The problem is that the talking heads that use and popularized the term "Gay Agenda" imply/flat out state that said Agenda doesn't stop at "acceptance" of homosexuality, but what it really is striving for is "promotion" of homosexuality, as if what 'the gay community' really wants is to convince our precious children to turn gay.

And while there is some validity to the argument that it may be a good idea to hijack the term and turn it into something positive, I agree with iSm. The term makes it too easy to generalize and gloss over the details of reality. It's a term that was born to spread misinformation and prejudice. While it obviously can carry a different connotation, the fact is, that's the connotation it was given, and it's not a pretty one.

I just LOVE the term "turn gay". It's waaaay up there in stupididy scale.

Maybe when they find the switch to turn gay on and off they will find the switch to turn my overactive brain on simmer.

I say 'turn gay' all the time.
When Ralphie's on his back snoring, I say 'Turn, gay!' When he's on his side, he doesn't snore so loud.

Well, I sorta turned gay ... so you never know ... it could happen to YOU.

You're as gay as Rip Taylor's Doris Day DVD collection. Just like me. C'mon, who ya foolin'? :D

Yeah- I feel fairly secure in that knowledge. As usual I appreciate your candor- you never disappoint.

I do not think there is a gay agenda shared by all people in the gay community- I do feel there are pockets of people though who certainly do- and that goes for any group.

Oh.My.God I need a more raucous laughing smilie. :D LOL

But I fail to see how the appropriate response to a group misstating the goals means that the appropriate response is to pretend that there is not general set of goals.

I have no problem with differentiating some things as the activist gay agenda (and in certain very small circles there are people who advocate that more people should be gay, generally in feminist lesbianism) but I do think there is a core set of goals so broad as to include even 99% of non-activist homosexuals.

90% of what passes for political discourse in this day and age is the attempt of one side to mischaracterize the agenda of the other side but it doesn't change the fact that the sides have an agenda. How about we just call it the pro-gay agenda? That way it can include right(iously)-thinking heterosexuals and asexuals as well. Bisexuals just have to get their own damned agenda.

Source
How nice. :)

What does pro-gay mean? I don't think there are too many anti-gay gays (though, of course, there are some). But perhaps most straight people - and not a few gay ones - would be surprised at how many homosexuals see gay marriage as a sell-out, a bougious ideal of straights best not emmulated. Still others (again, many more than you might expect) see the marriage goal as a distraction from more legitimate and crucial gay rights pursuits. And others see it as a foolish drive that's just gonna cause unnecessary troubles.

If you wanna call it the Gay Marriage Agenda, that's fine. Anything else is an inaccurate generalization. And yes, if opponent's have sucessfully tarred a particular phrase with a negative connotation, there's not need to try to "take back" that phrase .... especially if it wasn't a particularly accurate phrase to begin with.