4 ms·

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
        [deleted]
        lotharbot 12y ago
        > "indefensible interpretation" They believe they have defenses for their interpretations, and that's all that should matter from a religious liberty perspective. Neither you nor I nor the government qualify as the final arbiter of "true Christianity" or "correct Bible interpretation" (or "true Islam" or "true Mormonism" or any of the other religions which might object to same-sex marriage.) It's not my place, or yours, or the government's, to force our understanding of what the Bible says onto groups that think the Bible (or the Pope or the Synod) says otherwise. If members of the community wish to perform acts which are against a particular church's beliefs, they don't need to perform those acts in that church (and if you want bacon, you don't need to shop at a kosher deli.) There are plenty of alternatives -- like you said, other churches that will happily perform those ceremonies for them, or even the courthouse. EDIT: just so there's no misunderstanding: I support your right to have whatever relationship you want to have with whatever consenting adult(s) you want to have it with. But none of us have the right to tell anybody else that they have to participate in the celebration of any relationship. (If a church wants to turn away Brittney Spears because her understanding of marriage offends them, that's also their right.)
- prewett 12y ago
  I'm not sure who "they" is talking about in this thread, so I might be a little off here, but it definitely goes beyond acknowledging existence. People have acknowledged homosexuality for thousands of years (that's why there is a word for it). What the LGBT community wants is acceptance that it is a acceptable form of sexual expression. I definitely feel like there is some amount of "pushing homosexuality on everyone" that has been going on the past five or ten years. It's no longer socially acceptable to think that homosexuality is wrong or an unhealthy sexual expression. Even donating to an anti-homosexuality lobby can get you pressured to resign [1]. Depending on the state you live in, you may have to accept gay marriage, even if it violates what you feel like marriage is. I don't know if sex-ed in schools is teaching it yet, but if not, I assume it is just a matter of time. If homosexuality is an unhealthy expression of sexuality, you won't want your kids exposed to that, but, no choice. For people who agree that LGBT is acceptable, this probably feels like progress. For people who view LGBT as unhealthy sexual expression, the net effect feels a lot like "pushing homosexuality" on us. [1] Brendan Eich, former Mozilla CEO
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.
    - wtbob 12y ago
      It's not that easy though. 'Marriage' has stopped meaning 'a lifelong union for the goal of producing and raising children, breakable only under certain very constrained circumstances, and therefore upon which spouses, children and society may rely as a foundation' and has started meaning 'legal recognition of the fact that two people currently enjoy one another's company and wanted to have a big party.' Due to this change in society, it is difficult and becoming more so to marry in the older sense. The more people who adopt the latter meaning, the fewer will retain the older. And even those who think they do are inevitably influenced by the rest. I don't care much more about two homosexuals claiming to have married one another than I do about someone claiming to be a prophet or the reincarnation of Galileo; what worries me is the continued removal of any meaning from marriage.
- worklogin 12y ago
  Whew! Got quite the downvotes. If one were to say, "I support legal equality for LGBT couples compared to straight couples", as well as "I question the health of LGBT acceptance in society", would you find their opinion repugnant? If so, then you're pushing LGBT on everyone. For the record, I truly support legal equality, and don't see how accepting LGBT in society is harmful. But the above example is a reflection of many more people than the echo chamber at HN would like to acknowledge.
  - Arnor 12y ago
    Still some mental gymnastics going on here. 1. What I find repugnant doesn't push anything on anyone. 2. My comment had nothing to do with what you or I do, it had to do with the above comment about Disney and Coke showing LGBT people in shows and ads. By this logic, your logic, they have been "pushing" straight, black, hispanic, white, Christian, Jewish, youth, and elderly on us for years. Having the individual (or couple) on the show/ad does not in and of itself "push" anything. That's absurd.
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.

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
        [deleted]
        lotharbot 12y ago
        > "indefensible interpretation" They believe they have defenses for their interpretations, and that's all that should matter from a religious liberty perspective. Neither you nor I nor the government qualify as the final arbiter of "true Christianity" or "correct Bible interpretation" (or "true Islam" or "true Mormonism" or any of the other religions which might object to same-sex marriage.) It's not my place, or yours, or the government's, to force our understanding of what the Bible says onto groups that think the Bible (or the Pope or the Synod) says otherwise. If members of the community wish to perform acts which are against a particular church's beliefs, they don't need to perform those acts in that church (and if you want bacon, you don't need to shop at a kosher deli.) There are plenty of alternatives -- like you said, other churches that will happily perform those ceremonies for them, or even the courthouse. EDIT: just so there's no misunderstanding: I support your right to have whatever relationship you want to have with whatever consenting adult(s) you want to have it with. But none of us have the right to tell anybody else that they have to participate in the celebration of any relationship. (If a church wants to turn away Brittney Spears because her understanding of marriage offends them, that's also their right.)
prewett 12y ago
I'm not sure who "they" is talking about in this thread, so I might be a little off here, but it definitely goes beyond acknowledging existence. People have acknowledged homosexuality for thousands of years (that's why there is a word for it). What the LGBT community wants is acceptance that it is a acceptable form of sexual expression. I definitely feel like there is some amount of "pushing homosexuality on everyone" that has been going on the past five or ten years. It's no longer socially acceptable to think that homosexuality is wrong or an unhealthy sexual expression. Even donating to an anti-homosexuality lobby can get you pressured to resign [1]. Depending on the state you live in, you may have to accept gay marriage, even if it violates what you feel like marriage is. I don't know if sex-ed in schools is teaching it yet, but if not, I assume it is just a matter of time. If homosexuality is an unhealthy expression of sexuality, you won't want your kids exposed to that, but, no choice. For people who agree that LGBT is acceptable, this probably feels like progress. For people who view LGBT as unhealthy sexual expression, the net effect feels a lot like "pushing homosexuality" on us. [1] Brendan Eich, former Mozilla CEO
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.
  - wtbob 12y ago
    It's not that easy though. 'Marriage' has stopped meaning 'a lifelong union for the goal of producing and raising children, breakable only under certain very constrained circumstances, and therefore upon which spouses, children and society may rely as a foundation' and has started meaning 'legal recognition of the fact that two people currently enjoy one another's company and wanted to have a big party.' Due to this change in society, it is difficult and becoming more so to marry in the older sense. The more people who adopt the latter meaning, the fewer will retain the older. And even those who think they do are inevitably influenced by the rest. I don't care much more about two homosexuals claiming to have married one another than I do about someone claiming to be a prophet or the reincarnation of Galileo; what worries me is the continued removal of any meaning from marriage.
worklogin 12y ago
Whew! Got quite the downvotes. If one were to say, "I support legal equality for LGBT couples compared to straight couples", as well as "I question the health of LGBT acceptance in society", would you find their opinion repugnant? If so, then you're pushing LGBT on everyone. For the record, I truly support legal equality, and don't see how accepting LGBT in society is harmful. But the above example is a reflection of many more people than the echo chamber at HN would like to acknowledge.
- Arnor 12y ago
  Still some mental gymnastics going on here. 1. What I find repugnant doesn't push anything on anyone. 2. My comment had nothing to do with what you or I do, it had to do with the above comment about Disney and Coke showing LGBT people in shows and ads. By this logic, your logic, they have been "pushing" straight, black, hispanic, white, Christian, Jewish, youth, and elderly on us for years. Having the individual (or couple) on the show/ad does not in and of itself "push" anything. That's absurd.

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.