Haus: You know, I just have no idea what this seeks to achieve...
Mainly, to put an end to what alas noted.
alasThe people who use the term "homosexual agenda" do not see same sex desire as anything except "sinful."
Because I think the only reason that
Our Lady Has Lost All Hope: Agenda has a sinister ring to it.
and
LykeX: that it implies some sort of conspiracy.
and
LykeX: [it implies] that all homosexuals are part of some secret organization working in the shadows.
is that the people who use the term get to frame what the agenda is. If the only people who are using it are those who oppose it, surely this is going to make it sound bad. But I wrote this yesterday, sometime after a committee meeting. Everyone was handed an agenda, and no one thought it was the least bit sinister. Some of us didn't care about most of the items on it, and I know I would rather have been watching football than looking at financial reports. I will admit that the term agenda does imply a list of things to be done, but it hardly implies that everyone involved really gives a damn.
Ganesh: "fighting AIDS" is, I suspect, neither here nor there.
I included it in the list based on history, but, like the rest of the list, intended no essential connection between the fight against AIDS and homosexuality. But I do get the impression that, because of the history, it has a kind of special importance among gay advocacy or support organizations. It's only an impression, though. If you say it has no such special importance, then I will concede.
alas: partly because becoming queer is not typically experienced as a political indoctrination, as this term seems to imply,...
I'm not sure how to address this, except to say that it just seems very strange to me. It doesn't seem to imply anything of the sort to me.
alas: The people who use the term "homosexual agenda" do not see same sex desire as anything except "sinful." They see the world in strictly religious terms, typically.
A little bit off topic, but ... A couple articles I read in the New York Times last year said that, in China, homosexuality was considered very taboo and that such a culture contributes to the spread of AIDS. I would be curious to know whether this results from a strictly religious outlook. It is certainly possible, since, despite all of communism's efforts, religion doesn't seem to go away, but I'm not so quick to blame religion on this one. It might be interesting, in another thread, to consider the sexual imagery of God used by religion to emphasize intimacy and how such a theology would affect sexual morals.
alas: So these folks use terms like "homosexual agenda" to frame queer persons as nefarious political agents, whose every action in the culture is suspect and, in fact, a priori, illegitimate. And that labeling has the effect of erasing everything else--the piano playing, the ability to work with numbers, the whatever...
I think the main problem with what people call labeling is the identification of a complex concept with one of its simpler elements. The concept of a miserly rich person is a perfectly fine concept, but we make a mistake when we identify it with the concept of a rich person. (The word labeling seems to me more like naming, and I'll be damned if there's something wrong with naming). I started this thread called "the homosexual agenda," but I probably had to make that disclaimer at the bottom of my post. That was, unfortunately, because I don't trust barbelithers not to make the conclusion that I'm anti-gay if I use the term. Well, maybe that's an unfair feeling towards this board. Anyway, I've no doubt that many people do use the term "homosexual agenda" in a way that identifies complex concepts with their simpler elements, but the best corrective to this, surely is not to agree that a gay agenda would indeed be a sinister thing but deny that any such thing exists. Again, our disagreements may stem from completely different understandings of the meaning of the term itself. You folks seem to agree with the radical right that it means something bad.
Haus: I don't identify as homosexual, and I'd advance that as a goal. I don't see anything specifically "homosexual" about it ... this strikes me as part of a liberal political agenda. (Emphasis hirs)
It is especially pertinent to people who are gay and lesbian (and the like). I, like most heterosexuals, have no fear of being rejected if my heterosexuality is discovered. I have never had any fear of being physically harmed because of it. I do not have to hear anyone seriously call me unnatural for fancying women, or thinking I need to be cured of it. This is why it isn't merely an agenda pertaining to sexual orientation but one pertaining to homosexual, et al, orientation.
I wouldn't call it a liberal political agenda. In my initial post, I tried to frame something that isn't necessarily political at all. At least, none of the items needs to be related to the government, at all. But that it is part of a liberal agenda I won't dispute. It certainly isn't identical with a liberal agenda, though. I mentioned nothing about the poor, the minority races, the dangers of militarism, the dangers of religion, publicly controlled healthcare, or any other issue that might be considered liberal or left-wing.
As far as the question of how I, a straight man, would sign on to the homosexual agenda, well...
Sean the frumious bandersnatch: they don't seem to consider the homosexual agenda as being exclusively the domain of homosexuals.
and I don't either.
Haus: [Item 5] is just silly, although this thread may be of interest.
It may, but the link is broken. This one should work, though. |
) to mean something quite different to the original intention of the word.