Talk:Gay agenda/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

No comma, lo marriage

Sorry for the pun... I removed the comma in the section about Michael Swift's essay, changing the sentence from

"Nonetheless, the essay has been repeatedly cited by Christians, and others who describe themselves as socially conservative or philosophically traditional in their world view..."

to:

"Nonetheless, the essay has been repeatedly cited by Christians and others who describe themselves as socially conservative or philosophically traditional in their world view..."

In doing so I hoped to wed the latter adjectives to "Christians" as modifiers of that group, hopefully while also allowing the interpretation of those adjectives to remain descriptive of non-Christians who hold those views, as it seems the sentence was constructed to segregate. My point is that the antithesis of gay rights et al is not Christians, but both non-Christians and "Christians...who [are] socially conservative..." and vocally represented as such in the sociopolitical sphere, and pushing this agenda. That may appear to have been the vast majority of them historically, and it would seem to be a (lesser) majority of them at the moment, but it is not all, and it is by making the whole shebang a zero-sum game that the thing gets its legs. In other words, if either "side" didn't view the other's liberty as mutually exclusive to its own, then there needn't be "sides" to begin with, and we all could just be what we are, which is either gay or straight or other, AND either Christian or non-Christian or other.

The irony, it seems to me, is that it is the counter-agenda which is the true agenda, and the counter-agenda is what perpetuates the idea of a "homosexual agenda" as well as the idea of such as being threatening. The simplistic characterizations of two monolithic groups at odds with one another add smoke to whatever fire there is, and draws those on both sides to supply more kindling rather than water, and those unaffiliated to be dazzled by the blaze rather than try to positively redirect the pointless expense of energy.

There are more than two sets of many things. There are many Christians who have no more opprobrium for gays than they do for straights who explore their sexuality outside of (read: before) marriage, meaning some have quite a bit to go around for all and others prefer to judge not, and happen to have this one cousin... Indeed, the vast majority pick and choose what sins they'll decry and what sins they'll try (they gave up stoning divorcees, those who don't adhere to dietary laws, and those who work on the Sabbath a long time ago), and a good chunk of them seem to have some of the same on both lists. It is another irony in a discussion which is, in its broadest sense, an issue of sexual minorities, to exclude the existence of religious ones. In fact, there are even well-balanced gay Christians. This article isn't primarily about the well-balanced, but with the removal of that comma, it allows for the interpretation that not all Christians are card-carrying, Michael Swift-citing members of this frenzy of philosophical traditionalism (read: ethnocentrism).

Respectfully, Abrazame (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you made the change, but I think the difference is too subtle for the casual reader to notice. However, I have another idea: your amended version says that "[Christians and others] who describe themselves as socially conservative do this-and-this", i.e. it is about people who all describe themselves as socially conservative but may or may not be Christians. In that case, it seems to me that their religious status is now irrelevant because what makes them part of the relevant group is their conservatism (since some of their co-religionists, as you note, are not socially conservative). I have therefore altered "Christians and others who describe..." to "those who describe..." Marnanel (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the prior version was just Christians and I think it was me who amended to state "and other social conservatives" as to not single out that it was only Christians. Benjiboi 16:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The important thing that all the people citing the essay have in common is that they are social conservatives, though; including mention of the religion of some of them appears to be multiplying hypotheses. Marnanel (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The important thing is that Christians who, in theory, would be acting "Christ-like", use the essay arguably in ways that would seem hypocritical to the spiritual guidance they would profess to offer in the name of their religion. If members of other religious sects are doing so we should probably note that as well. Benjiboi 02:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Individuals who define themselves as being Christian may or may not be socially conservative, and may be homosexual as well (as previously mentioned). Additionally, individuals who associate with other beliefs may or may not cite the article. Even though "and others who describe themselves as socially conservative" removes the stereotype that all who cite the article are Christian, including "Christians" is stereotypical in itself. It is minimally redundant, but possibly inaccurate since not all Christians are social conservatives (as suggested by "and others who describe..."). It's possible that using "social conservative" as an identifier is risky too, since individuals may have opinions that fall on different areas of the political spectrum. It might be safer (and annoying, I know) to instead use statements like "individuals typically socially conservative" or "individuals who share positions on homosexuality typically considered to be socially conservative positions" throughout the article.Oopsigotroot (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Can we have a picture of a more attractive couple being married? Maybe? :P ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making such homophobic remarks. 66.96.243.12 (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an offensive remark on a couple of levels, but it's not necessarily homophobic. - Richfife (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A better question might be whether the people shown in the picture approve of its use here? Or, why is it deemed appropriate to use a picture of these particular individuals in an article about a much larger issue? Use of pictures of someone's marriage in an article about politics seems questionable. Skoojal (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

They were the first married gay couple in Quebec and married with a lot of pomp and publicity, so I expect it's OK. - Richfife (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This couple was the first married couple in Montreal, and stood up in front of God and community in their matching tuxes and flowers and took their vows. If we want the straights to accept two grown men kissing or getting married, what hope do we have if even the young gays such as Zythe are grossed out by it. That picture is your future Zythe whether you like it or not, unless you start liking girls or get in touch with your bi side. Please be more tolerant in your remarks. 78.110.173.129 (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the photo more fitting for a gay marriage article, one on the repeal of anti-gay-marriage laws (or the passing of inclusive laws), or even one on marriage in general? Putting a photo of a same-sex kiss at the head of this particular article (as opposed to a more benign photo of a gay marriage, or better yet and more relevant, photos of people and tomes referenced in the article) is playing into the hands of (or even sabotage by) those who suggest there is such a gay agenda. To give my point some perspective, they also accuse gays of seeking to overturn laws against pedophilia, but I'm hoping that point is not going to be similarly illustrated by a photo. Abrazame (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

78.110.173.129, not that it's relevant, but I'm plenty in touch with my bi side. Regardless, it would be more pleasant if the picture was of two nicer-looking guys. I said it mostly as a joke, to comment on the fact that they're both somewhat ... funny-looking, and I apologise that perhaps it wasn't relevant to Wikipedia in any way other than to indulge my own wicked sense of humour. For the most part, I was trying to provoke discussion of the usefulness of the image: shouldn't the picture be one of some militant homophobe who alleges that there is a "gay agenda"?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• If the above commentary is true, I think this photo is quite appropriate to the article, but the caption needs to establish why. As-is, it's just, "Here's a repetition of a fact next to some guys kissing." It'd be more constructive, I think, to specify just WHO these guys are, if concisely. Anyone agree? Disagree? (And I actually found Zythe's comment in the humorous spirit it was intended, by the by) - Vianello (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think having James Dobson's picture works better.

Removed links to two heavily anti-gay sites

I have removed a link to an anti-gay blog and a site that highlights parts of "After the Ball" to draw attention to certain passages.
If you need to cite After the Ball please cite the text - not an annotated version of it.
--mboverload@ 01:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The After the Ball excerpts are relevent as they show conservative use (even in-line highlighting) of After the Ball to demonstrate a homosexual agenda. Due to concerns about credibility, I google searched the 1972 platform to make sure it wasn't right-wing nonsense/satire/creation and found a pro-LGBT site host with the 1972 text and placed its URL in the ext links section in place of the other link. User0529 (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Conservatives" in lead

I'm kinda grappling with a bit of wording in our lead section here. The present wording makes it sound like only conservatives use this term. I recognize that's probably true for the most part, but certainly not all-encompassing. But changing the wording to "sometimes used" or something similar seems to make the text read a bit weakly. Does anyone have some idea of how to make it clearer these are just implicitly the most typical users? Or does it even matter? --Vianello (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with the concern about qualification in the lead, and as a social conservative, I think I'm going to be bold and change it to some. It should be weakened because not all of us believe gay marriage et al (which I personally oppose) were hatched by the Illuminati. We can discuss this further if someone disagrees strongly enough to revert me. Thompsontough (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I originally removed the quotation marks from the bolding as well but remembered reading Read my lips: no new taxes, which uses them. Sorry about that, still learning the ropes of wiki-culture - I thought it had been put in there by an anti-anti-gay person. :) Thompsontough (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Two definitions?

I've always heard from conservatives (and based on their page on homosexuality on Conservapedia) that the homosexual agenda was to turn everyone in the world gay. That's just what I gathered from the jokes from the media. Then again, they were lampooning the far right as being hokey and stupid for thinking such. I do know that many conservatives believe, just like many conspiracy theorists believe the Masons control elections, that the gay agenda is carried out with secrecy and bribery to gov't officials working within the so-called "liberal media". Well, even though I'm for gay rights and I think their conspiracy theory is stupid, just like all conspiracy theories, I found some weasel words in the article and decided to mark it as such. Any thoughts on my definition? ForestAngel (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not really basing any actual thought on something you read on Conservapedia...are you? If so, you will want to rethink the wisdom of doing so. You'd need to find a reliable source for the assertion that the "homosexual agenda" is to turn everyone gay before such a claim would belong in the article. As for the weasel words you think you see, will you please specifically point them out for us here on the talk page? The only phrase I can find that even remotely matches the description in your edit summary is at the end of the first paragraph (Some believe that this agenda is a secret one) and it is properly supported.—Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Conservapedia is... well... try reading their page on Barack Obama. I thought it was a Real Time with Bill Maher sketch lampooning misconceptions about him. I'd probably put it up there alongside Code Pink (the ones who protested in Nancy Pelosi's office for not being liberal enough) in terms of conservatism. Thompsontough (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Biased edits to lead paragraph

Jordan68, it is not okay to add your own bias, preference, and opinion to Wikipedia articles by making edits that damage the article's neutral point of view. You have done so three times in this article, and each time your edit has been promptly and appropriately reverted. You need to stop now. It does not matter how you word your biased changes, it matters that you are making them. If you really feel your point of view is more neutral, precise, and accurate than the consensus text, you will need to discuss your proposed change here on the talk page and attain consensus before you make the change again. I think it will probably be difficult for you to gain much traction for your position; even the least-biased of your edits (this one) inappropriately and without factual basis restricts the sphere of discussion to sexual relationships. In fact, the topic of this article covers a much wider field in terms of society, law, pedagogy, sexual orientation, civil rights, and lots of other things besides sex. The present non-heterosexual orientations and relationships text clearly, fully, and appropriately conveys the full scope of the discussion in an unbiased manner. The statement in your accompanying edit summary ("my relationship with my employer is a non-heterosexual relationship") is probably true, but it's irrelevant; in the context of the article, it's completely clear and unambiguous that we're not talking about your relationship with your employer. Please contribute more coöperatively from now on, okay? Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15