Thoughts On The "Gay Agenda"?

Post Reply New Topic

Anyone here of this accusation against gays that homosexuals are trying to rape the minds of children and corrupt society!? It humors me sooo much how people believe that! Thoughts?

Ohhh and a funny conversation I had with someone who is transgender. I talked about how there is no gay agenda and he replied, "Well actually we do have an agenda: Peace, love, and happiness."

I'll concede that we have a common agenda, which is to work toward a more just and inclusive society for people of all sexual orientations. I can't see how this could seem in any way nefarious to anybody who believes in the ideals that this country was founded upon.

Last edited by Descartes on 11 Jul 2011, 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"Rape the minds of children and corrupt society"?

Do you mean, more so than violent video games, religious hypocrisy, and political bullsnot?

The only thing I can say about the "Gay Agenda" is that once they get what they want, they may find out that the having is less of an adventure than acquiring.

In other words, once they've won the race, I fully expect a massive, simultaneous outcry of "Is that all there is?".

I was a teenager, and then a young adult in the 80's when we were making our initial gains in this country. I was chatting with one of my best friends from this period and we lamented the fact that, "We used to be edgy. Now we're mainstream."

I don't know whether this is a middle aged lament for the lost idealism and vigour of youth, or whether we were truly happier when we were on the margins of society. I suspect the former, but I am too realistic to deny the latter.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckGaShCWbcE[/youtube]

I suspect both. Experience and wisdom usually trump youthful idealism, while being something of a non-conformist may make one feel special in some way.

This example is a bit of a stretch, but back in the early 1970s, I was the consummate Star Trek geek - owned some genuine props, made my own Starfleet uniforms, wrote fanfic, and could quote complete dialog from almost any episode. For about 10 years, this interest gave me something of an edge over non-Trekkie's, in that it felt like I was in a secret and exclusive club, complete with pass-phrases ("Open hailing frequencies" ... "If I have to open hailing frequencies one more time..."), recognition signs (the "Vulcan Salute"), and trivia (Spock's mother's maiden name was "Grayson").

But once the second and third movies were released, everybody seemed to be in on my little secret society, and it just stopped being special - my private little world had become mainstreamed, and I no longer felt special for being a Trekkie. Any more, I'll channel-surf right past any Star Trek episode or movie to get to the cooking channel.

Star Trek used to be edgy, now it's mainstream ... now that Trekkies finally fit in with "normal" society, I no longer care about being a Trekkie, meeting other Trekkies, or even watching the show.

Or, as Spock once said, "... You may find that having is not so pleasing a thing as wanting. This is not logical, but it is often true." ("Amok Time", episode #30, production code #34, first broadcast on September 15, 1967 - First episode of the second season.)

Hey I have one, how about the "Straight Agenda"? To overpopulate our planet with offspring so that we will eventually run out of food and resources to support our human species, and then we all go extinct from massive starvation.

That's an agenda I think can be supported by fact.

How about an "Intellectual Agenda"? This is where people with intelligence and education have two children or less, thus limiting both intelligence and educations to a minority elite, while less intelligent and under-educated people breed like rabbits, thus providing a large population of landscapers, dog-walkers, and fast-food workers. There may be ample evidence to support this idea, as well!

The only problem I ever have with any sort of gay "agenda" is when it's the end that justifies some unpleasant means, a pitfall unfortunately common to emotional causes. We had it happen right here on WP when a member was subjected to some pretty vicious cyberbullying by other Aspies who thought that the member's religious objection to homosexuality made him a fair target for 4chan style impersonation and mockery. I'm also thinking of things like the lawfirm that was pressured into dropping the DOMA case by gay activists, the same tactic used by right wing activists against lawyers representing accused terrorists. Good cause in this case, but abusive tactics are abusive tactics.

Out of curiosity, are you referring to Ragtime's Homosexuality Decoded topic? If you are, then I'm not inclined to believe that mocking someone's beliefs necessarily constitutes bullying. Plus, a lot of people seemed to find his original post offensive, anyway.

As for your point about the DOMA case, I'm sure a lot of people would react negatively toward any lawfirm that was defending what they believe to be an unjust law.

I don't disagree about the offensive nature of the posts in question--but one person's offensiveness does not give license to those offended to respond in kind, or worse.

I think it's important to draw a distinction between rebuttal and mockery. I feel no remorse for demonstrating that a person's beliefs are unsound because they are illegal, or likely to cause more damage than the mischief that they are intended to solve. But I never feel that I have license to cross the line between rational debate and mockery.

I may think that a person who believes something must be, "mad, bad or stupid," but when I have said so, intemperately, I have properly been called out for it.



Here I disagree with you fundamentally. No litigible issue should ever be foreclosed from a full and fair hearing before the courts. I believe that DOMA is an intolerable affront to both "full faith and credit" and to the fourteenth amendment but I would never seek to abridge the right of litigants to argue the merits of their case.

It depends on one's debating style, I guess. I personally believe that mockery can be a legitimate form of argument and debate, so long as it doesn't cross over the threshold into insult. Saying that someone's opinions are foolish is not the same as saying that that person who holds those opinions is foolish.



It was the law firm which decided not to defend the law. The lawyer resigned from that law firm in relatiation so that he could continue to defend the law. But you probably know more about legal matters than I do, anyway.

*shrugs* A is A. Someone believes something mad, bad and stupid ("my sadistic excuse for a God will torture you for eternity, ner ner ne ner ner") then odds are good they're mad, bad and stupid. Go ahead and say it.

Nope, different member, he'll know who he is if he see this but I won't name him unless given permission. What happened was inexcusable though, people created phony accounts here using picture and information about him and his wife gleaned from his social networking sites to make posts suggesting that he was gay himself or into kinky sex practices, etc. Then after the mods cracked down, that same info was used to create dummy profiles across the net on both social networking and dating/sex sites with similar insinuations worked in, but with enough accurate info including his real name to make it look legit. This went on for several weeks, and you know how hard that stuff is to take down and if an employer or someone googles you it can really mess you up, so the guy is still beyond distraught over all of it. This is a fellow Aspie we're talking about here, and this was all done by other Aspies who still think they were in the right because they were doing it to a "homophobe". That's what I mean by people taking the "rightness" of their cause and using it to justify odious means, and it's especially dangerous because it can be used as a hammer when religious types claim the mantle of victimhood for themselves. Read this:

http://advocate.com/printArticle.aspx?id=156878

I unironically support the 'teaching' of homosexuality in k-12 education.

I don't support teaching homosexuality in the classroom.

Today's kids should learn it the way I had to: in the locker room!!