6 ms·

> homesexual agenda Agenda? People only use that term when they're trying to imply something is somehow pushing homosexuality on the weak minded.

by Kudos 12y ago

worklogin 12y ago
Aren't you? Whether it's good or not, aren't you pushing homosexuality on everyone, saying, "It's not OK to disapprove of our lifestyle"?
- tommorris 12y ago
  What "lifestyle" is that, pray tell?
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  The context of someone saying "homosexual agenda" is generally "they're trying to convert our children!" paranoia, not just general disapproval.
  - jshevek 12y ago
    You list two contexts. a) "they're trying to convert our children!" paranoia b) general disapproval. There are at least two more: c) dispassionate acknowledgement d) outright support I absolutely, strongly support the LGBT community's agenda of making gay marriage legal, everywhere. Just because one hateful group of people uses a phrase in one particular way, doesn't mean we need to give them ownership of it, nor assume that everyone using the same term feels the same way they do.
- Arnor 12y ago
  No... They simply acknowledge that the roughly 4% of the population that identify with the LGBT community exists. It's a pretty far push from acknowledging existence to "pushing homosexuality on everyone." I'll leave as an exercise to the reader to identify the mental gymnastics required to come up with the phrase: "pushing homosexuality on everyone"
  - lotharbot 12y ago
    there are those who are trying to require religious organizations to perform same-sex weddings. I think that qualifies as "pushing"...
    - mkr-hn 12y ago
      So many have done it willingly, in advance of any pressure, that religion isn't a credible defense. edit: I just realized I got dragged way off topic by a troll. Whoops.
      - lotharbot 12y ago
        there's a great deal of diversity in religion. The fact that some religious groups have taken a particular stand doesn't make it "not pushy" to force other groups to follow. EDIT: for example, a lot of religions don't have a problem with pork, but some do. It would be pushy to require a kosher or halal deli to serve pork. Likewise, there are some who want to require, say, Southern Baptist churches to perform same-sex weddings; that's pushy.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        lotharbot 12y ago
        > "There's nothing in the bible saying they can't do that" ... in your understanding of the Bible. Not every Christian group agrees with the way you understand it. Also keep in mind that many Christian groups rely on more than just the Bible for authority (both Catholics and the Orthodox hold a very high view of tradition, compared to the Protestant view of tradition as dangerous.) There are also religious groups that aren't Christian which also have objections to performing same-sex weddings. Anyway, thank you for so beautifully illustrating my point.
        deleted 12y ago
- daughart 12y ago
  People don't call civil rights or women's rights "agendas," they call them "movements." Agenda is pejorative, pertaining to "underlying intentions"; whereas movement directly refers to the act of changing, and in other fields such as music indicates a progression or forward dynamic. Portraying gay people in media could have an advertising "agenda" (e.g. they have an intention of selling things by appearing gay friendly or progressive with respect to modern culture rather than an intention of advancing gay rights), but are still progressive in that media portrayals of gay people actually is a change, or forward progression, for a minority group.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
    "People don't call civil rights or women's rights "agendas,"" Sure they do, but they also use terms like "feminazi" and "race realism".
  - jshevek 12y ago
    Edit: Woah, my mistake! I thought you were responding to my statement above. My apologies. What is the etiquette on HN for this? Is it editing out my comment, which, given my misunderstanding of the context, is irrelevant to your statement? [ Did you read (critically) the comment I was responding to? I mostly agree with your statement, except for the implication you may be making that agenda always has this pejorative meaning. It simply doesn't. If you want to understand people, you should not assume that it always does. And we should not police people for choosing to bring the non-pejorative acknowledgement of the fact that groups have purposes and goals. If LGBT groups did not have agendas, they would not be worth supporting. ]
    - daughart 12y ago
      Hey, no problem. My issue is one of language itself. As someone who takes the english language very seriously, I don't ignore when someone makes the choice to use a particular word. Between our two comments, we have used the following set of words to roughly address the same concept (advancement of LGBT rights): [agenda, movement, purpose, goal]. Of these, only "agenda" has a secondary definition referring to underlying intentions or motives (even consider the word motive - "a reason for doing something, especially one that is hidden"). Writing is an act of art, and reading is an act of interpretation. These secondary definitions come into play when determining what someone means. Agenda is not purely pejorative, and it's true LGBT groups have agendas - they have plans of things to be done - they have motives - reasons for doing something. However, these attributes of LGBT groups could also be described with words that do not have any negative aspects, such as goals, plans, purposes, etc. >If you want to understand people... I assume people understand the words they use and intend to use them. If people use words without precision, how can they expect to be understood? As for etiquette... no idea ha. Made the same mistake myself.
- jackmaney 12y ago
  No. Next question, please--and try to make the next one far less stupid.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Voicing your disapproval causes real, actual, harm.
jshevek 12y ago
>> Agenda? People only use that term when they're trying to imply something is somehow pushing homosexuality on the weak minded. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Most individuals have agendas, and all organizations have (or should have) agendas. We should all be able to talk honestly about various agendas without having to toe some manipulative lines concerning presumed hidden meanings. Just because many homophobes, rightwingers, etc constantly harp on the 'homosexual agenda' as if its some scary monster, doesn't mean that LGBT rights organizations don't have agendas.
- Kudos 12y ago
  You're being pedantic, the term "(The) Homosexual Agenda" as distinct from any other use of the word agenda is what I was talking about. There are organisations representing homosexuals that have agendas, but that isn't the same thing.

> homesexual agenda Agenda? People only use that term when they're trying to imply something is somehow pushing homosexuality on the weak minded.

by Kudos 12y ago

> homesexual agenda Agenda? People only use that term when they're trying to imply something is somehow pushing homosexuality on the weak minded.

worklogin 12y ago

Aren't you? Whether it's good or not, aren't you pushing homosexuality on everyone, saying, "It's not OK to disapprove of our lifestyle"?

tommorris 12y ago
What "lifestyle" is that, pray tell?
ceejayoz 12y ago
The context of someone saying "homosexual agenda" is generally "they're trying to convert our children!" paranoia, not just general disapproval.
- jshevek 12y ago
  You list two contexts. a) "they're trying to convert our children!" paranoia b) general disapproval. There are at least two more: c) dispassionate acknowledgement d) outright support I absolutely, strongly support the LGBT community's agenda of making gay marriage legal, everywhere. Just because one hateful group of people uses a phrase in one particular way, doesn't mean we need to give them ownership of it, nor assume that everyone using the same term feels the same way they do.
Arnor 12y ago
No... They simply acknowledge that the roughly 4% of the population that identify with the LGBT community exists. It's a pretty far push from acknowledging existence to "pushing homosexuality on everyone." I'll leave as an exercise to the reader to identify the mental gymnastics required to come up with the phrase: "pushing homosexuality on everyone"
- lotharbot 12y ago
  there are those who are trying to require religious organizations to perform same-sex weddings. I think that qualifies as "pushing"...
  - mkr-hn 12y ago
    So many have done it willingly, in advance of any pressure, that religion isn't a credible defense. edit: I just realized I got dragged way off topic by a troll. Whoops.
    - lotharbot 12y ago
      there's a great deal of diversity in religion. The fact that some religious groups have taken a particular stand doesn't make it "not pushy" to force other groups to follow. EDIT: for example, a lot of religions don't have a problem with pork, but some do. It would be pushy to require a kosher or halal deli to serve pork. Likewise, there are some who want to require, say, Southern Baptist churches to perform same-sex weddings; that's pushy.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        lotharbot 12y ago
        > "There's nothing in the bible saying they can't do that" ... in your understanding of the Bible. Not every Christian group agrees with the way you understand it. Also keep in mind that many Christian groups rely on more than just the Bible for authority (both Catholics and the Orthodox hold a very high view of tradition, compared to the Protestant view of tradition as dangerous.) There are also religious groups that aren't Christian which also have objections to performing same-sex weddings. Anyway, thank you for so beautifully illustrating my point.
        deleted 12y ago
daughart 12y ago
People don't call civil rights or women's rights "agendas," they call them "movements." Agenda is pejorative, pertaining to "underlying intentions"; whereas movement directly refers to the act of changing, and in other fields such as music indicates a progression or forward dynamic. Portraying gay people in media could have an advertising "agenda" (e.g. they have an intention of selling things by appearing gay friendly or progressive with respect to modern culture rather than an intention of advancing gay rights), but are still progressive in that media portrayals of gay people actually is a change, or forward progression, for a minority group.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
  "People don't call civil rights or women's rights "agendas,"" Sure they do, but they also use terms like "feminazi" and "race realism".
- jshevek 12y ago
  Edit: Woah, my mistake! I thought you were responding to my statement above. My apologies. What is the etiquette on HN for this? Is it editing out my comment, which, given my misunderstanding of the context, is irrelevant to your statement? [ Did you read (critically) the comment I was responding to? I mostly agree with your statement, except for the implication you may be making that agenda always has this pejorative meaning. It simply doesn't. If you want to understand people, you should not assume that it always does. And we should not police people for choosing to bring the non-pejorative acknowledgement of the fact that groups have purposes and goals. If LGBT groups did not have agendas, they would not be worth supporting. ]
  - daughart 12y ago
    Hey, no problem. My issue is one of language itself. As someone who takes the english language very seriously, I don't ignore when someone makes the choice to use a particular word. Between our two comments, we have used the following set of words to roughly address the same concept (advancement of LGBT rights): [agenda, movement, purpose, goal]. Of these, only "agenda" has a secondary definition referring to underlying intentions or motives (even consider the word motive - "a reason for doing something, especially one that is hidden"). Writing is an act of art, and reading is an act of interpretation. These secondary definitions come into play when determining what someone means. Agenda is not purely pejorative, and it's true LGBT groups have agendas - they have plans of things to be done - they have motives - reasons for doing something. However, these attributes of LGBT groups could also be described with words that do not have any negative aspects, such as goals, plans, purposes, etc. >If you want to understand people... I assume people understand the words they use and intend to use them. If people use words without precision, how can they expect to be understood? As for etiquette... no idea ha. Made the same mistake myself.
jackmaney 12y ago
No. Next question, please--and try to make the next one far less stupid.
DanBC 12y ago
Voicing your disapproval causes real, actual, harm.

jshevek 12y ago

>> Agenda? People only use that term when they're trying to imply something is somehow pushing homosexuality on the weak minded. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Most individuals have agendas, and all organizations have (or should have) agendas. We should all be able to talk honestly about various agendas without having to toe some manipulative lines concerning presumed hidden meanings. Just because many homophobes, rightwingers, etc constantly harp on the 'homosexual agenda' as if its some scary monster, doesn't mean that LGBT rights organizations don't have agendas.

Kudos 12y ago
You're being pedantic, the term "(The) Homosexual Agenda" as distinct from any other use of the word agenda is what I was talking about. There are organisations representing homosexuals that have agendas, but that isn't the same thing.