Talk:Homosexual agenda/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Satirical use of the term

The following text was removed from the article: "Often, those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically." (with two references.)

This sentence is true (see here, [www.cafepress.com/gayapparel.56054025 here], here, here, here, here, here, etc.) I don't see how the sentence is sarcastic or derogatory. This is analogous to last paragraph in feminazi. We can play with the wording, but such use is widespread and warrants inclusion. Fireplace 22:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It is dripping with disdain. It is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. period. DavidBailey 03:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Totally disagree. It captures the attitude of the "other" side of the debate, i.e. sarcastic. CovenantD 03:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The content of the references are dripping with disdain, and that's the point: the term is often used satirically (the top google hit for "homosexual agenda" is the betty bowers article). The description of the satirical use is bland and neutral. Fireplace 06:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
References to the satirical use are very important - as Fireplace says - it's the top hit on google. Sophia 10:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

New Section

Perhaps to help settle the discussion, I will add a concept for a new section that may fit

Examples of Other Uses of the Term

Though the term "Homosexual Agenda" is predominantly used by external critics such as social conservatives, it is also used in other contexts:

  • Appropriation by Gay Rights Activists Bishop Gene Robinson, addressing the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America on 14 June 2006, for example, declared that "Jesus is the homosexual agenda in the Episcopal Church".
  • Judicial Reference U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent in the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas that the "law-profession culture... has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda".[9] The majority opinion of the Court contained no reference to this term.
  • Travel Some Websites promote Gay Friendly establishments in various locations and call this listing a "Gay Agenda" or "Homosexual Agenda".
  • Publishing In the 1980's a magazine was published in Denmark called "The Gay Agenda".
  • Satire (Put some of the satire examples here)
  • Internal Criticism (There are some sites where gays criticize the "Homosexual Agenda").
--Anon 64
I don't think this is necessary. First, the "appropriation", "travel", "satire" cases are already discussed and cited in the introduction. I don't think we need to belabor the point. Second, the "judicial" case is a paradigm example of the social conservative use - I don't think it counts as an "other context". I haven't checked on the magazine, but I imagine it's also one of the two. "Internal criticism" is a mix of the original and the appropriating uses... if it's widespread enough, it could be mentioned in the intro. As you said above, this doesn't need to be a long article. Fireplace 05:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I did not check the links in the first paragraph. I kinda (about 60%) agree with you about the judicial case example. It does not bug me to reject this part of the article but it does not bug me to include it. I thought that perhaps some of the other instances could be brought down here. My main motivation was to have a section that might meet some of David Bailey's concerns. I would not go so far as to say I am advocating it, I would say I am opening it as a suggestion. I have no strong sense of ownership here but we have not heard what David Bailey or Polinators concerns are. --Anon 64 12:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I have voiced my concerns on many occasions. The thought process is like this. The religious section discusses why social conservatives tend to oppose the gay activists. This is relevant when discussing the idea of a "homosexual agenda". At the requests of many of the editors, this section has been reduced to a mere paragraph with a pointer to the Gay opposition article. It matters. It's relevant. It shouldn't be removed. The quote from Justice Antonin Scalia is a good sample of probably one of the best-known figures in US society using the quote. It matters. It's relevant. I want to hear why those of you who feel it should go think it doesn't matter and it isn't relevant. DavidBailey 02:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I disagree with your thinking on many levels. I shall respond again and explain how, but at the same time, I shall also consider what you are saying. --Anon 64 02:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I look forward to hearing your views. DavidBailey 03:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

lead section

I know I've stepped in to a fiery edit zone, making changes to the lead section, but I don't think I changed the sentiment. Just tightened it up a little. I'm happy to discuss my reasoning and any objections to the changes! ntennis 12:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As you said, it was just a bit of tightening. I have no objections to it, and I can't imagine why anyone else would, either. It's nice to sometimes have edits that aren't controversial. Al 12:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I like some of the changes, but as we've recently finally achieved consensus over the introduction, I think changes should be proposed here first. One advantage of the current version is that it allows for Anon64's distinction between opposing social change and opposing, say, discrimination against gays. Fireplace 13:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Any "consensus" there is, is completely one sided. As I've repeatedly pointed out, the terminology and the gist of the page is pro - homosexual, as it stands. It is couched in terms of a "civil rights" dispute, which capitulates to the pro-homosexual side. The "other side" (which probably is the majority of Americans), does not see it as a civil rights issue. Whenever there are citizen votes on same-sex marriage, they are consistently against it. The article currently quotes one Episcopal bishop, definitely in a minority, but never even states the majority opinion. Many African Americans (again probably the majority) who have been involved in a battle fof civil rights are offended that homosexuals couch their project in terms of civil rights. The article leans wa-a-a-a-a-ay to one side and needs correction. I'll be working on it when I get some time. Pollinator 13:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The only discussion of civil or equal rights shows up in (1) the introduction, which says that LGBT advocates have found the term offensive and why, and (2) the "Opposition to the term's use" section, which does the same. Sometimes editors object to the term "gay rights", but here it (with one exception) is only used in the context of "gay rights movement", which accurately describes the movement without making assumptions about the legitimacy of the term "gay rights". So, I don't think the article is framed as a civil rights dispute. Fireplace 14:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. I have to confess I didn't read the talk page archives and I won't push the changes. ntennis 16:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


To Polinator and Bailey regarding NPOV

First I would like to mention that there has been a great deal of discussion going on previously and you did not really participate. Now you come in with objections when everyone else has come to an agreement. Your input would have been very valuable along the way. (Of course this is a bit of an exaggeration, because we are still along the way -- but you have waited a while). You also offer no alternatives other than to just go with what was there before. Something about that does not "feel" right to me, even if I am sympathetic to your concerns.

(To Polinator)I may understand your view in objecting to a "Civil Rights" perspective. In the US a "Right" is considered to be something inherent in the people. Not something granted by the state. Saying that these things are "rights" suggests that homosexual goals are legitimate natural extensions of the human condition. (that is, in fact a pretty close approximation to the Gay Rights statements). Christians particularly, but other Social Conservatives object that homosexuality is not "natural" or "normal" and thus not a legitimate natural extension of the human condition. Thus, to Social Conservatives, even discussing it as a "Right" is a concession toward normalcy. (As an aside, some say that this argument hinges on whether people are born gay or choose to be gay. I happen to disagree that this is the hinge, but that is a different discussion). There is no doubt in my mind that many many people around the world do NOT consider homosexuality normal or natural. So you may be right to say that this is a prevailing position. And if it is not normal or natural it may not be a "Right" But again, I would go back to WP:NPOV. I do not think that NPOV requires that we side with the majority view but that we either 1) display no view (preferred) or give reasonable voice to both perspectives. Personally I HATE the "heres one side now here's the other side" of doing an article - debate by Proxy. That sort of sucks most of the time. I think its much better to try to achieve the first goal of a single integrated neutral statement. I think that is where we should TRY to make our edits head. Doing so may seem like a defeat at first, but in my experience it also helps expand my thinking skills and strangely, in the end, I have found that agreement can be achieved -- if we have the same view of NPOV.

Surprising Discovery comes from keeping an open mind. Interestingly enough, your comment drives directly at the heart of this article (and perhaps argument) in a way that I had never seen before. Here is what I think it is: "Homosexual Agenda" may possibly be used INSTEAD OF the term "Gay Rights" in order to avoid presumption that homosexuality should be considered the basis for "rights". This has never entered my head before, and I have never seen it declared in that way before by either side, but that would certainly make sense of the "insult" that gays might feel from the term -- it is a denial of their identity as a case for rights! That could easily be conflated to feel like a denial of them as a human being! I must admit, I had not considered this before. So to a degree my mind may be expanded now.

I was able to get to that thought by trying to maintain an NPOV. So let me return to that topic for a moment. But rather than just refer to NPOV Guidelines and baldly say "My view is right and your view is wrong", let me describe specifically how I think this NPOV thing works.

Let's suppose that someone is a gay activist and believes that "Gay Rights" are absolutely necessary for a us to have a wonderful, peaceful, elegant, fair society and that indeed homosexuals are an elite crowd that help society advance in so many ways and anyway, as humans, deserve these rights. Ok, so to them, these things that may be enumerated as goals of the "Homosexual Agenda (or Gay Rights movement) are GOOD and NECESSARY". However, to express a Neutral Point of View, we cannot say that they are good or necessary. At best we can say something like "advocates say this is good and necessary" and even that sort of strays from neutral.

Now lets suppose that someone is religious and is sure that God will destroy America because of the sodomites and that such homosexual behavior is a threat to our way of life and our security as a people and as families. That person would say that Homosexuality is EVIL and DANGEROUS. Or at the very least he might say "Homosexuality is a behavior that does not accrue rights". But again, with wikipedia we cannot give out such opinions. That is part of the rules here. We could possibly state that some people consider the "Homosexual Agenda" (or Gay rights) to be wicked and dangerous or unwarranted but that starts to stray into POV as well and now we get into that argument by proxy thing.

It can get worse. For either side, and for some people --neutrality alone -- is sufficient to be viewed as biased. I recognize that and sometimes feel that way myself. But still, this is not (or at least I hope it is not) "SocialConservativesWiki" nor is it "GayFriendlyWiki". It is just Wikipedia and it has these foundations for NPOV.


POV and Article Length

By the way, this line of thought leads me to consider that additions to controversial articles are almost certainly going to increase the POV. A corollary to that observation is this: There may be a very small core number of statements - a tiny article - that everyone can agree on as factually true, reasonable and relevant and in the context of brevity, complete. It might be only a sentence or a paragraph. Whatever it is, there is some core and every statement that is added to that, is seen by someone as POV and then requires a delete or an opposing POV. Then you get into arguments.

So, while I USUALLY want articles to have all sorts of detail and additions, I tend to view controversial articles differently. The words should be bland and boring and the articles should be as short as possible. And perhaps Edits should focus more on deletion than addition since additions will almost always add to POV even if that is unintentional. To that end, I will, as an exercise, post here what I think is a pretty non POV article and try to keep it short. --Anon 64 00:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)