Talk:Gay agenda/Archive 15

Alleged planning documents and meeting
I removed a section on "Alleged planning documents and meeting". I simply could not see the relevance. The items cited seem random and unconnected and verging on conspiracy. The sources were weak and bordering on fringe. i don't care that it's "long standing" - say why it needs to be in there before putting it back. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It provides context. If the sources are weak, perhaps you could find stronger ones? If they're bordering on fringe, well, the idea of a homosexual agenda is pretty fringe—but it's notable, so we have the article. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   16:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No I'm sorry. I think we need to approach it the other way around. Leave the material out of the article and then add bits back in once we are clear what they are adding to the narrative. At the moment they provide no context - they are a random set of things. None of which seem to be significant or notable in any way. And no one has yet set out the argument about why they should be included. If we at least had that then it would be a start. In the spirit of compromise we could refer to some key documents but don't think we need to set out all the detail of what they say. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:BRD and realize that at least two editors think this material should remain versus your one. The content is sourced and it provides useful context about this fringe subject.- MrX 11:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But you haven't said why?! Why is it good context? Why must it be reported in full and not condensed? Why do you think the sources are good enough - in my mind they are not? Stop saying "because it is" and engage constructively. Are the references meant to reference yes there is a gay agenda? Or are they meant as examples of the ridiculous things that some people believe? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's try toning it down a notch. I'm sure everyone here is intending to engage constructively, even if it doesn't seem that way to you right now. (Been there, done that—I totally get it.) MrX is entitled to mention procedural concerns, which I happen to share. While I don't doubt the alleged planning documents and meeting section could be improved—it currently lacks context—I think it's useful because it documents what an actual agenda promulgated by influential gay activists of that time looked like. If anything, the article soft-pedals the fact that the term "homosexual agenda", as used by those opposing human rights for gay people, has long been dishonest. This section helps illustrate that. Rather than resorting to wholesale deletion, let's see if it can be improved. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   15:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hang on, you're seriously suggesting that a document called "The Overhauling of Straight America" is someone's actual agenda and was "promulgated by influential gay activists"?! Including an action to "talk about gayness as loudly as possible". Contaldo80 (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking. The "document" was the forerunner of a book, which had a major publisher and was taken seriously, more or less. (It's all relative, of course. In those pre-Web days, most things didn't "go viral".) It has been cited by anti-LGBT activists as an example of an "agenda". What is it about the current wording that bothers you? Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   20:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we're at cross-purposes. At the moment we have a section of text which on the surface of it looks like gay people are coming together to subert "straight society". We are listing a number of random supposed actions in a document whose validity and significance is questionable. And the only supporting source is from a right-wing religious web site. What I'm saying is cut it back and put into context eg "Those insisting there is a gay agenda have cited the overhauling of straight america etc which claims etc etc". Otherwise it looks like we're agreeing this sort of stuff is actually a threat to society. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't read it that way, but all right—why don't you cut it back and put it into context and see if it sticks. It's hard to say whether I'd approve without seeing the actual new wording. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   15:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Huge deletion by .. This is a bit much and seems to be against consensus. All this is well cited. What's the big problem? There are homosexual organizations, they have political agendas, and some of those agendas have been published. They also have political opponents who say negative things about those agendas. That's what a political issue looks like. John Nagle (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've deleted a lot of the detail and left the main points. Maybe you need to be clear about what you think the value of this material actually is. We know there are organisations that champion LGBT rights. I'm not sure you're suggesting we list all of them with point by point inclusion of all their work are you? Which makes me think why we just have the material we do - and that's primarily because a number of anti-LGBT organisations have identified these "documents" as having particularly motivated them in their opposition. As far as I'm aware no LGBT rights organisation has ever suggested that heterosexuals be recruited into a "homosexual lifestyle" which is what the term "homosexual agenda" in this context is intended to imply. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're editing against consensus, and I think you're still missing the gist of what I said above. Maybe I'm missing your point, too. Let's see if we can bring some fresh voices to the discussion. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   15:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Put back the "War Conference" section. Cited to UPI, Cornell archives, Washington Post, and the Human Rights Campaign. The Human Rights Campaign lists that as a significant event in gay history. (They list it in Manassas, VA, rather than Warrenton; Warrenton is a small town about 5 miles west of Manassas. It was at the Airlie, Virginia Conference Center, 1 mile north of Warrenton, 5 miles west of Manassas. The Conference Center lists it as one of the major events held there in their history.) John Nagle (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A "1972 Gay Rights Platform" document exists, but appears to be a hoax.. That's referenced by various conservative sources, but unlike the other documents, there's no reliable source. John Nagle (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I took out the War Conference section. I don't doubt it happened but I am not convinced that it is relevant in the context of a "homosexual agenda". If you want this to go in then you need to provide a source that shows unequivocally that the event was viewed (by someone/ anyone) as a significant aspect in promoting a "homosexual agenda". Otherwise by including it we're just conducting original research - implying we think it's part of a "homosexual agenda". As I've stated already LGBT organisations will have documents and events about promoting LGBT rights - that's different to pushing a "homosexual agenda" (which is a conservative anti-LGBT viewpoint). Likewise I don't mind including documents that are shown to be hoaxes as long as we can show that some people have viewed them as part of the "homosexual agenda" and motivated a response in them. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The Human Rights Campaign lists that meeting as a significant event in gay history. ("In the Beginning, There Was a March. On Oct. 11, 1987, half a million people participated in the March on Washington ... The momentum continued four months after this extraordinary march as more than 100 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer activists from around the country gathered in Manassas, Va., about 25 miles outside Washington, D.C. ... From this idea the National Coming Out Day was born.") Please stop deleting well-referenced sections against consensus. John Nagle (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Look stop relying on the "consensus" argument for sloppy editing. Yes it may be significant in terms of LGBT rights but you have not established that people think it is significant in terms of the so-called "homosexual agenda". The two are not the same. And if you insist on pushing this then the result will be to delete this article completely as stand alone and merge any material with the main article on LGBT Rights. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The entire premise of Wikipedia rests in consensus; it is perhaps the most basic policy we follow. In general, if one's argument is demonstrably correct, consensus ultimately should coalesce around it. So far, that hasn't happened here. You may be entirely correct, but so far your arguments have not been persuasive. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   16:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Have a go and responding to them and we can work out how convincing they are. We might all be surprised. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The Wanting Seed
The idea of a "homosexual agenda" appears to pre-date the 1990s and even features in dystopian fiction, in the form of The Wanting Seed by Anthony Burgess from 1962. In the novel homosexuality is militantly promoted by the state and heterosexuals actively discriminated as part of a policy to combat "overpopulation." Perhaps this Burgess novel is worth mentioning here? Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. Better than the other stuff that people are trying to crow-bar in. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Please Require Sources when the Opinions of a Minority Interest Group are being presented as Facts
There are no SOURCES to prove that the homosexual agenda is a pejorative term, and in fact, it has been proven to exist. REQUIRE A SOURCE IF YOU EXPECT TO BE CONSIDERED CREDIBLE. TruthSeeker365 (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ironically, no source provided for the claim. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

This is an EXTREMELY biased viewpoint
It was written:

"Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term introduced by sectors of the Christian religious right (primarily in the United States) as a disparaging way to describe the advocacy of cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual orientations and relationships."

Meanwhile, the truth is that this is a subjective opinion and is in no way grounded in facts, nor is it backed by a credible source. If Wikipedia expects to be an accurate beacon of information, rather than a forum for the advancement of the ideals held by a minority group of homosexuals, then they need to present information in a non-biased manner, without showing favoritism to interest-groups like the LGBTQ movement.

Please indicate that the original post (quoted above) is indeed an opinion; and that it has no factual basis; it is merely conjecture. Please indicate that the above post is not a proven fact, nor is it a commonly accepted claim among the majority of human-beings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeeker365 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, no source provided. (btw, with regard to your posts and your username, see WP:The Truth) Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, there are 14 archived talk pages associated with this article. The topic the OP raises has been discussed extensively, and there is strong consensus for the current wording. That is unlikely to change, and further SHOUTING and unsubstantiated accusations from WP:SPAs are likely to be removed as trolling. Wikipedia is not a forum. Rivertorch FIREWATER  22:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What part(s) of that statement do you claim have no factual basis?


 * (1) that it is a term introduced by sectors of the Christian religious right
 * (2) primarily in the United States
 * (3) as a disparaging way to describe
 * (4) the advocacy of
 * (5) cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual orientations and relationships


 * Isn’t it clear that the user of the term “homosexual agenda (or gay agenda)” is disapproving of some activity, and that the activity disapproved of is “advocacy”? This term is used both by (a) people who oppose gay relationships and by (b) people who do not oppose those relationships but only oppose certain tactics that can be used in bringing about the “cultural acceptance and normalization” of such relations, right? (In this I disagree with other parts of the article that seem to assume it is only used by those in group (a).) I have heard the group (b) view expressed many times by people (often libertarians) who assert quite strongly that everyone has a right not to be discriminated against because of his sexual orientation, but who at the same time disapprove of “search and destroy” tactics that they believe are sometimes used by those working to establish a wider acceptance of different sexual orientations. We certainly wouldn’t expect to hear this term from somebody who is not complaining about something, right? What exactly is the bias that you see? Swood100 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are suggesting an edit, please be succinct and support it with references. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM for discussing the article subject.- MrX 🖋 21:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If I ask someone to clarify his criticism, and give him an example demonstrating why he appears to be mistaken, is that inappropriate for a talk page? Why isn’t that an example of “Refutation,” described on the pyramid in WP:TPNO as an encouraged form of exchange (“quotes a point of the argument and explains why it’s mistaken”)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swood100 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We welcome neutral contributions that look to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia - if that's what you're here to do then great. If, however, you're here with a particular political/ religious axe to grind then please take it elsewhere. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What part of my comment suggests a political/religious axe to grind? I was just disputing the assertion that the quoted sentence is not grounded in facts. The term “gay agenda” unquestionably is a disparaging term, even when it is used by people (the libertarian types) who are disparaging political tactics and not lifestyle. I was asking what part the person disagreed with. Just that it was introduced by the Christian right?  If so, I don’t have enough knowledge to say that this is or isn’t grounded in fact. That as used currently it is not disparaging? That’s the part I was disputing. Swood100 (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are trying to suggest an edit, please indicate what change you are proposing and support it with references. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM for discussing the article subject, or other extraneous subjects.- MrX 🖋 15:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am opposing the edit suggested by TruthSeeker365, as well as his or her assertion that the quoted sentence is not grounded in fact, giving my reasons for this. Why isn't this an encouraged type of comment on a talk page? There is a pyramid at WP:TPNO under which is written “Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid,” which is what I am doing. What part am I misunderstanding? Why all this objection?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swood100 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I'm struggling to follow the point you are making. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The point I was making in my post (that you removed) was that there are many people who object to some parts of the gay agenda but not to other parts. There are many people who don’t even call themselves libertarian who wish to simply live and let live, and who support equal rights for gays in general, but who oppose that part of the agenda that they see as attempts to use government as a bludgeon to go after private behavior.  The distinction I am making is that not everyone who disparages parts of the gay agenda disparages all of it.  Not relevant to the topic? Swood100 (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What agenda?! As a gay man I don't have a list of things that I secretly plot with other gay men to push upon the world. Stop with the conspiracy. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Look, an "Agenda" is literally “the things that must be done,” and some people with a libertarian approach disparage this aspect of what the gay rights movement, as they see it, believes must be done, without disparaging or opposing equal rights for gays in general. An agenda is not necessarily something that is plotted in secret. You’re the one who introduced the conspiracy thinking. Every interest group has an agenda, which is quite simply the list of things they want to accomplish, along with the best ways of accomplishing them. I agree that the list of things that the gay rights groups want to accomplish is disparaged by some people, but for different reasons. It is those different reasons that should be a part of this story. Swood100 (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What's on the agenda then mate? This "agenda" that everyone gay person around the world seems to want to accomplish.Contaldo80 (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Equal rights for gays and the best ways of achieving that. Swood100 (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Given that “gay agenda” is used disparagingly, are all people who use it disparaging the same thing?
Why isn’t it relevant to point out that some people oppose only the parts of the "gay agenda" that they believe seek to limit the rights of others? Some readers may not realize that some of the goals of the gay rights movement are objected to by those who hold no animus for gays or their lifestyle.

Wickedterrier says “This article is about the term "homosexual agenda", it's not actually about the struggle for LGBTQ rights. You might want to propose adding this content to LGBT social movements.” But why isn’t it relevant that, though the term is used disparagingly, not everyone is disparaging the same thing? Some are disparaging the attempts to normalize the gay lifestyle but some are disparaging only the efforts to limit the freedom of others. Swood100 (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Limiting someone's freedom to punch me in the face for being gay you mean? Interesting take. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But the group under discussion is not supporting anybody’s freedom to punch you in the face. They are supporting a person’s right to free speech, or the freedom not to be forced by government to violate their religious beliefs.


 * There are two distinct issues: what people are disparaging when they use the term “gay agenda,” and whether we agree with their point of view. Our answer to the second question shouldn’t determine whether we point out differences in what various groups are disparaging. Let’s look at the first question in a simplified way, and say that two different motivations animate people who use the term. There are (a) those who think you are despicable and want to punch you in the face and (b) those who oppose efforts to use the government to violate personal liberty, which they believe includes the right to be left alone and to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.


 * You appear to be insisting that if we conclude that these two groups are both to be condemned then it is inappropriate to distinguish between their motivations. But it is clearly false. Suppose, for example, that in Hitler’s Germany there was one group that wanted to exterminate the Jews for ethnic reasons and another that wanted to exterminate them for economic reasons. Pointing this out would improve the reader’s understanding of the history.


 * Frankly, you seem to be objecting to any differentiation that could cause the reader to view one motivation in a more sympathetic light, since in your view they should both be condemned. But this story is a descriptive one. It simply describes what people mean by “gay agenda” and does not refuse to describe one meaning because that meaning is particularly abhorrent or because it may (in the judgment of majority of Wikipedia editors) show its users in a more sympathetic light than they deserve. Furthermore it is not a universally recognized truth that these two groups are both to be condemned. Those with a libertarian disposition don’t think so and it is not appropriate for this article to exclude information in order to foreclose the reader from reaching an unfavored conclusion on a question that is the subject of legitimate and current debate in society. That question is not whether innocent people should be subject to assault, but whether civil rights for one group should trump individual freedom for another group. Quite simply, if we are elucidating what people mean by the term “gay agenda” then we should not insist on the fiction that all people mean the same thing or have the same motivation, or that they all want to punch you in the face.  Swood100 (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Swood100 (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Look I think you think this is some sort of discussion forum. It's not. I'm not interested in a debate. If you want to make edits to this article then make sure they are in line with its aim and are sourced. You have yet to demonstrate that. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think most people will agree that different groups mean different things when they say that they are opposed to some or all of the “gay agenda” (which is just another way of referring to the goal of equal rights for gays and/or the best method of achieving that) in that one group is opposed to the normalization of the gay lifestyle while the other group is not at all opposed to that but is opposed to what they see as the use of government force to interfere with another person’s private life.


 * I then lay out my reasons why it is appropriate to distinguish between these two motivations in an article about opposition to the "gay agenda," and you reply that it is not necessary for you to explain why I am wrong (since you are not interested in a debate) but rather it is sufficient for you simply to say that my reasons are inadequate? My proposed paragraph is not in line with the “aim” of the article but it is not necessary for you to explain why not? What is the aim of this article? Swood100 (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Under the WP:BRD guidelines you have been reverted by another editor (with who I agree). It is up to you to make a case why your material should be included and try to build consensus. I am not interested in a debate beyond this. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Or in even explaining your reasons. “BRD doesn't work well in all situations. It is ideally suited to disputes that involve only a small number of people, all of whom are interested in making progress.” A refusal to discuss makes progress or consensus difficult to achieve. Well, I'll try again then. Swood100 (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

So every reference to the libertarian angle gets removed but nobody is willing to explain what the objection is? Swood100 (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You might have better results if you use reliable sources and cite at least a few that make the same point to demonstrate that the material meets WP:DUEWEIGHT. It is certainly not obvious that this libertarian viewpoint is worthy of mention in this article. - MrX 🖋 12:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I cited these three articles from reason.com, a libertarian site, that all say the same thing:


 * https://reason.com/blog/2015/07/01/is-this-where-libertarians-and-the-gay-c
 * https://reason.com/archives/2015/10/13/a-libertarian-gay-divorce
 * https://reason.com/archives/2014/08/19/libertarians-gay-marriage-and-freedom


 * I cited (though not in my most recent version) the following article from another libertarian site to the effect that 7 – 22% of the population have libertarian leanings:


 * https://www.cato.org/blog/how-many-libertarians-are-there-answer-depends-method


 * Is it that libertarian sites are not reliable sources for libertarian beliefs? Is it that the estimates of cato.org can’t be trusted to show what percentage of the population is involved? Is 7 – 22% insufficient to be worthy of mention? Did I inadequately demonstrate that a strong belief in individual liberty is the hallmark of libertarians, together with a belief in as little government as possible, and that the attitudes described in the cited articles are entirely consistent with that? What exactly is the deficiency? Swood100 (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Is it that libertarian sites are not reliable sources for libertarian beliefs?" That's not the problem here. The problem is a) that we can't tell if this argument is a notable one without seeing it covered in a reliable source. And b) that you're adding this to the wrong article as I've told you before. This is about the disparaging term, not about the substantiveness of the disparaging claims being made. --Wickedterrier (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * LGBT rights opposition might be the most appropriate place to put this, once you've found an appropriate source. --Wickedterrier (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t think that LGBT rights opposition would be appropriate since I am talking about a group that says it does not not oppose LGBT rights.


 * If it could be shown that the notion of a gay agenda has a significantly different meaning for two substantial groups in society (even though for both groups the term is a disparaging one) would an explanation of the difference be relevant to this article? Otherwise, the reader is left with the impression that everyone means the same thing, or that all users of the term oppose civil rights for gays, when this is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swood100 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wickedterrier this is not the right place for your material. This article covers a disparaging term which suggests that there is a conspiracy by gay people to enforce some sort of agreed "agenda". A broader discussion about how different political beliefs interact with LGBT rights is for a different page. Good luck with your search. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You use the term “a conspiracy by gay people to enforce some sort of agreed "agenda".” A conspiracy is a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act.  This is what libertarians think is going on. Those who hold such beliefs claim that it is wrongful and should be unlawful to use government force to require the Masterpiece Cakeshop to create a cake to celebrate a gay wedding. They claim that gay rights advocates meet in secret to plan how to target such businesses – to decide what specific cake request to make in order to establish the strongest court case – the goal being to force the targets to capitulate or to drive them out of business.  The distinguishing feature is that for the libertarians the wrongful acts do not include homosexuality. Swood100 (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Cool story bro. I'm hiding this section now because if this material belongs anywhere then it needs to go somewhere else, and it needs to have reliable sources. --Wickedterrier (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Lack of a neutral point of view
I have placed a WP:POV notice on this article and I’d like to make clear my reason for doing so.

It appears that this page is controlled by editors holding the WP:POV that the term “gay agenda” is only used by those who are “anti-gay” or “homophobic.” These editors wish to leave the reader with the impression that everyone who opposes any part of the gay agenda opposes all of it. I have explained some of my opposition to this above in a section that has been closed, apparently by consensus, on the ground that it is off topic. However, the WP:POV rules cannot be superseded by consensus. Nor should the content of pages be controlled by political correctness.

There are a great many people who support gay rights and disparage only that part of the gay agenda that they see as attempting to use the power of government to infringe on privacy rights, free speech and freedom of association. Here are some examples of this viewpoint:


 * However, since the Supreme Court of Obergefell v. Hodges, which ended government prohibition on same-sex marriage, the gay rights movement has been perceived by some libertarians as having started using government as a bludgeon to go after private behavior. https://reason.com/archives/2015/10/13/a-libertarian-gay-divorce


 * The gay-rights movement is turning from same-sex marriage to the next item on its agenda: outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation. That is where many libertarians who strongly supported same-sex marriage step back for a more measured approach. http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Cato_Institute_Civil_Rights.htm


 * Last but not least, I am tired of the homosexual agenda. I have no problem with anyone being gay.  If I were a baker, I would probably agree to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, even without the threat of force.  But I think it is despicable that a bakery is essentially forced to bake a cake for a gay couple.  It is the baker’s time and property and he should be able to do whatever he wants.  It is called freedom of association.  https://libertarianinvestments.com/2015/08/04/political-correctness-gone-wild/


 * A substantial proportion (approximately one-half) of same-sex marriage advocates also supports service refusal by the self-employed photographer. http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/12/eaao5834


 * “We at Cato have long supported both religious liberty and gay rights, insofar as the agenda of each is consistent with the liberty of unlimited constitutional government,” Roger Pilon, founding director of the Cato Center for Constitutional Studies, said. “But we draw the line when same-sex couples turn around and use government to force venues against their religious beliefs to participate in same-sex ceremonies, as happens too often today.” http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/15/how-can-gay-rights-and-religious-liberty-coexist-with-free-association/

The bottom line is that there are many people who disparage the “gay agenda” only insofar as it attempts to use government as a bludgeon to go after private behavior, and the insistence on this page that only homophobes and haters disparage any part of the approach used by gay rights activists is simply WP:POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swood100 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If that is the reason you placed the POV tag, I will feel free to remove it. You have no idea what editor's motivations are and you should not speculate about such. What matters is the relevance of the content in the article and whether it reflects the preponderance of reliable sources about the subject. The subject is the disparaging political term, not the actual struggle for LGBT rights. I repeat, this article is not about LGBT rights. "Gay agenda" is not synonymous with "gay rights".


 * Also, please learn what a reliable source is for Wikipedia's purpose. You should not be relying on sources like libertarianinvestments.com and reason.blog. They do not meet our standard for reliable sources. Neither Science nor The Federalist discuss the subject of this article at all. I will wait to hear from other editors before removing the POV tag.- MrX 🖋 22:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Observation?
Logical inconsistency and conflict of interests ?

It is claimed that Judy Rebick, a famous well known feminist has stated that 'lesbians were at the heart of the feminist movement evne though they did not pursue their issues, pursuing violence against women, and violence against women" with the focus on men who are violence against women.

These statements should be examined as being logically inconsistent.

The observation is made that violence against women by lesbian women is totally missing from postings, and a conflict of interest of feminists of lesbian background.
 * I think you may be on the wrong page . I don't find anything about "Logical inconsistency and conflict of interests" or "Judy Rebick" in this article.- MrX 🖋 12:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Undid move to 'Homosexual agenda conspiracy theory'
A unilateral move of Homosexual agenda to Homosexual agenda conspiracy theory has been undone. Please see instructions at WP:RM. The sources in your edit summary will be useful to add to a Requested move discussion, but you can't just execute a move like this unilaterally, without any discussion. Mathglot (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
Sanation, see WP:Editorializing. Stop engaging in editorializing. Something like "conspiracy theory" needs a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC) https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/a-peek-at-conservatisms-anti-gay-conspiracy-theorist-fringe/250959/ https://www.advocate.com/year-review/2014/12/23/years-craziest-right-wing-conspiracy-theories-about-lgbt-people Would these be considered a reliable source to cite the "conspiracy theory" segment? Or should they be off-limits when it comes to proper references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanation (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I did find several sources specifically talking about the "gay agenda" being a rightwing conspiracy theory, and both of them are factual and have been rated "High" by Media Bias Fact Check and have never failed a IFCN factchecker, although they do have a certain level of bias:
 * No, those sources do not define "gay agenda" as a conspiracy theory. - MrX 🖋 11:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A direct citation from the Atlantic article itself:

"Here's what the magazine's ad folks (to their discredit) sent out (or excerpts thereof):

Dear Pro-family American, The Radical Homosexuals infiltrating the United States Congress have a plan: Indoctrinate an entire generation of American children with pro-homosexual propaganda and eliminate traditional values from American society. Their ultimate dream is to create a new America based on sexual promiscuity in which the values you and I cherish are long forgotten. I hate to admit it, but if they pass the deceptively named "Student Non-Discrimination Act," (H.R. 998 & S. 555) that's exactly what they'll do. Better named the "Homosexual Classrooms Act," its chief advocate in Congress is Rep. Jared Polis, himself an open homosexual and radical activist. And it's dangerously close to becoming the law of the land....

....You see, the Homosexual Classrooms Act contains a laundry list of anti-family provisions that will: Require schools to teach appalling homosexual acts so "homosexual students" don't feel "singled out" during already explicit sex-ed classes; Spin impressionable students in a whirlwind of sexual confusion and misinformation, even peer pressure to "experiment" with the homosexual "lifestyle;" Exempt homosexual students from punishment for propositioning, harassing, or even sexually assaulting their classmates, as part of their specially-protected right to "freedom of self-expression;" Force private and even religious schools to teach a pro-homosexual curriculum and purge any reference to religion if a student claims it creates a "hostile learning environment" for homosexual students. And that's just the beginning of the Homosexual Lobby's radical agenda....

....other countries like Britain are already experimenting with this kind of legislation, such as mandating public schools inject pro-homosexual content into every aspect of education. Word problems in math classes are now to include homosexual characters. History classes will document the "civil rights" struggle against the "oppressive" pro-family establishment. And it's even started to infiltrate our state governments. In California, lawmakers want to "require schools to portray lesbians, homosexuals, transsexuals ... as positive role models to children in all public schools." Sexual deviants being held up as models of virtue?"


 * And they already have clearly and explicitly described the above text sent from said anti-gay mailing list as part of the "conspiracy theorist fringe" of the religious right, which, unless there is some coded language here that I know nothing of, does amount to an description as an conspiracy theory.


 * Next, we have another quote from the Advocate article that I've cited which matches up with one of the "key goals of the gay agenda" as the lead section of this article presents it to be:

"We’re recruiting and molesting children. Oh, and we’re basically rapists. Actually, Jody Hice (above), a Georgia minister and talk-show host, vilified gay people in a 2012 book, but he got a wider audience this year with his run for Congress (and unfortunately, he won). Hice’s book It’s Now or Never: A Call to Reclaim America quoted this passage from a 1987 essay by a gay writer: “We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.” One problem: Hice didn’t realize the entire essay was satire. Steven Anderson, pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Ariz., has offered a similar characterization of LGBT people. He marked World AIDS Day by posting video to Facebook of a sermon in which he said, “If you executed the homos like God recommends, you wouldn’t have all this AIDS running rampant,” then followed that up by posting a video of him saying gay people are “disgusting,” “vile,” “reprobate,” “haters of the Lord,” “filled with murder,” and “basically rapists.” One of his protégés, Texas minister Donnie Romero, preached a sermon in December saying, “I’m not going to let any of these dirty f*ggots inside my church. They are all pedophiles. ... They’re always trying to rape and hurt other people. They’re relentless. They are relentless. They are predators, and given an opportunity to snatch one of your children, they would do it in a heartbeat.”
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanation (talk • contribs) 18:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)  updated to collapse long quotes; by Mathglot (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for responding here. It's very hard from the long quote above to figure out what's the quotation from the source, and what's your comments. When quoting from something online, you don't need to paste the whole thing onto the talk page, we all have internet and can go look it up if you provide a link. If you want to paste a short quote that might be an effective example for what you are trying to prove, please do so, but pasting the whole thing detracts from your argument, because it's hard to find your argument.
 * I'm going to try and isolate the quote(s) and collapse it (them?) so we can see what you had to say. If you're not happy with my change, you may revert it. Mathglot (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Now that I can see what you wrote, it's possible to respond. So, to call it a conspiracy theory in Wikipedia's voice, you'd have to show that that was the preponderant majority opinion. It might be possible for you to do that, but simply posting a couple of opinions supporting your view isn't enough, because it wouldn't be hard to find a couple more that said the opposite.

To your earlier question about the status of the Atlantic and the Advocate articles as references, it's possible to use them, but you can't put your own spin on what they are saying. There's something called Wikipedia's voice, which basically means we can't state a fact about something unless basically everybody agrees with it. If there is disagreement about something, the article has to reflect that, in proportion to whether views are majority or minority opinion (see WP:DUEWEIGHT). The trick is characterizing the difference of opinion properly. If you found a solid source like the BBC or NY Times that stated outright that it is a conspiracy theory in so many words, I think you could add it to the article. But because it's a contentious issue, talking it out with other editors here on the Talk page first is probably the best approach. Mathglot (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Sanation, I would have reverted you for the following reasons: This article is about the word, not the topic of a theory, although most of the sources don't seem to focus on the word. "Homosexual agenda conspiracy theory" is a term you made up. It is not the WP:Common name. WP:Common name is the reason the article should not be titled "Homosexual agenda conspiracy theory." And per WP:Scare quotes, scare quotes should not be used. Whether or not to add that the term describes a conspiracy theory is a matter of WP:Due weight, and is something to discuss. So is whether or not this article should be about both the word and the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Source?
Can someone please add a source on it being introduced by Christian right or add the "citation needed" tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.202.78 (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Presumably you refer to the sentence in the lead (introduction) to the article. Per Wikipedia's manual of style, the lead should summarise the most important points of the article and, provided the information in that summary has proper sourcing in the article body, the lead does not need citation markers. In other words: since the sources are presented in the article, we don't need citation markers for them in the introduction. --bonadea contributions talk 10:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

NPOV issue in intro
In the intro, this article calls the term "homosexual agenda" "disparaging". According to Neutral_point_of_view, articles should avoid words like these. Neutral_point_of_view says that you can have an opinion like this in an article only if you use in-text attribution, which the intro does not. I tried to neutral-ize the intro a bit by removing "disparaging". It was reverted with the summary "Reverting POV nonsense. It is not "neutral" to pretend that a blatantly offensive slur can be anything but blatantly offensive (and so say the sources)". Golemwire (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Words to Watch doesn't say that the word "disparaging" itself should be avoided. It advises editors to "[s]trive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd". Thus, when people who dislike a particular politician or journalist edit articles to say "X is a biased journalist" or "Y is an incompetent prime minister", that needs to be reverted per NPOV, but that's not the same as removing information about the usage of a particular term that is in itself disparaging or pejorative. For instance, it would not be particularly neutral if the article Bitch (slang) were to say "Bitch, literally meaning a female dog, is a slang word for a person — usually a woman" rather than "...a pejorative slang word...", since "bitch" is pejorative in itself. The same thing applies to "homosexual agenda": it is not simply a term for advocacy of acceptance of LGBTQ people, but a disparaging term for such advocacy – it is inherently part of what the phrase means, and it was coined for that purpose. There are multiple sources in the article showing this. To explain the phrase as if it were neutral and could be used disparagingly or not would be akin to saying that "bitch" is simply another word for "woman". --bonadea contributions talk 09:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand, thanks. --Golemwire (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Praha, Na Příkopě, Pride 2017, Homo Lobby.jpg

Requested move 10 June 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Homosexual agenda → Gay agenda – More common name. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Long-standing title of a popular article, should be discussed. I personally would oppose such a move - I hear the term "homosexual agenda" much more, and I think it's more recognizable. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Searching Google Scholar for "gay agenda" returns 30% more results than "homosexual agenda". Not seeing how one would be any more recognizable than the other. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to find that "gay agenda" was in fact rather more common than "homosexual agenda" in the News on the Web corpus which covers six different varieties of English (513 hits for "gay agenda", 213 hits for "homosexual agenda"), while the Corpus of Contemporary American English had a very slight preference for "homosexual agenda" (124 hits, with 116 hits for "gay agenda"). I would have thought that "homosexual agenda" would have been considerably more common, but intuitions can't be trusted – unless there are strong arguments made for keeping the current title, I support the move. --bonadea contributions talk 07:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. I personally have not heard this concept referred to by the current article title, only the proposed new one. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral — examining Newspapers.com worldwide data (which is US-centric unfortunately) they are about equally common. "Gay agenda" was somewhat more common in the 1990s, "homosexual agenda" somewhat more in the 2000s. Both were rare in the 1980s and both are rare today. Jno.skinner (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Unlinked homosexual lifestyle
The term homosexual lifestyle is currently a redirect to LGBT culture, which is not the pejorative sense in which it is being used in this sentence in the lead:"Additionally, it has been used by social conservatives and others to describe alleged goals of LGBT rights activists, such as recruiting heterosexuals into what conservatives term a 'homosexual lifestyle'." The term was recently the subject of an Afd which determined that there is no consensus to change the current redirect. So, I've unlinked the term for now, so it doesn't target a suprising destination article.

One solution for this, would be to expand the redirect into an article about the term homosexual lifestyle itself. There is already nearly enough information about the term in the Afd itself, to create a brief article; see Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 24. If that is done, the wikilink in the lead should be reinstated. Mathglot (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * So what do you think "homosexual lifestyle" means, if it isn't LGBT culture? Equinox ◑ 08:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's used to imply that being gay is simply a rather than an innate quality of a person. People use it to disparage having same-sex partners, not waving rainbow flags. The current redirect is not optimal. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that homosexual/gay agenda is very nearly the same subject as homosexual lifestyle -- they are both jargon terms that refer to essentially the same conspiracy theory. I propose that homosexual lifestyle should redirect to this article itself. Jno.skinner (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've listed it at RfD. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Propaganda
Comparing this page to Homophobic propaganda I was struck to see a change in attitude towards the 2 ideologies. Basically on Wikipedia we criticize and support LGBT propaganda and we heavily demonize those opposing it? Why can't we keep neutral? "Gay agenda" is a real thing. Look at the efforts EU puts to determine the countries to turn LGBT friendly. Regardless if u think it is a right or a bad thing, we can't deny that it exists. We should keep it neutral, we should write as observers. --JOrb (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything specific to propose changing? Any actual examples of non-neutral treatment? Any reliable sources to support your assertion that "gay agenda" is a "real thing" rather than what the reliable sources cited say it is? A talk page isn't a forum for discussing the article topic, it's a place to discuss improvements, and you haven't proposed any. ~Anachronist (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for asking. The page is so biased that it hurts my mind reading it. First, it doesn't say Gay agenda is a real thing but just a "term" invented by Christians when not all Christians oppose LGBT and at same time not only Christians oppose LGBT. And how isn't gay agenda a real thing when EU literally makes list of countries that need to add gay marriages and gay adoptions and to pressurize them to implement such things. Second, comparing it to the page which is called "homophobic propaganda", why isn't this called "LGBT propaganda". It obviously promotes the idea "West good, East primitive". How can we claim we are neuter when we can't accept different values exist. Russia has tradition family, accept it and don't call it homophobic, the West has gender ideology, respect it too. But what Wikipedia turned into is a mean for Western propaganda. --JOrb (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, do you have any specific changes to propose, backed up by citations to reliable sources? Can you point out examples of anything in this article that cites an unreliable source, or misrepresents a reliable source? Can you offer any reliable sources about the origin of the term that say anything different from what this article already cites? You have made your personal views clear, but personal views cannot be put in an article. ~Anachronist (talk) 12:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, my proposal is to create a page named "LGBT propaganda" since Gay agenda apparently refers to a term used by Christians in US which is satirized by others. Such a page about LGBT propaganda would include the meaning, the prohibition in some states, the criticism of LGBT propaganda by some countries. It gives a fair view as being the other POV of "homophobic propaganda". But apparently the administrators here are in denial and to them LGBT propaganda doesn't even exist. I wonder why they even redirect the LGBT propaganda article to Gay agenda then. JOrb (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Insofar as marriage and adoption rights are a "gay agenda", that's literally no different than the "straight agenda", i.e. basic civil and political equality. I know that hurts some people's brains, but it's true. And you haven't provided any published, reliable sources to back up your proposal. There's already an article on the Russian gay propaganda law. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said gay propaganda is a bad or a good thing. The meaning of the word propaganda isn't anything bad (check the meaning of the word propaganda here ). Gay propaganda is just a type of propaganda and propaganda could be about literally anything. So what do you want me to prove is probatio diabolica. You can't prove to me homophobic propaganda exists either. It's as simple as that --JOrb (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to create a page called LGBT propaganda (which is already a redirect to this article), go right ahead. It would be best to create it in draft space first to give yourself time to flesh it out without worrying about someone coming along and deleting it before it's ready. It may be challenging to establish that the term exists in reliable sources, but perhaps an alternative term exists that could be used as the title. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not always easy to understand the intricacies of meaning of words and expressions in foreign languages. Propaganda is indeed an unambiguously negatively loaded term in English – maybe the cognate in Romanian isn't negative, but in English it is, as your dictionary link also explains. As for an article about "LGBT propaganda", your earlier attempt was a POV fork with three sources, two of which state explicitly that the notion of "LGBT propaganda" is just that, a notion, a concept that does not exist in realist. The third one doesn't mention the term "LGBT propaganda" at all, it reported on the spectacular failure of extremist groups to limit the definition of "family" to exclude same-sex/same-gender couples in Romania. --bonadea contributions talk 22:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying that something is propaganda doesn't lead to breaking the neutrality in an article, because propaganda means communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented (quote Wikipedia page Propaganda). The confusion that is made is that just because the way through which something is promoted is unfair that means that necessarily the content which is communicated is bad. This is not the case. By saying that there is "LGBT propaganda" it means (following my argument) that LGBT related topics are communicated in an unfair way (i.e. when you watch a movie and all of a sudden the LGBT topic pops in. You could say that if some of the audience would've know that the movie is about LGBT they wouldn't have watched that movie. This doesn't imply that LGBT itself is bad, just that the way of communicating people LGBT related topics isn't fair due to the fact that people have the right to filter the information that its been transmitted. And such issues exist regarding many movies when there have been a misleading way of presenting such movies.) So putting "LGBT" and "propaganda" together doesn't mean it implies a negative view on LGBT, but rather a negative view on propaganda (that's the subject) and LGBT propaganda is just a type of propaganda that exist. There can be propaganda related to the most innocent thing you may think and that doesn't mean the subject about which propaganda is made becomes bad.
 * For me it remains the issue that I have to admit and apologize about, which is the sources. I need to do a thorough research before anything.
 * Related to the Constitutional revision in Romania, there are so many unfortunate misunderstandings (I'll blame the media propaganda for it). First, in Romania Constitution does ban same-sex marriages as per the Decision of Constitutional Court of Romania which interpreted the term "spouses" as only "a man and a woman" (you can check more related to it at Same-sex marriage where I clarified the misunderstanding). Second, the authors of the Constitutional revision initiatives are in no way extremist (talking about neutrality), because the authors are 3 million Romanian citizens and if you refer to the biggest supporter of the Constitutional revision, Coaliția pentru familie, they aren't extremists since they didn't spread hate towards anybody, they didn't murder, they didn't insult, they didn't propose the incrimination of homosexuality or other such things. And if you would say that someone who opposes LGBT marriage are extremists, I have to invoke the European Court of Human Rights Decision related to art. 12 of ECHR which states that the human right to marriage is imposed by ECHR for heterosexual couples (including people who went through sex change, so for transexual people too) and each states has the freedom to legalize same-sex marriages or not. If the supreme authority in human rights says states can refuse to legalize same-sex marriages, then there is no basis for calling people opposing same-sex extremists. --JOrb (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your own linked dictionary definition says the word propaganda is "mainly disapproving". That's POV. Please also note that talk pages are not a forum for general discussion. Please try to stay on topic. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are very correct sir, but just because propaganda is an unfair way of transmitting informations, it doesn't make the information which is transmitted bad. The negative feature of propaganda isn't automatically transferred to the information which is transmitted (you can read the Wikipedia article Propaganda for more clarification). It results that putting the word "propaganda" and word "LGBT" doesn't negatively impact LGBT, but probably those who do propaganda (i.e. media, governments etc.).--JOrb (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is calling bad, which goes against article titling policy. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But there are dozens of pages on Wikipedia that include word "propaganda"...--JOrb (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We clearly can't agree here on this. What we can do is to bring this to the disputes page and try to solve it there. --JOrb (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Those page titles are either commonly-used names, e.g. Propaganda of the deed, or descriptions based on reliable sources, e.g. Propaganda in the Soviet Union. It might be possible to find significant coverage of as a term used in the context of anti-LGBT propaganda laws, but in that case the laws themselves are probably the more notable topic, as in the case of Hungarian anti-LGBT law, Russian gay propaganda law, etc.. . --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Trust me, i can give u hundred of pages including the term "LGBT propaganda" since it is commonly used among Christian and conservative groups. Also, that's only sources from US, if I was to give sources from around the world, a lot more would come. You think "anti-LGBT propaganda" is more common, because of the country you live in, the media you watch and so on.--JOrb (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not said anything about the relative commonality of the terms "LGBT propaganda" and "anti-LGBT propaganda". Sources the term(s) are not enough; see WP:NEO. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI he's been indef blocked. 2001:4898:80E8:35:A602:31BF:C2F8:12DE (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Homintern, Atlas Obscura ref
I removed the citation to the Atlas Obscura article about the "Homintern" a.k.a. "Gay Mafia". The article is mostly a review of Gregory Woods's 2016 book Homintern and doesn't mention the "gay agenda" except in passing. Any relevant facts should probably be cited to the book itself. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Ugandan content apparently removed here by mistake
On June 19, content about the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act, which properly belongs in this article, was removed from Anti-LGBT rhetoric in revision 1029277457 of 00:20, 19 June 2021 (with edit summary Moving to main article per WP:SUMMARY) and copied here at 00:23 by. Twenty minutes after that, in an apparent misunderstanding, User:Anachronist, believing (so I assume) that the same content was duplicated in both places, removed the newly copied material from this article, leaving a summary here, in the assumption that the other article is the parent article, and this one the child, whereas in reality, it is the reverse, the content having already been removed from the other. The upshot is that the well-sourced full text originally developed at the other article resides nowhere, and each article has but a summary, assuming the other to be the "main" article.

In my opinion, section #Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act of revision 1029277810 should be restored as a sub-section of #Usage outside the United States to reestablish that the full content resides somewhere (in my opinion, this article is the right place for it) and the brief summary should remain in the other article as it is already. (If consensus is that the other article should be child and this should be parent, then the content should be restored there instead of here.) But we can't have a situation where both articles have a brief summary, with no child article to contain the more detailed treatment, which is where we are now. If the two of you can agree with what you want to do, then I'll make it unanimous, because I don't care where the content lives, as long as it lives somewhere. Edits to that section following 19 June can be remerged in (if not moot after the reinstatement of old content), and I'm happy to help with that, if needed. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You're right. Good catch. I have restored the section. ~Anachronist (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed most of this material (including some bizarre errors) since the topic is now covered at . None of the sources are primarily about the concept of the "gay agenda". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)