article) and I would agree if I said I tuley believe, but I did not. I wrote that many on the far right do. Is that a pov? Perhaps, but this whole article is about nothing more than a conflicting POV between gays and religious based politics. To start out the article by saying it's used "used by those who oppose gay rights" is obviously true from a logical perspective, but many who believe such an agenda exists would disagree. Lastly it seems that the final arguement about gay vs homosexual belonged elsewhere in wiki, not only because it struck me as piling on (on the gay POV side that is) but also because it seemed to be making a seperate arguement against discrimination (something I agree with, but this is not where I'd put an arguement at all). I'm not suggesting that my rewrite was definitive by any means, but I do believe it was balanced... In all honesty I think that balance is hard on this topic. I spent over two hours thinking on it and researching it (from the pov of those that believe it's there) mainly because I wanted this to be an article about the topic that wouldn't convince anyone of it's ligitmacy or its lack thereof. That seems to me to be the right toneAndyinMN 09:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to respond, and for the effort and good faith that you invested in your edits. Based on what you have said so far, I assume that it is the following specific passages with which you have problems. In each case, I am comparing “your version” 19:56, January 20, 2006 with the “new version” 23:08, January 20, 2006:
 * 1. New version generally stresses more the lack of an agenda than why so many believe it’s out there
 * I would probably agree if I agreed that “so many believe it,” which I don't though I do not have evidence on this. If you have evidence that this is widely believed, then the article could attempt to explain it more, assuming there is more to it than the endless repetition of the talking point (the appeal of conspiracy theories perhaps?).
 * 2. The omission of “many of the supporters of far-right or conservative christian organizations truly believe such an agenda exists,” and perhaps the replacement of “Its core belief is” with “Its core claim is”
 * My problem with keeping “truly believes” is that writing that one group “truly believes” what it says while not saying the same about the opposing group makes the article non-neutral. It would be better to focus only on what people say, not believe, unless there is evidence of dishonesty.
 * 3. The replacement of:
 * “used by the American right, but it also has some legitimacy to the wider American conservative movement…”
 * with
 * ”used by those who oppose gay rights… but it is used by many Christian fundamentalists groups and the Right, especially in the United States.”
 * because, as you say, those who use it would disagree that they oppose gay rights, though it is “obviously true from a logical perspective”
 * I do not agree that most of those who use “gay agenda” would disagree that they oppose “gay rights.” I suppose we could research if they do or do not, but it seems beside the point if we both agree that it is “obviously true from a logical perspective,” which to me is what we should be aiming for in an encyclopedia. Also, I think the new version is less America-centric.
 * 4. Addition of “”Homosexual Agenda”” is also used. It was used, for example….. The term “homosexual agenda” is viewed by some as an attempt to make the argument more palatable to moderate voters. Most gays view it as a refusal to recognize their right to be called by the term by which they define themselves; it is thus an insult in the same way that referring to Blacks as Negros or Negroids is today."
 * Actually, this comparison was added by you 05:00, January 20, 2006:
 * “The term Homosexual Agenda has also been used from the beginning, but as a talking point headline it is used far more often today. This is viewed maily as an attempt to make the arguement more palpatable to moderate voters.”
 * presumably in response to the paring down of the Homosexual agenda article to focus exclusively on a specific essay. I agree with your addition of “homosexual agenda” since the two terms are similar enough to justify their mention in the same article, especially since it is important to warn the reader that the two terms are not interchangeable despite their superficial similarity. The new version alerts the reader that “homosexual agenda” is viewed by LGBT as an insult, which is important, and explains why. Your version pointed out why anti-gay activists prefer that term, and omitted why LGBT’s oppose it. Thus, I think the new version is more balanced. However, I would be okay with the following new wording for the last sentence of the article:
 * “However, many gays consider that the term is insulting, unlike gay agenda, since they view it as a refusal to call them by the term by which they define themselves, in the same way that referring to Blacks as Negroids would be an insult.”
 * 5 The addition of: “and they are thus entitled to discriminate against gays and to institutionalize this through legislation.”
 * This was intended to connect the discussion of morality that immediately precedes it :
 * "For many Christian conservatives who view homosexuality as a choice and a sin, equal rights for those who commit sinful acts promotes immorality,"
 * back to the topic of the article, which is about a political issue. It did not seem a stretch to say that they wish to preserve the right to discriminate against gays. However, ultimately, I would agree to delete the entire second half of the 4th paragraph starting at “For many Christian conservatives,” since it concerns the reasons why the Right opposes gay rights, which is a separate article Gay rights opposition. Wuzzy 19:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * When one position on a subject is so unsupported by any sort of facts, it's hard to treat it as equally valid, e.g. people who believe the earth is flat. While they are entitled to their belief, to treat it as equally valid requires ignoring the facts available. Can those who talk of a 'Gay Agenda' produce any sort of document, meetings discussing it, any sort of proof whatsoever? No, because they don't exist. The fact is that the gay 'community' is far too diverse to have a unified point of view or agenda on almost anything (much to the frustration of many GLBT folk) unlike the relatively monolithic POV of Christians who have the Bible as their source of truth.
 * The article states a core claim of the so-called gay agenda is a "a 'master plan' to destroy religion" which is ridiculous given the such entities as the gay-friendly Metropolitan Community Church, and interest groups such as Affirmation and Dignity advocating on behalf of GLBT people within the Methodist and Catholic churches (respectively). If one were to take a poll of GLBT religious views in the US, the majority would still identify as Christians. AU Tiger  ʃ talk /work 21:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Since other editors have been editing the article beyond recognition without reference to the discusion here, thus making the discussion moot, I will go make edits myself. Wuzzy 23:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you want a comprehensive, point by point rebuttal? The main core of my argument (though not my position) is that there is a great core of America (probably 15% or more) who do believe such a conspiracy exists. I was the guy who named it as "primarily a talking point," but it's effectiveness as a talking point is only due to the power of it's argument to some people (mainly the religious right). You make the argument comparing belief in this to belief that the world is flat, but I see no correlation whatsoever. The shape of the world can me proven by facts, whereas a gay agenda is all about belief and a POV. The core problem and the reason I'm dissatisfied with the rework is that the entire page seems to make plain that such an agenda doesn't exist. I don't believe it does, but many do because of their own point of view. Let me copy what I wrote earlier: "The main goals of major LGBT political organizations prioritize ending discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations, with the intention of achieving equality for gays and lesbians. And it is just this striving for equality that many fundamentalist groups oppose. To the point of view of most Christian conservatives, gay and lesbianism is about sin and any group or agenda which promotes equal rights for an act of sin cannot help but to simultaneously promote a dearth of morality." Again, POV matters here because this about belief in another parties intentions, as well as justifiable facts. Most groups who believe that a gay agenda exists, came to their beliefs when they saw LGTBs being granted things formerly allowed only to heterosexuals. Marriage is a great example here: I and many others would personally view marriage as a right, not a privilege and therefore I can see no reason not to grant it to homosexuals. However, the argument made by many on the right is that marriage is an instution of society and that "allowing" gays "the privilege" would weaken it. The argument almost makes me ill, yet it clearly stems from their fundamental beliefs about right and wrong and morality and sin. Do they oppose gay rights? It seems that they do, but they mostly don't see it that way. Most only see it as an opposition to homosexuality itself and then due to bible-based-morality (that, at least is the primary basis, clearly there's always an individual nut job or two who thinks the world really is being conquered). The point here is simple, not only does a gay agenda truly exist in their mind, but insofar as they view morality and the world it exists in fact as well. My problem is that this article now leaves out the right's POV (I'll refer them as the right, because most who believe such things are in the far right wing of American politics). It takes only James Dobson's POV and though many follow Dobson, few go as far as him in their extremities (think of Al Franken and Ralph Nader for the left and Rush Limbaugh on the right: many listen and agree with much of what these men say, but few take it to the extents they do). This must also show their side, because to only give dobson's sentiment seems to discredit them all.

You made mention of the number I gave who believe that a gay agenda of sorts exists. There is no poll that I've seen asking this specific question, but as I said earlier in this thread that percentaged could be "extrapolated by looking at other polls on similar issues." Here's a question for you: How many voted for Alan Keyes when he ran against Barak Obama for the senate seat of Illinois? 27% if I checked right. They're both black men, so race and gender were not issues. They're both decent orators (actually well above average), but Keyes was a carpetbagger (switching states to get on the ballot) and is considered by many to be among the most radically right wing Americans. He's too far to the Right to win even a Republican Primary in his own state. Despite the fact that his daughter is a lesbian, he says some of the most virile, anti-gay things that anyone in public does. Yet he still took 27% of the vote against a moderate democrat. 27%!!! What do those people believe? Do they agree with Mr Keyes? That's just one point, but there's a great many polls that show what people believe on similar issues, and 15% was a conservative guess at least... in truth it might be closer to 20%. No, I can't prove it because there's no polling data with a direct question asking if people believe there's a gay agenda (at least none that I can find), but examine the evidence that's out there. There's been polls asking people if they feel christians are persecuted in America and about 30% said yes! Not thirty percent of Christians, but thirty percent of americans! To me that seems ridiculous, they're the majority in America and our government, what more do they want? But it doesn't deny the fact that they believe they're persecuted. And since that's essentially a feeling and a POV we can not deny them their right to it.

Lastly: I believe it's innapropriate to put the following text in this article: "However, some gays consider that the term is insulting as well as inaccurate, while gay agenda is merely inaccurate, since they view it as a refusal to call them by the term, "gay", by which they define themselves, in the same way that referring to Blacks or African-Americans as Negroid would be an insult." When you follow up an article about a particular argument (that's what this is, a belief, turned massive talking point and disagreement) with a statement that makes a very strong comparison between a racial slur and a term that not all find insulting this article seems even more one sided. Also, it seems to me that it is almost equating the term homosexual with nigger, that very well may be how some feel and it should almost certainly be in under the topic of homosexuality, but here? Again, it just strengthens the impression that this is one sided. AndyinMN 20:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

ONE MORE NOTE: look at the article Homosexual agenda (at least as it sits today), it's excellent NPOV and it's what I was striving for in this. AndyinMN 20:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is about "gay agenda" and "homosexual agenda," which you agree are two political talking points, and how those terms are used. So, it is not the place to explain generally why the Right opposes gays. That discussion belongs in a separate article called Gay rights opposition to which a link is given.


 * As it is, the article is somewhat tilted against gays in that it has two paragraphs detailing the claims made by the Right, followed by one paragraph refuting those claims, followed by another paragraph explaining why some prefer and some oppose the related term "homosexual agenda".


 * Your previous version of the last paragraph was one-sided in that it entirely omitted saying why gays oppose "homosexual agenda" while explaining why the Right prefers it (and I find your explanation "palatable to moderate voters" rather implausible and POV while I think that the real reason is that it is a sly insult that is intended to inflame anti-gay sentiment). The comparison of "homosexual" to "Negroid" is necessary to explain this, and the two terms are indeed equivalent because they are both loosely scientific terms that are not inherently insulting, but become insulting when they constitute a refusal to recognize the right of gay and African-Americans to name themselves. I did not use "nigger" because today the term is inherently insulting, unlike "Negroid" "Caucasian" or "heterosexual. I would be willing to rewrite the last sentence as follows:


 * However, some gays consider that the term is insulting as well as inaccurate (while "gay agenda" is merely inaccurate) since they view it as a refusal to call them by the term, "gay", by which they define themselves, in the same way that referring to African-Americans as "Negroid" would be an insult even though it is a loosely scientific term that is not inherently insulting.


 * Wuzzy 02:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit that I find it a bit arrogant when you say you'd be "willing" to rewrite as such. This is a discourse to try and find a way to represent both POVs, not refute one or the other. Moreover when you say you "think that the real reason [for the term homosexual agenda] is that it is a sly insult that is intended to inflame anti-gay sentiment" it seems that you've picked a side. I'll admit that bothers me. I'm going to state for the record: I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and I support gay rights unequivocally; I'm also I'm a straight man and I don't take it personally. I'm not willing or interested in judging you as gay or straight, but I will say that to me it seems as if you do take this personally. That doesn't really bother me, but it does make me not want to bother. I'm adopted and I have a black step-mother, a white father, a Korean sister and a black gay step-brother. My step-mother is 64 and was raised in Birmingham, AL. She was active in the civil rights movement. My step brother-lives in Cali. I don't say this to mean that I'm taking this personally due to the comparison, but to me the comparison is part of what makes the gay rights movement suffer. You description of "Negroid" as "an insult even though it is a loosely scientific term that is not inherently insulting" is way off base and comparison does your argument a disservice. Negroid was based of the Latin word niger, meaning black, but it has almost always and without exception been meant as an insult to balcks. Moreover it was used during the colonization of Africa to refer to the indigenous population of Africa as a lower class race. Homosexuality may not be a term you like (and as I think about it I find that understandable) but it is nonetheless a legitimate scientific term (as well as heterosexual, bisexual, asexual, etc.). I called a gay friend (after reading your words) and asked him how he felt about the term and his reaction was mixed. He described it as being rather "passe" to gays, but he said it was not insulting to him (though I do not ask him to spaek for many others). Moreover as a straight man I found it (until yesterday) to be sex and gender neutral term to describe orentation (or behavior, as in : he was experimenting with homosexuality). I will have a hard time with that comparison with Negroid. The term homosexual might be offensive to some or even many gays, but it has gained prominence in recent years due to the fact that the straight community - wait, that doesn't really exist in any heterogeneous sort of way, so I'll say middle class America - The term homosexuality has gained prominence in recent years due to the fact that the middle class America reall is more concerned about their own problems that the issues of others. I doubt (doubt is not strong enough of a word) that many in the center of the political spectrum even know that gays find it insulting. I would be amazed if many on the right new that fact too (more amazed than I would for those in the center). Moreover to many people the term is more palatable. I remember once (this is about 1994) referring to a lesbian as "gay." The only thing I can say about the situation is that she nearly came unglued in her opposition to it. She demanded that I refer to her as a lesbian. Ok, then, I will... mostly. The problem came when you were speaking about or to both sexes. All I can say to sum up is this: If this a word that's offensive to the gay community then relatively few outside of that community know it and therefore to equate it with a term that has been used in nothing but a derogatory manner (until the civil rights movement, when it started to truly change) for centuries does your argument a severe discredit.

The more I type right now the more I see how many on the right (and by the way, I share an office with two men who believe that a gay conspiracy of sorts exists in the media, they're just to the right of the kaiser in my opinion, but so are a lot of other people) believe in this "agenda." Seeing this is not a matter of believing it, just a matter of trying to find another's perspective. The perspective of others is about morally and the fear (feeling could be said) that their view of America is the right one and that the wrong things are being shoved down their throats. Personally, I really haven't ever fully grasped that belief (though on principal I've tried), but I have heard it before and I belive that it is sincerely felt. From my POV American ideals are based on freedom and equality, but from their's they're based on the bible and morality. Understanding both sides is key for people and this article does disservice to that.

One final note: if you're POV is inflexible then I don't know what to say. I really don't want to change your mind or feelings (honestly, I really don't care what they are) I just want to show both sides of this argument. Many are incapable of seeing either side, because their belief in their own righteousness is infallible and while I will always go to the left on these issues, i belive I'm failing if I can't at least see the POV of the right.

In the end I'm going to keep watch on this page as (I'm sure you have and will too) and I don't want to start an edit war, especially when it seems we personally have similar core views on this issue, but the devil seems to be in the details. I'll always have a hard time with seeing something that seems completely onesided.AndyinMN 20:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC) AndyinMN 20:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I just wrote (really edited) the article again. So, take 4,841.AndyinMN 20:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)