Talk:Homosexual agenda
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
[edit] No comma, lo marriage
Sorry for the pun... I removed the comma in the section about Michael Swift's essay, changing the sentence from
- "Nonetheless, the essay has been repeatedly cited by Christians, and others who describe themselves as socially conservative or philosophically traditional in their world view..."
to:
- "Nonetheless, the essay has been repeatedly cited by Christians and others who describe themselves as socially conservative or philosophically traditional in their world view..."
In doing so I hoped to wed the latter adjectives to "Christians" as modifiers of that group, hopefully while also allowing the interpretation of those adjectives to remain descriptive of non-Christians who hold those views, as it seems the sentence was constructed to segregate. My point is that the antithesis of gay rights et al is not Christians, but both non-Christians and "Christians...who [are] socially conservative..." and vocally represented as such in the sociopolitical sphere, and pushing this agenda. That may appear to have been the vast majority of them historically, and it would seem to be a (lesser) majority of them at the moment, but it is not all, and it is by making the whole shebang a zero-sum game that the thing gets its legs. In other words, if either "side" didn't view the other's liberty as mutually exclusive to its own, then there needn't be "sides" to begin with, and we all could just be what we are, which is either gay or straight or other, AND either Christian or non-Christian or other.
The irony, it seems to me, is that it is the counter-agenda which is the true agenda, and the counter-agenda is what perpetuates the idea of a "homosexual agenda" as well as the idea of such as being threatening. The simplistic characterizations of two monolithic groups at odds with one another add smoke to whatever fire there is, and draws those on both sides to supply more kindling rather than water, and those unaffiliated to be dazzled by the blaze rather than try to positively redirect the pointless expense of energy.
There are more than two sets of many things. There are many Christians who have no more opprobrium for gays than they do for straights who explore their sexuality outside of (read: before) marriage, meaning some have quite a bit to go around for all and others prefer to judge not, and happen to have this one cousin... Indeed, the vast majority pick and choose what sins they'll decry and what sins they'll try (they gave up stoning divorcees, those who don't adhere to dietary laws, and those who work on the Sabbath a long time ago), and a good chunk of them seem to have some of the same on both lists. It is another irony in a discussion which is, in its broadest sense, an issue of sexual minorities, to exclude the existence of religious ones. In fact, there are even well-balanced gay Christians. This article isn't primarily about the well-balanced, but with the removal of that comma, it allows for the interpretation that not all Christians are card-carrying, Michael Swift-citing members of this frenzy of philosophical traditionalism (read: ethnocentrism).
Respectfully, Abrazame (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- I understand why you made the change, but I think the difference is too subtle for the casual reader to notice. However, I have another idea: your amended version says that "[Christians and others] who describe themselves as socially conservative do this-and-this", i.e. it is about people who all describe themselves as socially conservative but may or may not be Christians. In that case, it seems to me that their religious status is now irrelevant because what makes them part of the relevant group is their conservatism (since some of their co-religionists, as you note, are not socially conservative). I have therefore altered "Christians and others who describe..." to "those who describe..." Marnanel (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Actually the prior version was just Christians and I think it was me who amended to state "and other social conservatives" as to not single out that it was only Christians. Benjiboi 16:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The important thing is that Christians who, in theory, would be acting "Christ-like", use the essay arguably in ways that would seem hypocritical to the spiritual guidance they would profess to offer in the name of their religion. If members of other religious sects are doing so we should probably note that as well. Benjiboi 02:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Individuals who define themselves as being Christian may or may not be socially conservative, and may be homosexual as well (as previously mentioned). Additionally, individuals who associate with other beliefs may or may not cite the article. Even though "and others who describe themselves as socially conservative" removes the stereotype that all who cite the article are Christian, including "Christians" is stereotypical in itself. It is minimally redundant, but possibly inaccurate since not all Christians are social conservatives (as suggested by "and others who describe..."). It's possible that using "social conservative" as an identifier is risky too, since individuals may have opinions that fall on different areas of the political spectrum. It might be safer (and annoying, I know) to instead use statements like "individuals typically socially conservative" or "individuals who share positions on homosexuality typically considered to be socially conservative positions" throughout the article.Oopsigotroot (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Where can one find a copy of the Homosexual Agenda?
Would it be at the Post Office, next to the tax forms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.61.40 (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, but you could always refer to the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto. Ashley VH (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
