Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight
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.
|
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.