Um, that's not my point. It's not that the fact that some straights may be in favor of gay marriage that negates it being a "gay" agenda, but the fact that far too many homos are against it. Calling it a "gay" agenda implies that it's a universal homosexual endeavor.

Oh, rational people may not see it that way ... but for those who do use "agenda" as a perjorative, that's what they are trying to put forth. It's why the "Dear valued Homosexual" notice GD posted above is funny. If there were no truth in the phobes meaning to suggest a universal gay agenda, there would be no comedy in refuting it.

I acknowledged in my post that not all gays are in support of it. But far more women were opposed to getitng the vote than gays opposed to the abolishment of sodomy laws and yet there was still a woman's movement and it had an agenda. The feminist agenda doesn't go away just because 40% of women aren't on board.

Well, perhaps it was more aptly described as a feminist agenda, or more specifically (for the vote issue) - a suffragette agenda. I never once heard it called a "womens" agenda. And, since it wasn't, I found that worked out quite well.


So Gay Agenda will continue to bug. It's flat-out inaccurate, and has no analogue in modern history.

To deny that individuals in any group of people- including gay people- have no agenda is naive and appears to be willful ignorance. Of course they do- as much as any other group that wants their views and ideas accepted more broadly than they are.

To imply that one knows the agenda of a group of people when there's no stated agenda also appears to be willful ignorance.

I doubt anyone would deny that yes, there is some nebulous set of goals shared by a large number of gay people. Freedom from discrimination, equality of treatment, etc. But too many people talk of "The Gay Agenda" as if it's some publish list of moral corruptions that all gay people ascribe to and would like to see happen in America. As if there's some organized effort to turn school children gay.

I'm sure I'll get hell for this, but I don't mind; I think that the Military/Industrial Complex is the closest analogy to "The Gay Agenda" - tons of people just don't or won't admit that it exists.

"The Gay Agenda" just sounds so much swankier, though - certainly more fashionable, and maybe even entertaining. :D

The same could be said of any "agenda". The Agenda of the Christian Right, for example. Would you (generic you) say there is no agenda there? There are goals that a lot of the Christian Right have in common, but many disagreements as to the way to achieve those goals . Many goals are not common. Yet there is the mysterious agenda of the Christian Right.

yes, and as a Christian I don't have a printed copy of the "agenda" but I know it exists-

Damn the irony of a two way street huh?

And yet, how would Christians like it if I called the obvious "Christian Right Agenda" simply the "Christian Agenda?"


It is a two-way street, Neph, and non-political homosexuals don't like being lumped in with goal-activist homosexuals any more than non-political christians like being lumped in with goal-activist christians.

So, um, everybody ... kindly knock it the fuk off.

ISM - I'm just trying (as seemingly everyone is) to have honest discussion here....why the hostility?

Does that mean your feelings on the issue would be different if it was called the "Radical Gay Agenda"? I actually think that would make it more offensive to you.

I'm not trying to be a jerk....you say there is an obvious Christian right agenda. To many there is an "obvious" gay agenda. Do you equate the word "agenda" without something that is bad? I don't. I guess it would depend on the viewpoint of the one viewing the "agenda".