Gay Marriage Ban Approved

[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.

[Not Afraid]

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.

[Gemini Cricket]

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.

[innerSpaceman]

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

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

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'?

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

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.

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.

[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

[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.

[innerSpaceman]

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.