Talk:Gay agenda/Archive 6

Keeping the article focused
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Moved the section to Gay rights opposition. DavidBailey 11:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Reference No. 10
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

First sentence
Now that unrelated concerns in the previous discussion section have been resolved, I would like to return to the issue of the phrasing of the first sentence. This is certainly an improvement over previous versions, but leaves room for further improvement. The sentence states that the goals of GLBT activists are "to increase public support for pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture." Is it NPOV to refer to equal rights as a "pro-homosexual policy"? I think we need to find a different and more neutral term for this. If we cannot agree on a term (I would prefer "equal rights" or something like that), it might be necessary to include two phrasings, but then we would need to end the sentence there, before going on to media and culture.

Indeed, what is meant by "...media, and culture"? Activists' goals include increasing public support for pro-homosexual media? Does that mean that they want to conduct a subscription drive for the Washington Blade? Exactly which media are pro-homosexual, and how do the activists attempt to achieve the purported goal of increasing public support for these media? Does pro-homosexual culture differ from homosexual culture in general? Maybe we could drop the "pro-" prefix?--Bhuck 09:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have never liked "pro-homosexual, but I also dislike "equal rights". In particular, I think this repeats the previous problem of this term being "offensive".  Some folks see the issue as actively promoting a specific set of new (and thus not equal) rights that are "pro-homosexual".  Others see the issue as simply and only letting homosexuals do the same things that other do and thus "equal rights" and not "pro" any one group.  I have thought about this a lot and do not see any way around the problem. I think your comment about media is fair.  Probably the term should be "messages in the media" or something like that.  One of the problems with removing the "Pro" from Homosexual is that, to be fair you should also remove the "anti" from it as well, later in the sentence.  Because both

anti and pro are included in the opening paragraph I believe that this meets the standards for NPOV.--64.178.145.150 13:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not terribly keen on "pro-homosexual", but I can live with it in the absence of a neutral term, which I'm not sure exists! The "anti-homosexual" reference is different, as it makes it clear it is a POV. David L Rattigan 13:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I see both pro and anti as individually POV but presented together they meet the NPOV guidelines. By the way.. good job of archiving.  I do not know how to do that, but I think you did a good job of preserving only the most important things now. --64.178.145.150 13:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Does this work?:


 * The homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the goals of gay and lesbian activists to increase media messages and public support for policies as well as cultural changes favoring same-sex relationships. It refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is considered to be offensive by some[1], particularly those within the gay rights movement, who consider themselves to be merely advocating equal rights.--64.178.145.150 14:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly, all of this debate has left me feeling that instead of a continual push by those who may forever see an opposing or a NPOV view as under-representative of the gay rights view, that we need to have a moratorium on editing the opening paragraph for a few weeks. We can use the time to flesh out the rest of the article, which has been largely ignored in this discussion. Otherwise, I may start feeling testy about the removal of italics/quotes and heterosexism portions of the article, and honestly, I don't think any of us want to go down that road right now. DavidBailey 01:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. I've been waiting for this to move forward. (Just because I haven't said anything for a few days doesn't mean I haven't been keeping up.) CovenantD 01:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Bhuck, I think I was the original author of that tidbit of the text. Originally, I think it read "pro-homosexual policies" only. I added "media and culture" to denote the fact that this is part of the efforts of the activists- not only to influence policy and law, but to influence media and culture as well, such as television, movies, video games, etc. Not that any media in particular is being targeted as being pro-homosexual (although you could certainly argue that some are), but that there are efforts to influence all media and culture. (IE- to change views, perspectives.) And yes, pro-homosexual culture does vary from popular culture in the sense that gays feel they are underrepresented, presented in unflattering ways, etc.


 * As far as the "pro" prefix goes, I don't know how else to state it and remain NPOV. From a strictly literal standpoint, it is accurate in that homosexual/gay activitists encourage pro-homosexual attitudes, and not con- or anti-homosexual attitudes. I realize that there is a connotation, but it was the best I could come up with, and still think it's probably the best way to represent it. I realize that most homosexual activists will chafe at the thought and term that what they are doing is "pro-homosexual", but again, it is at least literally true. DavidBailey 00:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "pro-homosexual" is not very good. For one thing, it has the connotation of encouraging people to be gay, which fits with the recruitment theory favored by some of the nastier homophobes. I edited around this problem. Al 04:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Al - they're after equality. The term "pro-homosexual" does sound like they are an active group promoting conversion to their cause, which as Al says plays straight into a certain POV groups agenda. Sophia  06:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying that "They are after equality" is the same thing as saying that you have a specific non-neutral point of view on this article. I'm sure most do.  But in this case, the opponents claim that it is NOT equal rights but special rights.  (Oddly, I can see both perspectives as valid.)  But this is not my main concern. the real problem is this:  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, (I do not mean "virtual assurance" but I mean "total and complete assurance" by having them openly say it is true) that some (homosexual) groups are active in promoting conversion to their cause. And MANY other groups may not openly say it but behave exactly the same way.  And what is their cause?  It is exactly as stated in the paragraph: increased public support for policies, media (articles), and cultural (change) toward their thinking.  So, this particular objection to "pro", in the context of the paragraph is NOT a good one.  Having said that, I still do not like the term because I consider it laden.  (I think its tolerable because we also have anti in there as well.)  I am only pointing out that the logic does not align with the facts as I certainly know them to be and as can be verified pretty easily. --64.178.145.150 17:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The intro paragraph is vastly improved now, I think. I tinkered with a few of the links and reordered a couple of nested prepositional phrases, but my concerns were largely addressed by prior editors.  Thank you!--Bhuck 08:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted the first paragraph to the consensus version. Please float ideas for edits here prior to making them to avoid another prolonged edit war, which helps no one. Thanks. DavidBailey 11:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Arguably, I should have discussed the change here before making it. However, I did explain it afterwards, and I did receive support, so your revert was counterproductive.  Let's not be so eager to enforce our gentleman's agreement that we forget why we created it in the first place.  Now, if you have any actual objection to my suggested change, please state it here so that we can discuss it.  Al  17:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Some anon IP just reverted, claiming I need a consensus. This is nonsense: the responses here establish a consensus.  Al  18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No responses established concensus. --72.13.168.149 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Alienus, this was debated for over a week and, although you were on Wikipedia, without your assistance. Then you suddenly show up, make changes, and claim the moral high ground? I don't think so. I don't like the wording either but nobody involved in the discussions could come up with anything better. If you want to make changes, suggest them here first the same way that everybody else did. And stick around for the discussion this time. CovenantD 00:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear anon IP - this is an international project so we all sleep at different times! As to the changes - I really object to the term "pro-homosexual" and in my serches on the web have overwhelmingly found the term used by people trying to imply some "take over and corrupt" agenda by those supporting eqaul-rights. Wikipedia must NOT reflect this bias whatever the particular views of some editors, especially as the term "homosexual agenda" itself is more often than not used in the same way. We must report the facts in as neutral a way as possible without using loaded language if at all possible I dislike edit wars as I feel they polarize the debate and common sense often goes out the window so I'm asking the editors who keep reverting to the version that includes this term to really read around the web and get a feel for the very nasty way in which this term is used. Sophia  07:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure what difference it makes that people sleep at different times. If it helps, I agree that they do.   I have objected to the term pro-homosexual from the start.  I also object to the term anti-homosexual.  I have said this repeatedly. I consider them both loaded terms.  However, I believe, based upon reading WP:NPOV that if both of these terms appear near each other they present a balanced view and so are acceptable.  However, I have said all along that they should both be out of the article.  (Strangely, people so concerned about the "Pro-homosexual" word never worry about the "Anti-Homosexual" word!) Having said that, it is not my place to remove either term when so many people are working so hard to get a concensus view and such changes have not been agreed to in concensus.  It seems entirely reasonable to take such things to talk, resolve them and then go forward with the agreed change.  From your actions though, it does not seem you are in agreement with that policy.  Certainly you actively support others who are not in agreement with that process.  To me, such behavior does not harmonize with the idea that you are seeking the good of wikipedia, but instead that you are involving yourself in an edit war, despite your disdain for such things. --64.178.145.150 07:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC) /72.13.168.149


 * As though "homosexual agenda" is any less biased... CovenantD 20:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

We're not responsible for that term, just reporting on it. But if we invoke "pro-homosexual", that's our own fault. Al 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alienus, Sophia, and Bhuck that "pro-homosexual" is POV and that other language should be used. The POV problem doesn't stem from the literal meaning of the phrase, but from its use in contemporary debate. Fireplace 21:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're here to help us steer in the right direction. Instead of directly editing the paragraph, please submit an edited version which meets your criteria for balanced, concise writing and we can discuss it. Thanks. DavidBailey 03:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Interim measure
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)


 * Agreed. Fireplace 16:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Remove religious and philosophical section?
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)


 * 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)

Agreed. CovenantD 00:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


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

I'm sorry you're so out of step with consensus, but you're just going to have to accept this fact. Thank you for understanding. Al 02:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * I like the idea of wikilinking to gay rights opposition. CovenantD 14:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Another problem with this section is that it implicitly equates "gay rights" with "the homosexual agenda." For if, as DavidBailey suggests, the section is about opposition to the homosexual agenda, why does most of it relate only to pro- and con-positions towards the narrower and different issue of gay rights? I agree with the suggestions above to remove the section and wikilink to gay rights opposition in the introduction. Fireplace 16:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have moved the section to gay rights opposition and left a brief paragraph and a link. DavidBailey 00:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Titles of "Political" and "Legal" sections
I changed the titles of the "Political" and "Legal" sections to "Content of the agenda" and "References to the agenda", which seem to better describe the content of those sections. While I'm not attached to those titles, it's not clear what "Political" and "Legal" mean in this context and they should be changed to clarify. DavidBailey reverted those edits without giving a reason (other than a mention of vandalism that I think was directed at Globeism), and I propose they (or an alternative) be reinstated.Fireplace 02:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think it was directed towards me... Although I do have my reservations with a small group of editors completely reverting anybody's elses edit without long and protracted discussion, which many times does not even address the reversion. This page has been static for some time. Globeism 03:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The existing titles were appropriate. Changing a title from "Legal" to "References to the agenda" of a section which contains references of legal arguments referring to the homosexual agenda, and from "Political" to "The content of the agenda" are, unfortunately, inaccurate. There have been many statements made about the agenda, in this case, the quote is related to political efforts regarding activism. DavidBailey 03:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My point about the unclarity of the headings is that in both cases the title isn't informative enough to tell the reader what to expect, or even to give unison to the section's contents.


 * Regarding my suggestion for the Political section: after hearing about the agenda in outline form in the introduction, first-time readers (myself included) expect to be told about the contents of the agenda. And that is in effect what the Dobson quote and the GLAAD discussion do.  Since that exhausts the contents of the section, it seems appropriate to title the section accordingly.


 * Regarding the Legal section: since the section doesn't talk about any proposed or actual legislation, litigation, majority judicial decisions, etc., but merely points out that Scalia used the phrase in a dissent, I think it's disingenuous to label the section "Legal". How about "Legal (Judicial?) reference to the agenda"?  I think that accurately captures the section.Fireplace 05:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's a comment by a supreme court justice about a legal case where he uses the term "homosexual agenda", so it is noteworthy, and it is related to a legal case, with a link to the entire writings of all the justices. If "Legal" really bothers you, I think "Judicial" is fine, but legal is accurate. DavidBailey 11:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like an attempt to make the term more legitimate by noting that once left the mouth of a Justice. Aside from the fact that this guy is ultra-conservative, he prefaced the term with "so-called", which is not what I'd call an endorsement. Frankly, the whole section is worthless and should be cut. Al 13:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Al, you have already made it clear you think the whole article should be cut. Please stop trying to sabotage it. Thank you. DavidBailey 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that it is an attempt to make the term more legitimate but I sort of Alienus is correct, the section stands out like a sore thumb. I think at the very least it should be edited in some way to make it appear less "random" in the article. By the way, I got a user account, but I do not expect to remain with this one forever --01:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have tried to clarify the headings by using "in law", "in politics", etc. IE- The sections refer to the issues and use of the term in these areas of society. Is that more clear? DavidBailey 03:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think my suggestions more accurately describe the current content of the sections... but maybe we should focus on filling out the content before settling on headings. Fireplace 03:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
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)


 * 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)

Passive Voice in the Second Sentence
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)


 * Agreed. Fireplace 16:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)\


 * Also agree. Sophia  19:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Bhuck, please the entire paragraph with your proposed edits here so we can discuss them. Thanks. DavidBailey 03:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Proposal for replacing "Political" section
The purpose of the "Political" section seems to be to characterize the agenda and give some clue as to its contents. I'd like to replace the section with something like a draft I've written here. This version discusses the secretive nature of the agenda (which is common to discussions of it), gives a bullet list, and expands on the items Dobson mentions. Fireplace 16:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Not everyone who discusses this topic/term thinks it is secretive. There are openly pro-homosexual activists who fight for homosexual perspectives across society and there are those who openly oppose them. Most do not think this involves UFOs, black helictopers, or the Easter Bunny. DavidBailey 03:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was speaking loosely in my Talk comments. The draft I wrote is more clear in saying that only some major players (e.g., head of Alliance Defense Fund) describe it as secretive, and gives a citation.  I'll revise it to make it even more clear.


 * Since most/all of the other current regular editors of this article have been active on the Talk page without commenting on this, I'll assume there aren't any major objections and put it in place. Fireplace 18:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)