Talk:Homosexual agenda/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

First Paragraph has degraded into POV

As of 19 June 2006, over the last 7 days, this article's first paragraph has gone fron Neutral to POV (looks like gay POV to me). I am disappointed. For example it is described as a "a term used by those opposed to the LGBT rights movement" but there is no evidence that all or most of the people who oppose LGBT Rights use this term. I also see no evidence that those who use this term are concerned with every aspect of the LGBT Rights movements, but only with those issues that they consider to be of concern to them. In otherwords, this current paragraph labels incorrectly. While this may be a sort of true statement, the way this is worded is too strong... it is POV and value laden. It labels incorrectly and without validation. The "especially to conservative Christians" statement... Where is the poll of Conservative Christians that makes this label so pervasive? This blatent labeling of the people who use the term is simply biased and POV. That phrase used to be an sort of an after thought or a secondary thought and as such, it was more appropriately positioned with respect to its importance. Finally, I do not know that "often" those who take the term seriously would use it satirically or sarcastically. Some might -- sometimes, but is that often? I do not think so.

Please remove the POV. I think that somewhere back about 12 June the first paragraph was much better. By better, I mean neutral and non-judgmental. --Anon 64 04:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, how is the current version SUPERIOR in NPOV to this version below?

What I see as the better paragraph

The Homosexual Agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by opponents to describe the goals of gay rights activists to increase acceptance of homosexuality in public policies, media, and culture. It refers to what they see as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and to shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is offensive to some gay rights supporters[4], who see the goals of the movement to be merely advocating equal rights.

vs the Current Paragraph

homosexual agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by those opposed to the LGBT rights movement, especially conservative Christians and other social conservatives in the United States, to describe what they see as the attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from what they consider traditional morality. The term is considered offensive by many,[1], particularly those who see the goals of the movement to be equal rights. Often, those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically.[2][3]

Seems to me that one test of NPOV is how little reaction it creates. How relatively boring and yet complete it is in concept. I think the former paragraph is far superior to the latter paragraph in this regard. --Anon 64 05:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The current version has evolved because of problems with the earlier version you cited above. (1) the gay rights movement is much broader than "gay activists" (not to mention that in these contexts "gay activist" is usually used in a derogatory way), (2) as the Dobson quote shows, the term refers to an agenda supposedly broader than increased acceptance, (3) the older version isn't clear that "what they see as" modifies "traditional morality", (4) the older version doesn't mention satirical use of the term, which is common (see discussion above), (5) most users of the term are conservative Christians (a quick google search evidences this), (6) most users of the term (except satirically) oppose the LGBT rights movement (note that the article doesn't claim the converse, that most opposers of the movement use the term -- I think you asked for a citation for the latter claim -- we can add "some" if it's ambiguous though). Fireplace 05:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You mention "problems" with the former version, and yet you do not really show any or you get it wrong. For example, you mention "gay rights movement" as much broader. Yes it is broader and because it is broader it is also wrong from what I can tell. The people who use this term of "Homosexual Agenda" are mainly concerned with the actions of ACTIVISTS. In fact, this seems to be a theme in their writings... some sense of a cabal of secret ACTIVISM. Further, you mention the "Dobson Quote" but that one person sees things one way does not mean that this is the general rule. That is, in fact, a part of my problem with the term "Homosexual Agenda as well - a general labeling that is simply too broad. But at least editors of Wikipedia do not have to be just as bad as the people who use the terms "homosexual agenda". And that is what you are doing. Note, also, that the term was not "gay activist" but "gay rights activist". That was deliberate: Many of the activists are NOT gay. I do not see what is offensive about "gay rights activist" -- how is that offensive? (Good grief I feel that the world is getting full of trifling, trivial people if they are so easily offended!). I do not have a problem with "what they see as" modifying traditional morality, because that is a fact, it is their perception of traditional morality. (I consider perception to be relatively more important than reality in such cases). I think that was clear before. The satirical use is NOT common. It sometimes happens. As far as a quick Google Search, I just did one and here is what I found.... with a search of "Homosexual Agenda" I reviewed the first 10 pages that came up. The ONLY page out of these 10 that used the term "Conservative Christian" (or had the word "conservative" and "Christian" in anywhere near close proximity) was the first page, where these "Conservative Christians" were being made FUN OF. In other words, that term was apparently used to degrade them. Most sites were silent on the matter of "christianity" though 2 had the word in there. Several more had the word "Conservative" but it was far from a majority. And from my own personal and not insignificant experience on the matter, there are MANY people who are barely religious or not religious at all, who hold the views described here. So this labeling is probably inappropriate, particularly in the structure of the sentence where it is given such distinct notice. It is just incorrect. As far as "most users" of the term, I am not sure you are right. Perhaps more cites from Google, but I am not sure that counts as "most users of the term". Gays use the term often enough (and without being sarcastic) that, even if others use it more, it is not so exclusive as to be written up as though it were practically universal. As far as the sarcastic use, I agree that some do that. Should we really list the secondary useages of the term as though this were a dictionary? I think it would be appropriate to mention "other uses" in a separate section, not in the heading. ----Anon 64 00:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Have to say that I agree with your points. The current version fixes problems found in previous ones. Al 06:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Have to say that I disagree. As I pointed out above. I am very much opposed to the current version. I think it has FAR more problems, including both bias and inaccuracy.--Anon 64 00:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - "gay rights supporters" in the old version was misleading as it implies some subset of people whereas most people who don't think homosexuality is a sin realize the term is used agressively and object to it. The sub set is actually the people who use this term seriously. Sophia 07:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that "Gay rights supporters" was ever in the previous version. It was "gay rights activists". And it INTENTIONALLY implies a subset of people. That is because IT IS A SUBSET OF PEOPLE. The term "Homosexual Agenda" is a silly term. It does not really exist any more than a "Homeowners Agenda" exists. Yes, there are some homeowners who have agenda. And some that agree with each other. But they do not represent all Homeowners. That is what I see as offensive to the term "Homosexual Agenda". It lumps everyone into a big group. I have said this all along. Homosexuals are far more diverse than this and some even oppose the so-called "homosexual agenda". So it is not an accurate term, but it serves the purpose of a sound-bite society. Having said that, YOU seem to be turning it into a term for GENERAL GAY BASHING, which it is NOT. You are so worried about its "offensiveness" to some that you have turned the paragraph into a total POV pushing slant.

To reiterate -- I am ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED to a version that works to declare this term to be "Gay Bashing" as you have put it. I do not agree that there is "a" homosexual agenda or even "the" homosexual agenda, so in that regard, I think the people who use the term are incorrect. However, I DO believe that what these people are calling "the homosexual agenda" is the effort by ACTIVISTS (not everyone) to make changes that they do not like. I do not think this is the same as Gay Bashing. And you evidently do. As a result, you have colored this article in a strong POV. I think you do not even see it. But it is very clear to me immediately.

Again, we should try for something that does NOT read like a pamphlet by one group or the other. Something smooth, flat and boring. You have not succeeded and I am utterly opposed to the current version because I consider it to be 1) innacurate, 2) biased and 3) feeding negative stereotypes on both sides. --Anon 64 00:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In some of the archived discussions, I have outlined why I believe that the version you prefer was poorly phrased--this was mostly grammatical, but partially content-based. I am not sure I see why you believe the current version sounds like a pamphlet. I think it is much better than the version you prefer.--Bhuck 12:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Anon has a point when it comes to what some opponents say they mean by "homosexual agenda," as they sometimes later state "homosexual activists" in quotes or articles employing the term "homosexual agenda." That being said, I think there are problems with Anon's revision. The activist/homosexual distinction can be addressed elsewhere in the article. Gibbsale 21:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

While I would not suggest that they are in favor of ANY homosexual activities, I think that their focus is not so much against homosexual activities as it is against what they view as activist efforts to change the social structure of society. This is, to my eye, a different thing than what is worded in the current intro, which makes it seem like just general opposition to all things gay. Such opposition may ALSO attend with some of these folks but the term "Homosexual Agenda" seems specifically related to just these activist things not to all behaviors. And I think that the first paragraph should be right. --Anon 64 08:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think using the term "opponents" without clear reference to what they are opposing is confusing. That is a problem with Anon's preferred version, and it is also a problem with your comment above. What opponents use the term "homosexual activists" in quotes?--Bhuck 22:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I how about this:

The Homosexual Agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used in the U.S. to describe the goals of gay rights activists to increase acceptance of homosexuality in public policies, media, and culture. Most often it is a term employed by social conservatives, in reference to what they see as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and to shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is offensive to some gay rights supporters[4], who see the goals of the movement to be merely advocating equal rights. Sometimes, those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically.[2][3]

It first simply defines the term. Then it limits its useage to detractors and defines their objections, while not ignoring the possiblity that others might use the term as well (and I am not just talking about sarcasim or satire). It then recognizes that some find it offensive but might use it differently. I debated putting "some" in front of gay rights activists, but found that too wordy and awkward. I also considered mentioning Conservative Christians as part of the social conservative comment but it is not just Conservative Christians, I did not want to list more, and so in the end I decided not to single out any particularly group. I debated however that it might be appropriate to mention "religiously oriented social conservatives" because, while there are exceptions, a sufficient number are from that perspective that it is a reasonable grouping.

It seems to me to retain some of the boring blandness that is appropriate to an NPOV effort on a controversial subject. --Anon 64 08:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see boringness and blandness as goals in and of themselves, but your suggested version is not so bad. I don't think the use of the term is limited to the US, though, even if it is most prominent there. Also, I am not sure if it is necessary (or accurate) to identify who it is that has as a goal the increasing acceptance of homosexuality. Suppose soccer moms were also in favor of increasing the acceptance of homosexuality in the media? I think social conservatives would still view the increasing acceptance of homosexuality as part of what they call the gay agenda. How would the first sentence in the following form be? "The Homosexual Agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used to describe the goal of increased acceptance of homosexuality in public policies, media, and culture." Then we could follow that with a sentence in which we say who uses it and also add that they believe that these are the goals of gay rights activists: "Most often it is a term employed by social conservatives, in reference to what they see as an attempt by gay rights activists to redefine marriage and family, and to shift focus away from what social conservatives consider to be traditional morality." In the following sentence, it would be better to change "the movement" to "the gay rights movement" to avoid ambiguity.--Bhuck 11:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that they are not goals. In fact, I would generally say that they are a bad thing. It is only when things are controversial and hot that I think blandness becomes a virtue. You may be right about the term not being limited to the US. I do not know for sure, but I think that in the general context of the fears about societal change, the term is more prevalent here... based upon a Google search. But I would defer to anyone with better information. And that really could be almost anyone in that regard. I think some soccer moms ARE in favor of that. I would argue that they are the "battlefield" between the activists supporting gay rights and those who oppose those same activists. I would agree that social conservatives would consider the development of acceptance of homosexuality as part of the so called gay agenda. It is, after all, outlined in that book that is cited. I think I like your first sentence. I like the idea of a quick and sort of direct first sentence that gets to the heart of it pretty quickly, followed by limiting (perhaps increasing limitations) in later sentences. That gets around some wording problems. Without seeing it all together I sort of like your version.--Anon 64 13:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

After trying to put it all together (forgive me if I ramble.. I am a bit tired) I think it is important to keep the sense of "activists" in there. To me this whole thing... is a reaction to activist efforts. It is only because of activists that this term exists. In fact, it could pretty much be said that it is not a homosexual agenda but rather a political activists's agenda supporting homosexuality in society. That would almost be so correct that I would not object to the term. The only minor problem with it is that some of these activists have somewhat different versions of what they want. But, you see, that is my sense of things and that is why I am so consistently focused on this being not a general gay bashing thing but labled for what it is... political activists battling back and forth for that soccer mom's opinion.

The term "Homosexual Agenda" was probably not coined to be particularly offensive, but probably to label that political activist effort. It is really a standard term in political circles. At this point it may not quite exactly rise to the level of vulgar propaganda, but it is clearly a part of this fight of words in the media. And both sides are playing with their own vocabularies.

It is, of course, complicated by the fact that when gays use the term, they are not offended by it, even when used as a criticism of activists' "agenda". But when others who are not gay use it for the same purpose, it is then declared offensive. This adds a layer of complexity that is annoying when trying to write and I originally did not like the sense of offensiveness because I felt it would greatly complicate the writing. But I have come to feel that it may really be offensive to some. Seems to me like it might be seeking for opportunities to be offended, but then, I am not in their shoes. And even then it is would be a real feeling of being offended even if it was pushed along by a motivation. I note that intentionally declaring that you are offended would "fit in" with the supposed agenda outlined in the book cited. If that were really the case, then we would be (againj) furthering the propaganda stuff. (I suppose, a cynic would say... its offensive because it exposes their tactics!!!) But I think that some (not all) might really be offended. It is certainly easy to be offended if you have your attenna out for any injury, and people who feel persecuted tend to do that. It could be offensive if only because gays are automatically lumped together as though they were some sort of automaton borg-like entity (de humanizing). Or because it is emotionally hooked in their minds with an effort to quash their goals and so the term is at least unsettling and seemingly reeks of hatred for them. As I said, I doubt that was the intent, but it could be the effect, and so I agree that the first paragraph should mention this feeling of offense, even though there is some chance we are being manipulated. Weighed in the balance I think it is the right side to take. I know its inclusion is not currently an issue but I wanted to digress upon why some of this is so hard to write cleanly. --Anon 64 14:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I can support Anon 64's first paragraph in this section. Sorry for not commenting sooner, but I've been away. DavidBailey 11:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)