Gay Marriage Ban Approved

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

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

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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by SzczerbiakManiac

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.

[Alex]

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.

[Gemini Cricket]

An interfaith coalition of clergy members and lay leaders announced a petition drive on Monday aimed at blocking a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill on a vote along party lines last week, and the full Senate is expected to vote on it the week of June 5.

About 35 representatives of the coalition, Clergy for Fairness, said at a news conference that more than 1,600 clergy members had signed an online petition against the amendment. The group's Web site has postcards that lay people can print out and send to members of Congress.

Source
How nice.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by SzczerbiakManiac

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

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

[innerSpaceman]

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.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

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".

[innerSpaceman]

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.

[Not Afraid]

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

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

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

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.