Gay Marriage Ban Approved
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12853948/

:mad:

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

The gay agenda always seems more threatening during even-numbered years.

Got a copy, 'cause I've never seen one. I must be out of the loop.

Doesn't it, though

I think the title of this thread is misleading because it omitted the phrase "by a Senate committee" at the end. A Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is not official at this time. It has many hurdles to overcome before that happens.

That said, is anyone surprised by this news? Looks like Divertor is keeping busy. :rolleyes:

It was nice to see Feingold call this BS for what it really is.

It's almost like watching English Parliament.

I think mine was lost in the mail. I keep asking for a replacement but they claim one doesn't exist.

Well, there's this...

as well as this

LOL, those are great, SM. :D

Dear valued Homosexual,

Thank you for your interest in obtaining a copy of The Gay Agenda. We have been receiving many such requests from people with The Gay around the country, even around the world. We are delight by the response.

However, we regret to inform you, all copies are currently unavailable. Due to an unfortunate lack of oversight here at The Gay headquarters, we have been backlogged by orders from individuals with The Straight who are obtaining copies of The Gay Agenda as research material for a rumored publication, The Straight Agenda.

We here at The Gay have obtained a leaked PowerPoint presentation outlining some early proposals for The Straight Agenda. Noteable features included:

* Propsed ordinances turning all gay bars into titty bars.
* Legislation to institute "The Anus is for Pooping" chapter to all Sex Ed material.
* Abolition of unitards in international men's figure skating competition.
* Declaring Orlando Bloom to be legally female so The Straights can safely think about him while masturbating.

With this information, we here at The Gay have stopped printing the current edition of The Gay Agenda until we can integrate counter measures into a new edition. It is slated to be released just in time for the Fall elections.

We thank you for your patience. And remember, as our motto goes, a Straight is just a Gay who ignores his hidden man-lust.

Sincerely,
The Gay

You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Ghoulish Delight again.

Of course there is a Gay (movement) agenda. It is just one that most people here don't have a problem with.

I was gonna get your back, MBC, but I can't either.

There's also this...

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:snap: :cheers: :snap: :cheers: :snap:

Why are people so worried about homosexuals getting married? It's just silly not to let people be happy together and get married. What kills me is that all these people are so up in arms about homosexuals not getting married that they seem to forget the HIGH DIVORCE RATE. They should sit around and try and resolve that problem before telling people who can marry who.

Really? Would you like to enlighten us as to what that is?

How's this from the Mississippi Gay Lobby in 2000? (If you ain't got an agenda you probably don't need to lobby; yes, I know not every gay person would agree, but then not all women wanted to vote, either.)

Sounds like an agenda to me. It practically has bullet points and I can easily imagine the PowerPoint template.


I have no problem with these goals, but to pretend that there isn't a concerted effort among many gay groups to achieve certain changes in society is disingenuous.

But how is it a "gay agenda" if it's the agenda of some folks who are gay pertaining their homosexuality?

Was the civil rights movement a "black agenda" or was it a civil rights agenda?

It think calling it a black agenda falsely implies that all blacks are proponents of the civil rights agenda. Whether or not that is mostly true, I think it is an erroneous statement to make.

Similarly, the agenda for civil rights pertaining to gays is hardly universal among homosexuals ... which is a big surprise and personal disappointment to me ... but I think it rules out calling this branch of the civil rights agenda the "gay agenda."


* * * * * *

As for this unfortunate news from the Senate Committee, I find my disappointment more than offset by the judicial ruling in Georgia abolishing the gay marriage ban in that state. While the ruling had nothing to do with the merits of gay marriage (it was based on election irregularities), I find it comforting that justice seems mostly to come down on the side of, well, justice ... while I'm hardly surprised that politics seems mostly to come down of the side of barbarism.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.

If we see a plunge in small appliance stocks, we'll know it's time to worry

I have all I need at the moment, thank you very much.

Yeah, he's already had his sphincter repaired once. Let's let him rest a bit.

Hey - I've had that thing repaired twice!

All the more reason.

It was both. Blacks in the 60s (and other decades) absolutely had (have) an agenda to be equal to Whites. The fact that some Whites, Browns, Yellows, Greens, and Purples shared this agenda does not negate the fact that Blacks had it as well.

The word "agenda" is not a pejorative.

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".

It's used as a bludgeon, as an insult, as more than an insinuation that we are out to corrupt this country with our sinful ways. It's hurtful propoganda being used to deprive ME of my civil rights and human rights.

Yes, I am PISSED off about its use. This is indeed a discussion board, and I am communicating that I am HOSTILE about this, I am angry about this, and it gets my grandaddy's goat.


Not that anyone here is using the term in its insulting mode. Feel free to discuss it all you want. I've said what I have to say about it ... and yes, it's said with anger and disgust.

I think the point is that, Leo, you know how to discuss without calling someone ignorant and baiting for an argument.

I thought Leo's a master baiter...








and with that, I exit this thread...:p

Crud....gotta shot those blinds tighter next time.....

all I do is speak and you say these things- I did not bait for an argument nor call ISM ignorant.

But nice of you to try to add fuel to a non-existant fire- he was mad before I ever said a damn word.
:rolleyes:

When did you change your name to Leo?

Read what she wrote again- then see what I wrote and tell me her comment was not meant as a snarky remark to me- praising Leo for NOT doing the things she claims I do-

It's par for the course- I disagree- and I am automatically accused of flame baiting or trying to get into a fight- to hell with reality-

Forget it- bad day and I am sick of certain things- this is one of them.

Toodles- I can't breathe in here today.

It doesn't take much bait to snare me today. And I am saying flat out that anyone who alleges that there is in fact a "Gay Agenda" is going to be baiting me.

You can be free to "disagree," and I will feel free to jump all over it.

I believe it's kept in the vaulted basement at 8605 Explorer Drive in Colorado Springs. ;)
__________________________________________

There absolutely is a "Gay Agenda". Here it is:

• We want to be treated as equal citizens.
• We don't want to be harassed (or worse) walking down the street.
• We don't want the government poking their nose into our bedrooms.

We can certainly discuss the fervor at which various individuals and organizations will pursue this agenda (or their customized version of it), but I think it's a bit silly to suggest that an overwhelming majority (so overwhelming that to go to the trouble of reminding folks there there may be exceptions is not worth mentioning) of the gays don't want these things to occur.

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.

Kudos to Senator Mark Dayton (D-Ohio) for this statement.

If that link doesn't work, go here and follow the link.

That was truly amazing. Love it. :)

And he is sooooo right. Great message.

Ah, a politician who gets it. How refreshing is that?

Source

Read this with an extreme Bette Davis impersonation in mind:
"Mary Cheney's book has bombed. Good!"
:D

One caveat anytime someone mentions Bookscan numbers is that it does not include sales at two of the largest booksellers in the country: Wal-Mart and (collectively) independent bookstores.

But yeah, it still tanked.

Let's see, checking my gay agenda:

1) Laundry
2) Gym
3) Buy half & half
4) Return shorts with broken button to Target
5) Go by triple-A and renew my registration
6) Destroy random marriage (maybe while at Target, don't forget toaster oven)
7) Go see Cars at the El Capitan
8) Rehearsal

Gay-ish. (If you said 'send to fluff and fold laundry down the street' then it would be uber gay.)
Very gay.
Mucho gay.
Truman Capote gay.
Gay, but more lesbian actually....
Mega-gay.
Liberace gay.
Peter Allen gay.
:D

Pfft You'd think he could work some Charles Nelson Reilly gay in there somewhere.

:rolleyes:

Charles Nelson Reilly gay.

Gene Rayburn: "Dumb Dora was so dumb,

She thought asphalt was [blank]."


Dum dum da da da da da, dum dum da da da da da, dum dum da da da da da, dum dum da da da da da


Gene Rayburn: "Okay Jeanelle, what's your response to Dumb Dora was so dumb,"

Audience, shouting: "How dumb was she?"

Gene Rayburn: "Ha ha, Dumb Dora was so dumb, she thought asphalt was [blank]?"

Jeanelle: "Um, cement?"

Gene Rayburn: "Cement! Cement, that's certainly something someone dumb could think is asphalt. Charles, what did you write down?"

Charles Nelson Reilly: "Well Gene, I had a different thing in mind, would you mind repeating the question?"

Gene Rayburn: "Sure Charles, anything for you. Dumb Dora was so dumb, she thought asphalt was [blank].

Charles Nelson Reilly: (flips card over) "Rectum trouble!"

Gene Rayburn: "Aw, I'm sorry Jeanelle, thanks for coming on the show, there are some lovely parting gifts for you backstage. Rectum trouble! We'll be right back."

Dum dum da da da da da, dum dum da da da da da, dum dum da da da da da, dum dum da da da da da

Regarding the term 'gay agenda'...
 

Joe Solomonese on the 'gay agenda'. I don't always agree with everything the HRC does, but I like the way he worded this part of his editorial piece...

Source