Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Al Franken

2009-07-23T02:26:04Z

Cerveau: /* Photo */

==Layout==
Right now everything is in one long paragraph, if anyone wants to make it look more appealing, I have no problem with that, I'll probably do it my self when I have more time [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Quote==

I don't want to insert a fact tag, because those are ugly and usually not needed. But we really need a citation on that quote about being glad the homosexual was killed.... If this is posted with no backup and it's not true, it crosses the line. This would be pure libel [http://internet-law.lawyers.com/Libel-Online.html] and could get this site in serious trouble. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 17:48, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:Sources added, libel avoided. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry to seem a stickler... but I wouldn't slam the door on that yet... I mean, the first two are simply opinions columns (with the first linking to the second) as for the third. It's obviously genuine, but after reading through the article, it seems very poorly written. on top of that. This is a quote from 1976 (if it was even said.) I don't see why a 40 year old quote is relevant today. Many people change attitudes through experience. In 1976, Homosexuality was still conseridered a mental disorder in some circles. This seems much like drug charges that are often leveled at people... who cares? people change [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:34, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Not really a stickler; you just wanted accuracy. The first source may be an opinion column, but having that source come directly from a gay blog carries some weight in it; the other two lead to the actual source of the quote, which is Harvard University's newspaper...and Harvard has always been a bastion of liberal toleration and love, hasn't it? Whether or not it's relevent today is immaterial; the point is that Franken had actually said such a despicable remark. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:39, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::::(rolls eyes)Please...reading the original source article, Franken is ''clearly'' being sarcastic, expressing mock-anger that the Hasty Pudding people rejected the skit he wrote.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 18:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::I acutally agree with Ross. As for your earlier points. I don't think having it come from a gay blog gives it any more weight than not.... But that's another point. As for the other point, I disagree.. If we're going to trolling through everybody's past to find any type of bad thing they said and then assume with no context that this makes them a bad person.... well then by all means, go ahead... Besides, in terms of homsexuality, this site has said a lot worse than whatever Franken did or didn't say... I think the term "despicable remark" is a little out of place. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 19:02, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::In short, he gets a pass because he's a liberal, right? Not on this site. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Not suggesting he get a pass. Suggesting that it be made clearer that his statement was a (poor) attempt at humor.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:16, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
(unindent) It has nothing to with liberal or conservative.... But this site is demanding when it comes to quoting [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:TomMoore#Alleged_quotations certain people] I find it strange that we're so open when it comes to others.... I would argue that the liberal bias (in this case negative) is in my opponent. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:14, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==Books and credibility==

Is this the guy who wrote "Lies and the lying liars" or whatever it's called? I heard he tried to discredit someone with a charge of plagiarism, which '''he plagiarized''' from another source! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]

== Citations ==
There should be a citation for radical. If There's a reason to put it in the article, then, there should be a citation. [[User:LiberalSmack|LiberalSmack]] 11:12, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can't cite being a radical. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Changes==

I made a serveral major changes to the article, and I decided it would be easier to lay them out here point by point.
*Whatever your personal opinion about Franken, there is a fine line between character assassination and opinion reporting. Accusing someone of "masquerading as a 'satirist' who deliberately [[smears]] and [[defames]] people he disagrees with ... " with your ref being a site that exists only to attack Franken if hardly acceptable.
*The line "Franken's rudeness, vulgarity, and his tendency to make outrageously offensive comments." is completely out of place in an encyclopedia. Is this article meant to be an opinion piece? if so, by all means lets keep it in.
*"even in a state such as Minnesota known for electing wrestling stars as governors" Really? An Ad Hominem attack against an entire state? How about we add that California is a state that likes to elect has been B Movie actors? Not to mention, past governors have nothing to do with article.
*Regardless of whether or not you agree with the subtitle of the book, it's still part of the title. Personal feelings are immaterial. If his book was subtitled "Why all Conservatives should be shot." it's still part of the title and needs to be listed as such.
*We have no idea of seeign into a person's mind and decided what they believe or what they simply charge. In the book, Franken makes it clear that he feels everything he's writing is true, and we cannot extrapolate the facts to make decisions.
On a final note, the second proof of his hatred should be removed or better sourced. As it is now, the ref simply tells a story with no page numbers or proof whatsoever. I would just take it out now, but I'm sure my changes would be reverted. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 12:26, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:Franken's own work has shown a history of smearing and defaming; he doesn't try hard to cover it up as he has convinced himself he needs to be a counter-balance to the right. The title of his book on Rush Limbaugh would certainly qualify as rude, for instance - as well as being horribly insulting and politically incorrect to about 50 million Americans.
:Arnold had a history of positive political contributions, especially in the area of fitness. And Arnold never left office to make a large check being a guest referee for Wrestlemania while he was employed as a governor. The people of Minnesota took Ventura's victory with all of the respect it was due such as doing brisk sales with the 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. It is what it is. Politics in Minnesota stand out on their own merits.
:Franken has gone out of his way to push the envelope. Using the language from the Fox network in the title of his book. Calling his show O'Franken. And that's hardly all. We go by the fruits. How many people will tell you they have hatred? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::Well, considering the fan magazine article that is [[Ann Coulter]] on this site... I was under the mistaken impression that we gave a damn about honest reporting.... So you know what? screw it.... this site is doomed to fail if good hard work from editors is simply reverted, with a go screw message left on the talk pages.... Have fun with your blog. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 13:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::I have not been actively involved in the Ann Coulter article, but if you're saying we need to shield the truth about Franken or water it down to sound nice because you don't like the way Ann Coulter is written, then no, that's not the way it works. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I said nothing or the sort. I simply bring up the Ann Coulter article because it sounds like it's written by a 13 year old with a crush. I have no problem with including ciritisms against Al Franken... but this is beyond the line... It goes right along with the "He a liberal so we don't like him" party-line of this site. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 16:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
==No Response==
It's been several days, and I've received no response to my postings. Can I please have the common curtesy of a reply. None of my original points has been addressed, and the current version of the article still remains. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Franken&diff=435324&oldid=434391] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
::Your repsonse is a simple link to a week old response? Wow, just wow. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 13:17, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
:::You appeared to have missed it. So are you ever going to provide constructive information to this site, oh 'conservative doctor'? How about detailing medical procedures, various maladies, and details on medical instruments? I look forward to seeing your results. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Excuse me sir.... I have given you no reason to cast such doubt on my personal history, nor have I ever patronized you in such a matter. If you cannot conduct yourself in a civilized, decent mannor, I would ask that you not address me at all. As for my contributions to this site, and this page in particular, I find it quite obvious that you know this is pure garbage and simply choose to let it stand for ideaological reasons (aka, Franken is Liberal, so we defame and slander his name) and I will simply let it be. May I also ask you sir, what your chosen field of study is and what profession you work within? [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 12:34, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Of course you have given reason. If I claimed I was a devout Orthodox Jew, but I didn't show that I even understood any of the terminology and I was upset because the Hamas article didn't portray a kind picture of Hamas, then I would be lying as well. You had ample opportunity to show you could do more than talk. You failed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:47, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Learning, as I ''am'' a devout Orthodox Jew, let me assure you the [[Hamas]] paints '''too kind''' an image of them. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 06:56, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

== wrestling stars ==

I meant a source for the state ''being known'' for electing Ventura. I think the line is irrelevant OR. Seems like "Minnesotaphobia"... [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 02:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:It was big news for an extended period of time when it occurred my friend, and it was a position that the people of Minnesota themselves promoted with brisk sales of 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. When it comes to politics, Minnesota can do some odd things. Nevertheless, if you really want to remove you can do so, but realize there is validity to the statement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==The edits stay==
What I included was factually accurate; removing them because they were later considered to be just another Franken "joke" is not going to be allowed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:40, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Karajou, your attitude is not making this page any better... you simply revert anything you want to and then protect the page to prevent further editing. As for the Helen Thomas thing, I'm holding a copy of the book in my hands right now... he mentions this, saying in a footnote "The Helen Thomas think is a joke. In a number of right-wing blogs, this was cited as exhibit A in proving that my book was full of lies." Whether or not you like Franken or don't (and you obviously don't) It was intended as a joke. If you want to mention that his style of mixing fact with humor makes it difficult to tell the two apart, that's fine. But to continue repeating the blatant untruth that he lied about it just makes the entire sight look silly. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 14:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::My attitude? And your's doesn't count? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:31, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The Helen Thomas thing was corrected by Franken in the paperback edition, after the hardcover edition was mentioned and found out to be a lie by Skorski. You are the one who cannot handle the truth of the matter, and so far your attitude proves it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:33, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Occam's razor. The story from Franken is that the item was intended as a joke, but was misunderstood and corrected as such. Your explanation requires a vast Franken and publisher conspiracy, in which he lied about something that could easily be checked by even the most novice of investigators and even publicly disputed by the subject. Then, when he was outed, he invented the coverup of a joke.... Which situation seems more plausible? '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 16:45, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::You are aware of Hillary Clinton dodging sniper fire are you not? Perhaps that was also a joke? Occam's razor is a very poor instrument when it comes against human behavior. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for clearing up the issue by locking out any changes to the article! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:This is the talk page, why not propose and justify changes you want to see? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::It seems JDavidson tried to propose and justify changes. He was blocked. Also, Karajou makes it fairly clear about changes, "removing them because they were later considered to be just another Franken "joke" is not going to be allowed." Not much room for discussion there, it seems. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Karajou's edits were sourced. What changes do you want to make? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:28, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::That in the paperback copy, Al Franken footnotes the Helen Thomas story stating, "The Helen Thomas think is a joke. In a number of right-wing blogs, this was cited as exhibit A in proving that my book was full of lies."--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:30, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::So... you want the article to say that after his deceit was exposed he claimed it was a joke? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:32, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::No, I disagree that it was a deceit. When I read the book, I saw it as a joke---knowing that Al Franken is a satirist and a comedian.
:::::And here's another change, according to Karajou's source on the unemployment numbers (the Department of Labor statistics), 5.0% was not the lowest in decades (according to the 2005 interview). As Franken would point out, looking [http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm here] shows lower unemployment (sub 5%) every year from 1997 to 2001. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I suggest you wait for Karajou to deal with this. He will no doubt see your arguments and take them into consideration. Though you seem to be arguing against sourced material. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:41, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
(Unindent) I seem to be arguing against sourced material? Interesting perspective. Karajou posts a page from a book that says Franken is lying about unemployment numbers. Provides link to the actual numbers. The numbers show that Franken was correct. I guess Karajou may have a "source" but doesn't necessarily mean it's correct...especially when the "source's" source says otherwise. But I guess if it's in a book it must be true.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:17, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Do we do OR here? I can't remember. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:18, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I can't remember either...mostly because I don't know what you're talking about. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

As I've said, the edits stay. You can add the cavet about Franken admitting the joke about Thomas, etc, but the fact remains that Franken is a proven liar; his lies and mistatements have been well-sourced, and they will be posted here. And no, JDavidson, it's not because I dislike Franken...it's because nobody in their right mind should ever put such a man like Franken in the United States Senate, and I'm going to do my little duty to ensure Minnesota's voting public is informed about it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:35, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==This page==

this page currently reads like an Anti-Franken essay. I see numerous problems with it, but after looking through the history, I'm reluctant to step in and change anything, as it's rather obvious what happens to those that do. Is there anyway one of the sysops can at least tone down the blatant hatred. [[User:NateE|NateE]] 14:10, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:You certainly want to put down your concerns in the talk page first and what wording you would wish to use to address them, including any sources that you may wish to use. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:36, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::Seeing as what just happened [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Lies_and_the_Lying_Liars_Who_Tell_Them&diff=517498&oldid=517356 here,] I have no intention of wading any deeper into this issue. Neutral, well sourced information is simply reverted without explanation and your interaction with the now banned DrCB [[Talk:Al Franken#Changes|here]] shows that you're pretty resolute in your postition. Therefore, in the interest of saving energy, I withdraw myself from this and all other Franken related pages. [[User:NateE|NateE]] 11:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Wow, more insinuations from a concern troll. [[User:QuickFixer|QuickFixer]] 11:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::::QuickFixer, don't call people trolls. NateE, I'll take a look at the article and see what I can do. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::For starters, the "Franken's problems with the truth" section should be entirely deleted, or better examples should be picked. The guy is a comedian who's known for being offensive; it's entirely expected that he exaggerates or makes stuff up for comedic effect. The next two sections ("tax issues" and "Playboy article") are petty, but other than that, I guess there's nothing too wrong with them.
:::::As for the stuff I changed, here are my reasons the only important thing that I change was the first reference, which was not actually a reference, which I deleted. The rest was, I though, minor changes to make it more encyclopedic. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:23, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Personally, I don't like your changes. It is more watered down 'coarse style', if that is what you claim more encyclopedic --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:05, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Ok so "rude and vulgar" have been added back in; not really that big of a deal. The real problem is the "Franken's problems with the truth" section, which is just petty. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:37, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::I've renamed the section. Franken has had more than his fair share of statements that probably should not have been said. He's tried to be controversial, and really, only a small percentage of those statements are actually mentioned. I'm not sure what changes I would make, but with 3 other sysops having edited this article and showing the way they wish it to read, I am reluctant to go any further beyond what has been done. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::No offence, but I don't really see what sysops editing it has to do with it; sysops can be wrong just like everyone else. The entire section is examples in the form of "Franken says X is bad, and here Franken does X". Who cares? A good 50% of the entire article is devoted to how Franken, like every other human being on the planet, is a hypocrite (and this is assuming he's being serious about everything he says, which is dubious at best). I'm all for finding controversies (like the Playboy thing) but using shaky examples of how he may or may not be lying -- sysop "approved" or not -- doesn't do the article justice and makes Conservapedia look petty and biased [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:34, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

== The Jewish seat. ==

I just came across this on the internet.

Should it be pointed out in the article that Al Franken is running for the Senate seat that is dedicated to those who are Jewish since about 1984, in a state where less than 1% of the population is Jewish?

 2008: Al Frankin (D) v. Norm Coleman (R)
 2002: Norm Coleman (R) v. Paul Wellstone (D)
 1996: Rudy Boschwitz (R) v. Paul Wellstone (D)
 1990: Paul Wellstone (D) v. Rudy Boschwitz (R)

Maybe not, since it's not officially dedicated as far as I can tell. [[User:QuickFixer|QuickFixer]] 11:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:No, because we are not an anti-semitic website. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::It is interesting. I remember Wellstone and Boschwitz fighting over whether the other one was Jewish enough, so it is an issue that Minnesotaians acknowledge in their own state. I'd imagine due to political correctness, they have a tendency to reach out to non-majority candidates or positions, hence the argument between Wellstone and Boschwitz, the election of Jesse Ventura, and, possibly, the fascination with Al Franken. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:09, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Why is it political correctness? Could it not be that the best candidates are Jewish? For example, in Colorado, when Ben "Nighthorse" Cambel ran and won seat. He was voted in because people thought he was the best, it wasn't some farcical political correctness drive to get an indian into office. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:22, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::See above the argument between Wellstone and Boschwitz about who was more Jewish. Now explain that based upon the removal of political correctness. You completely ignored that in your 'reply' above and went off on a tangent. And do you really believe Jesse Ventura was the best candidate? At the end of his term his approval rating was in the teens. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:28, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::There was no tangent involved, I simply disagreed with your point and used another example as an anecdote. As for the two fighting over who was Jewish enough, I fail to see how that has connection to political correctness. I find it amusing that religion is so important in American politics, but that's neither here nor there. On a side note, before I address your last question, MN is not exactly known as a liberal haven, so I doubt political correctness would be strong enough to propell a candidate to office there. No, I don't think Ventura was the best candidate, but it doesn't matter. I'm not a resident of Minnesota. However, approval ratings (especially at the end of a term) are not good indicators of anything other than their popularity. At one point, I believe Ventura's approval rating was very high, somewhere in the upper 70's or low 80's (I'm not sure, I'll try and look that up). [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Politicians fight over those things that they feel give them an advantage. Approval ratings do show how a candidate's performance was viewed by his constituents, and it is very rare to get one under 20%. Minnesota has a great deal of political correctness even if they aren't a liberal haven (although they are more liberal than the country as a whole). Ventura was known for being a WWF commentator who was good with one-liners (wrestling is huge in Minnesota) and wasn't necessarily the candidate with the best credentials. Indeed, there was a brisk business of selling T-shirts with the line 'My governor can beat up your governor' shortly after his election. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:25, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::::I'll be answering these in the order that flows the easiest so they may not be the order they were raised. First the T-shirts, you've brought this up before, but I fail to see how this is in any related to anything. After Arnold was elected, there were several shirts marketed that read "California's governor saved the world, what has your governor done?" They were not a reflection on the performance or popularity of Arnold, they were simply a humorous T-shirt that referenced modern political events. I don't know your residency, but may I ask if you live in Minnesota? If so, then I will accept your view that he was not the best candidate, but obviously the general electorate didn't agree. If not, then I don't know how you can say that he was not the best candidate, as it was not your state and you can't really understand the differences in mentality, just as I can't understand voting mentality in New York or Alaska. Ventura was indeed a wrester known for witty one liners, but in modern politics, that's what sells voters. No longer do we want long campaign speeches, the candidates are reduced to one or two second sound bites, taken with no context and played over and over by a media with too much air time to fill. As for the approval ratings, you keep changing the point. you brought up approval ratings as an indicator of his poor performance as governor, I replied that they simply measure his popularity, not an objective view of his performance and you replied by saying that they measure what his constituents think of his performance (which is his popularity) I apologise if I didn't make that clear enough to begin with. As a final note, I don't agree that a state where the "liberal" candidate for president wins by 3% is more liberal than the rest of the country. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 16:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:"''MN is not exactly known as a liberal haven''"--What planet are you from? Minnesota was the only state in the nation not to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1984. Most Minnesota Republicans would be socialists in other states. "''I remember Wellstone and Boschwitz fighting over whether the other one was Jewish enough''" I don't remember this. I don't remember Coleman even acknowledge that he was Jewish for a long time. (I don't really think he's a religious Jewish person, and his wife is Christian). Norm Coleman's dad is pretty cool, though; he got caught with a street hooker in a pizza joint parking lot in St. Paul, causing Norm to release the following statement:

{{cquote|“I love my father dearly. I do not condone his actions or behavior, and I am deeply disturbed by what I have learned. He clearly has some issues that need to be dealt with, and I will encourage him to seek the necessary help.”--Norm Coleman Jr. on his father}}
::Voting or not voting for a presidential candidate does not make one liberal or conservative. California and most (if not all) of New England voted for Reagan, does that make them Convservative states now? [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 12:02, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

::''"Minnesota was the only state in the nation not to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1984."'' That was not because Minnesota is "so liberal." It was because Walter Mondale hailed from Minnesota and was DFL. Many of the people who vote DFL in this state would be Republicans in every other state. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:38, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

To be fair, Minnesota voted against Reagan because Mondale (from Minnesota) was running against him. And yes, Minnesota has a tendency to be rather blue collar socialist in outlook. Their Republicans are not conservative in the way that much of the country would define it. Yes, Wellstone and Boschwitz did have a quarrel in the press over who was more Jewish. It wasn't the cornerstone of their campaigns, obviously, but it was rather humorous to behold. I remember discussing it with someone at work who was Jewish who felt that it was rather silly and looked poorly upon the Jewish community. He wished it would just go away. If there is a feeling that Jesse's approval rating in the teens was unjustified then I would like to hear it. The problem was apart from blasting religion, writing tell all books, and being a guest referee for Wrestlemania, he didn't really do anything.

Put whatever last comments you want to say, but I'll be removing this section in a couple of days. While it was interesting, I'm not sure we're edifying people's knowledge of Franken. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:48, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Photo ==

Can we get a picture where he looks normal? In the current one he looks . . . evil, with the black and white coloring and the shadows. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 14:37, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:He's a raving liberal who delights in the death of his opponents and is making a mockery of democracy. He's a hypocrite who, after 8 years of accusing George W Bush of stealing two elections is himself using ACORN to stead an election. The photo is, if anything, far kinder than he deserves. I doubt one could find a photo where he DOESN'T look evil, without using a shot from the bomb he starred in for Hollywood. --[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 12:19, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Well, so much for the whole no bias bit, AlexC. Here's a few photos that make him look a little less than the ghoul you make him out to be. Have you ever heard of Google Images?
*http://www.nndb.com/people/476/000022410/Franken_Al.jpg
*http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2009/06/0_61_franken_al.jpg
*http://politicalblogs.startribune.com/bigquestionblog/wp-content/uploads/franken.jpg
*http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordflipside/images/14franken.jpg
--[[User:Cerveau]] 19:25, 22 July 2009

== Playboy article section ==

This should be removed, since it's unencyclopedic and the commentary within mentions that this statement was a joke anyway. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:53, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== Contradictions with Norm Coleman article ==

While doing a couple minor spelling and grammar fixes on the Norm Coleman article, I noticed a few contradictions. The Coleman page states that Coleman won the senate seat in the recent election, while the Franken page says Franken won. Which is correct?

*The Coleman article is. The Democrat machine is contesting, so is Coleman, irregularities. It is in the courts now. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:00, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== radical? ==

Is Franken a radical? he may turn out to be one in the future but the article completely neglects his political views. He has not taken any notable radical positions so far. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:31, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

*Well, then, I shall present to you his on-the-record views, Herr Doktor! He isn't much of a mystery, really...and most would say he is pretty left of liberal. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:26, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
::note that Franken was a supporter of the Iraq war until the end of 2006, a very anti-radical position. The radicals hated him and tried to stop his nomination by the DFL.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:08, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
:::Richard, I am surprised at you using that canard to portray Franken as....as...what? 25% a new and improved, somewhat better liberal? Did you know that the radical Nazi's hated Hitler because he didn't put enough R & D money into oven efficiencies? Have you, as a Historian, become so jaded with the constant leftist bombardment, that you now draw those silly lines in the sand to show who among nut cases is the most insane? Maybe in comparison to how far left liberal public thinking has ''seemingly'' moved since 2004, according to the radical-left MSM, you could have a dram of reasoning on your side; but I would submit crazy is still crazy, and radical is still radical, no matter what direction the rest of their cloistered world has moved. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:15, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
::::Is Al Franken radical? We've listened to his hate speech and tirades in Saturday Night Live skits he has authored for over two decades. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:28, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
:::::the article does a pretty good job of describing his nasty personality and vitriolic rhetoric. But "radical" is a political term and we don't have much on his actual positions. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 14:33, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Homosexual Agenda

2009-06-04T01:23:09Z

Cerveau: /* Sources? */

Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Vic Eliason passage should be removed ==

I write this because I have met VE here in Wisconsin and believe he'd be uncomfortable with the logic of including this information in this particular article. The passage: "Vic Eliason of Crosstalk America rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies." Nobody believes that homosexuality is contagious, like a virus, and the probability is 0% that "all Americans" would turn homosexual. I doubt that any homosexual, including activist leaders, would think it would be possible at all or even desirable. There is as little temptation for a heterosexual to want homosexual sex as there is for homosexuals to want heterosexual sex. Also, the comment about the US being more vulnerable to attack because the country doesn't procreate also makes no sense, given that the likelihood of that happening for this reason is 0%. Three other potential problems. 1) The passage is completely undocumented. 2) The link for biographical information for VE is to Wikipedia. Couldn't someone here write an article about him for CP? He has been, after all, a leading figure in Christian radio for 40+ years. 3) Besides being unrelated to the topic of the article and having 0% possibility of describing a real situation, the passage detracts from the credibility of the article and CP. This passage should be removed.

== WOV's got a point ==

Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''

Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.

I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.

Seconded. If this is a homosexual agenda, then what homosexual wrote it? This is nothing but political game-playing: Identify a group as ''The Enemy'' and then brand them haters and abusers of family, children, and country. It makes dehumanising them so much easier. - Suricou

: I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.

: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!

: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with the comments of [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] and [[User:Splark|Splark]]. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific "agenda" is an all-too common one, but such agendas are more often touted by those who oppose than by those who support a group. That a Supreme Court Justice referred to it, or that it's in some leaflet somewhere, isn't substantive evidence that it exists.. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED

I will go on the record and say that yes, there is a homosexual agenda. As a homosexual myself, I'm pretty much in the middle of it. All we want is to be treated the same as any other tax-paying American. If my partner is injured, I would like to be able to have the same visitation and decision-making power as a husband/wife would. I would like to be able to transfer property when I die without having to jump through a million legal hoops. Many people claim that we want "special" rights. We really don't. We just want to be treated the same as everyone else.--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:01, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here.
-Gasmonkey

== Everything you post must be true and verifiable ==

This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment. There is no homosexual "agenda" -- no "they" who "wrote a book", no 10-point plan. It's the same kind of paranoid nonsense that's in the articles here on Joseph McCarthy and Alger Hiss (WP has far more accurate articles on both subjects, with the one on Hiss very clearly identifying areas of controversy), with conspiracy-theorist types quoting and sourcing one another. I propose this entire article for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 10:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. The "Homosexual agenda" is no more factual than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Delete, or recreate as an article about the popular (?) but false belief in this "agenda." [[User:Pkoad|Pkoad]] 00:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:It refers to the [[gay rights]] activism, which may be a [[grassroots]] movement but which has multiple goals which are easily identified. The Liberal POV that such goals are non-existent is a kind of denialism.

:It will be good for the article to discuss this denial, in conjunction with [[gay rights]] critics who oppose the points which the denialists says no one advances. (Not worded right, but I think you get the gist.) See you all tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::There's no more gay agenda other than there was a "black agenda" before ''Brown'' came down. The gay agenda is equal treatment. Oh no, quick, ma, shut the doors! Equality's a-comin'!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]

:::I'd say "keep it" so the world can really see how these strange nutkins think. But in the interest of humanity, decency, and honesty, it is a pack of paranoid, politico-religious agenda lies. Really, really strange nutjob lies. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:'''Keep:'''Let's assume for one moment that the homosexual agenda is complete hogwash and homosexual activists don't believe in it: Isn't the fact that Conservative Christians do believe in it enough to keep the article so that the "opinions" of Christians about homosexual activists be here. The fact that many talk about it is clear evidence that this is a valid article--[[User:Djcreativity|Djcreativity]] 15:47, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
::Shouldn't we present information that is factual, and not misleading, though? If the intention of the article was to present Christian responses to gay rights activism, it should be presented as such. Given that ''After the Ball'' was published twenty years ago, presenting it as an active force in the gay rights movement (rather than as a foundation of the movement as a whole) is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? If we were talking about the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam we could reference Malcom X and Louis Farrakhan, but to act as though their works were part of current politics and national discourse would be misguided at best, and flatly wrong, at worst. --[[User:Jfavor|Jfavor]] 00:40, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Opposing Christian Agenda ==

I can't work out what the point of the "Opposing Christian Agenda" section is. The sentences don't make sense, and the referenced page does not mention homosexuality or gay. I propose the section be deleted by someone with the privilege to edit the article. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think it's not nearly explicit enough. More than anything else except perhaps abortion, the homosexual subversion of Christian values is illustrative of the influence of Satan upon liberals and other leftists, and his influence through them on our society. Should I rework the section to include such? --[[User:Nathan|Nathan]] 22:20, 11 February 2009 (EST)

== Improvements ==

Shouldn't ''Gayness'' in part 1. of the agenda be ''Gaiety''?
The term ''[[homosexual protectors]]'' in part three surely merits its own article. Is this the same as ''[[Homosexualist]]s''? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Any attempt to trivialize or confuse the issue will be frowned upon here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

We should delete the cite at the bottom saying that homosexuality caused Nazism. That's a truly disturbing allegation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Especially considering that the Nazis actually murdered thousands of homosexuals during World War II.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yes they did, but it was because of Hitler. NOT homosexuality. And waaay more Jews were killed than homosexuals, giving Jews a larger spotlight. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] I'm liberal, but I don't edit pages-just [[User talk:Clorox|talk page]]s. don't worry. 23:25, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

'''
I believe langauge needs to be corrected in the the first bullet of the list of homosexual goals. It currently states "Censoring sections of the bible condemning homosexuality." The source cited is an article about an offensive tee shirt being censored not the bible its self. There needs to be eaither a new source about Homosexuals attempting to change the bible or the wording must be changed to "preventing materials that denounce homosexuality from being displayed publicly."

Reference number "8" rrefers back to the Conservapedia site. In order to maintain integrity it must refer to an ouside source if one is not provided the reference and quote should be deleted. Currently it is a logical fallacy and is not up to encyclopedic standards. Someone not dyslexic (i.e. somone who isn't me.) should get on that.

== Very Informative ==
'''

Excellent portrayal of the truth. This is a nice breather from the left-wing saturated wikipedia.com. If you agree with the article, you should check out the highly accurate article on homophobia. Everyone knows that the creation of homophobia is a foundation of the gay agenda.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia

Wikipedia is subject to open edits that don't reqier an account. Are you suggesting that the monitors of wikipedia aka "everyone who can type" has a liberal bias?

== Is this real? ==

This article seems like a parody. I can't believe that... oh yeah, I'm at conservapedia. I can believe anything. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

As well as the mysterious reference to a "leading book in the homosexual movement", it refers to a book claiming that the Nazi Party supported homosexuality. Clearly this has to be satirical. Either that, or someone has a serious case of paranoia - all the sources, as well as being of dubious credabililty, point towards independent events but the whole point of the page is to talk about a shadowy conspiricy - a 'Secret Society' of homosexuals trying to gayify the world. I suggest deleting the whole page - and if it reappears in a similar form, delete and protect. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

== Agendas ==
So since there are so many references on this wiki to the "homosexual agenda" can we also cite the "Conservative Agenda" or "Republican Agenda" or "Christian Agenda"? {{unsigned|prof0705}}
:I don't see why not, as long as they sourced and reasonably recognizable as phrases in common use. In fact, here, I would expect an article on [[conservative agenda]] to be very good. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

This article violates the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion).
#It claims to quote Focus on the Family for the definition of The Homosexual Agenda without giving a specific reference, and FotF is only claimed to be quoting "a leading book in the homosexual movement" without even bothering to name the book or its author.
#The two bulleted points in "The Goals" (about 8-year-old boys and 12-to-14 year olds) are stating as fact the opinion of Craig Osten, a vice president at the Alliance Defense Fund.
#Several of the other references to that section are either citing journalist's or lawyer's opinions, not facts or any quote from the people who are alleged to hold the agenda under discussion.

I am prohibited from editing the page but I suggest that the Agenda is moved to the top, and the original source for it cited, rather than a vague second-hand reference. The judge's quote should then be indented as a block quote so it is more clearly identifiable as quoting the judge. The Goals and Opposing Christian Agenda should be cleaned up and cite proper sources not opinions, or be more clearly marked as only opinions of people who oppose the Homosexual Agenda. If Conservapedia could handle it, even a quote from someone who supports it would be good. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 06:06, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:[[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion) is superceded by [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''
:Note: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:ListUsers/sysop sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', which means if a sysop has decided it is so it is so. If you continue to argue you may get blocked.
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

What about Hot man on man/woman on woman action? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that homosexuals were pretty in favor of that.

== Is this really as big as people make it out to be? ==
While I personally do not like anyone being too open about their personal lives, especially concerning anything to do with sex, still when I hear about a "Homosexual Agenda" I can only think of another fear that other people once tried to infect people with: it was called "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion." I think some of you may understand my point... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I don't really understand why people even care if someone is homosexual or not. If you're not a homosexual yourself you're not gonna be involved with homosexuality so why even care? It doesn't affect you in that case. If someones is homosexual, then fine. Let them be. Has nothing to do with you. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Do you not care about God, JohnKite? Do you not care about His society? Do you not acre about moral erosion, disease, and the future of humanity? Do you not care about what is right and what is wrong? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 11:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)

==Please remove the reference to Scott Lively's propaganda book==
This is propaganda. It seems you don't allow neutrality here. [[User:GayMan|GayMan]] 21:51, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:I agree. Numbers 1-5 on there are kinda wrong, and number 6 tops it off as crap. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:11, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Hey, now... ==
I'm LGBT and I'm certainly not aware of any sort of "agenda" being discussed. Perhaps this is just a typical case of right-wing paranoia? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:07, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

==What the hell?==

The “homosexuality agenda" was created by Focus on the Family, which you say later in the article, ACTIVELY OPPOSES homosexuality. You wouldn’t let me post Jon Stewart quotes on the Bush page, so why is this kind of crap aloud here? [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 11:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

This is exactly the sort of thing that inspires violence against homosexuals. Be more neutral.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 12:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck pal, I've been saying that for months. And watch your language, they'll ban you for that here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 12:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

==Politics and science==

Dr. Ronald Bayer, writing in Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis said the APA decision was a political one, not a scientific one: "The result [of the APA removal of homosexuality from the DSM] was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times." [http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf]
==Liberal Deceit==
I suggest we change the category from Deceit to Liberal Deceit because liberals universally support the gay agenda. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 22:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
*Good idea! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:08, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
::Bad idea. It's not deceit. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:16, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

==Sources?==

Are there any sources besides those accusing the gay agenda? There's no evidence of any organized "agenda", and all of the goals and such are provided by those opposing it. Best case, this is an article about a pundit talking point, and worst case it's a conspiracy theory masked as an encyclopedia article. Shouldn't it at least mention that there has never been any evidence of even a mildly organized or centralized gay agenda? The fact that it's permanently locked further undermines CP credibility. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 12:32, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Specific suggestion:
:Focus on the Family quotes below from a leading book in the homosexual movement which outlines the points of the homosexual agenda:
There is no source cited here. The source is "The Overhauling of Straight America," an article which appeared in the November 1987 issue of a gay magazine called ''The Guide''. [[User:Shii|Shii]] 22:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: Thanks, I just added an online link to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 23 November 2007 (EST)

== Mottos? ==

The edit replacing "beliefs" with "mottos" was unjustified. There is a (baseless) belief system inherent in the homosexual agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:41, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== References: "small looks better" ==

Why? All the other articles I've seen have references at regular text size. What's particular about this article that it needs to have really tiny footnotes? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 17:24, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

== Sources? ==

So I was reading the page, and I clicked one of the sources (#4). I checked the link out, and it makes a claim that the article it quotes "appeared in Guide Magazine, a homosexual publication, in November 1987." I looked up Guide Magazine, and I was surprised to find that it was not only ''not'' a homosexual publication, but in fact a ''Christian'' magazine, owned by what seems to be a Seventh-Day Adventist group. This might explain the article--I could see this much more easily as a smear than a real pro-gay piece.

Here's the source I mentioned:

http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm

And here's the source ''it'' mentions, Guide Magazine.

http://www.guidemagazine.org/aboutguide/

Just wanted to let you know. Thanks for the consideration.
-C

[[User:Cerveau|Cerveau]] 15:44, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Homosexual Agenda

2009-06-04T01:21:53Z

Cerveau: /* Sources? */

Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Vic Eliason passage should be removed ==

I write this because I have met VE here in Wisconsin and believe he'd be uncomfortable with the logic of including this information in this particular article. The passage: "Vic Eliason of Crosstalk America rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies." Nobody believes that homosexuality is contagious, like a virus, and the probability is 0% that "all Americans" would turn homosexual. I doubt that any homosexual, including activist leaders, would think it would be possible at all or even desirable. There is as little temptation for a heterosexual to want homosexual sex as there is for homosexuals to want heterosexual sex. Also, the comment about the US being more vulnerable to attack because the country doesn't procreate also makes no sense, given that the likelihood of that happening for this reason is 0%. Three other potential problems. 1) The passage is completely undocumented. 2) The link for biographical information for VE is to Wikipedia. Couldn't someone here write an article about him for CP? He has been, after all, a leading figure in Christian radio for 40+ years. 3) Besides being unrelated to the topic of the article and having 0% possibility of describing a real situation, the passage detracts from the credibility of the article and CP. This passage should be removed.

== WOV's got a point ==

Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''

Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.

I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.

Seconded. If this is a homosexual agenda, then what homosexual wrote it? This is nothing but political game-playing: Identify a group as ''The Enemy'' and then brand them haters and abusers of family, children, and country. It makes dehumanising them so much easier. - Suricou

: I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.

: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!

: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with the comments of [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] and [[User:Splark|Splark]]. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific "agenda" is an all-too common one, but such agendas are more often touted by those who oppose than by those who support a group. That a Supreme Court Justice referred to it, or that it's in some leaflet somewhere, isn't substantive evidence that it exists.. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED

I will go on the record and say that yes, there is a homosexual agenda. As a homosexual myself, I'm pretty much in the middle of it. All we want is to be treated the same as any other tax-paying American. If my partner is injured, I would like to be able to have the same visitation and decision-making power as a husband/wife would. I would like to be able to transfer property when I die without having to jump through a million legal hoops. Many people claim that we want "special" rights. We really don't. We just want to be treated the same as everyone else.--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:01, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here.
-Gasmonkey

== Everything you post must be true and verifiable ==

This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment. There is no homosexual "agenda" -- no "they" who "wrote a book", no 10-point plan. It's the same kind of paranoid nonsense that's in the articles here on Joseph McCarthy and Alger Hiss (WP has far more accurate articles on both subjects, with the one on Hiss very clearly identifying areas of controversy), with conspiracy-theorist types quoting and sourcing one another. I propose this entire article for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 10:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. The "Homosexual agenda" is no more factual than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Delete, or recreate as an article about the popular (?) but false belief in this "agenda." [[User:Pkoad|Pkoad]] 00:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:It refers to the [[gay rights]] activism, which may be a [[grassroots]] movement but which has multiple goals which are easily identified. The Liberal POV that such goals are non-existent is a kind of denialism.

:It will be good for the article to discuss this denial, in conjunction with [[gay rights]] critics who oppose the points which the denialists says no one advances. (Not worded right, but I think you get the gist.) See you all tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::There's no more gay agenda other than there was a "black agenda" before ''Brown'' came down. The gay agenda is equal treatment. Oh no, quick, ma, shut the doors! Equality's a-comin'!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]

:::I'd say "keep it" so the world can really see how these strange nutkins think. But in the interest of humanity, decency, and honesty, it is a pack of paranoid, politico-religious agenda lies. Really, really strange nutjob lies. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:'''Keep:'''Let's assume for one moment that the homosexual agenda is complete hogwash and homosexual activists don't believe in it: Isn't the fact that Conservative Christians do believe in it enough to keep the article so that the "opinions" of Christians about homosexual activists be here. The fact that many talk about it is clear evidence that this is a valid article--[[User:Djcreativity|Djcreativity]] 15:47, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
::Shouldn't we present information that is factual, and not misleading, though? If the intention of the article was to present Christian responses to gay rights activism, it should be presented as such. Given that ''After the Ball'' was published twenty years ago, presenting it as an active force in the gay rights movement (rather than as a foundation of the movement as a whole) is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? If we were talking about the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam we could reference Malcom X and Louis Farrakhan, but to act as though their works were part of current politics and national discourse would be misguided at best, and flatly wrong, at worst. --[[User:Jfavor|Jfavor]] 00:40, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Opposing Christian Agenda ==

I can't work out what the point of the "Opposing Christian Agenda" section is. The sentences don't make sense, and the referenced page does not mention homosexuality or gay. I propose the section be deleted by someone with the privilege to edit the article. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think it's not nearly explicit enough. More than anything else except perhaps abortion, the homosexual subversion of Christian values is illustrative of the influence of Satan upon liberals and other leftists, and his influence through them on our society. Should I rework the section to include such? --[[User:Nathan|Nathan]] 22:20, 11 February 2009 (EST)

== Improvements ==

Shouldn't ''Gayness'' in part 1. of the agenda be ''Gaiety''?
The term ''[[homosexual protectors]]'' in part three surely merits its own article. Is this the same as ''[[Homosexualist]]s''? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Any attempt to trivialize or confuse the issue will be frowned upon here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

We should delete the cite at the bottom saying that homosexuality caused Nazism. That's a truly disturbing allegation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Especially considering that the Nazis actually murdered thousands of homosexuals during World War II.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yes they did, but it was because of Hitler. NOT homosexuality. And waaay more Jews were killed than homosexuals, giving Jews a larger spotlight. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] I'm liberal, but I don't edit pages-just [[User talk:Clorox|talk page]]s. don't worry. 23:25, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

'''
I believe langauge needs to be corrected in the the first bullet of the list of homosexual goals. It currently states "Censoring sections of the bible condemning homosexuality." The source cited is an article about an offensive tee shirt being censored not the bible its self. There needs to be eaither a new source about Homosexuals attempting to change the bible or the wording must be changed to "preventing materials that denounce homosexuality from being displayed publicly."

Reference number "8" rrefers back to the Conservapedia site. In order to maintain integrity it must refer to an ouside source if one is not provided the reference and quote should be deleted. Currently it is a logical fallacy and is not up to encyclopedic standards. Someone not dyslexic (i.e. somone who isn't me.) should get on that.

== Very Informative ==
'''

Excellent portrayal of the truth. This is a nice breather from the left-wing saturated wikipedia.com. If you agree with the article, you should check out the highly accurate article on homophobia. Everyone knows that the creation of homophobia is a foundation of the gay agenda.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia

Wikipedia is subject to open edits that don't reqier an account. Are you suggesting that the monitors of wikipedia aka "everyone who can type" has a liberal bias?

== Is this real? ==

This article seems like a parody. I can't believe that... oh yeah, I'm at conservapedia. I can believe anything. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

As well as the mysterious reference to a "leading book in the homosexual movement", it refers to a book claiming that the Nazi Party supported homosexuality. Clearly this has to be satirical. Either that, or someone has a serious case of paranoia - all the sources, as well as being of dubious credabililty, point towards independent events but the whole point of the page is to talk about a shadowy conspiricy - a 'Secret Society' of homosexuals trying to gayify the world. I suggest deleting the whole page - and if it reappears in a similar form, delete and protect. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

== Agendas ==
So since there are so many references on this wiki to the "homosexual agenda" can we also cite the "Conservative Agenda" or "Republican Agenda" or "Christian Agenda"? {{unsigned|prof0705}}
:I don't see why not, as long as they sourced and reasonably recognizable as phrases in common use. In fact, here, I would expect an article on [[conservative agenda]] to be very good. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

This article violates the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion).
#It claims to quote Focus on the Family for the definition of The Homosexual Agenda without giving a specific reference, and FotF is only claimed to be quoting "a leading book in the homosexual movement" without even bothering to name the book or its author.
#The two bulleted points in "The Goals" (about 8-year-old boys and 12-to-14 year olds) are stating as fact the opinion of Craig Osten, a vice president at the Alliance Defense Fund.
#Several of the other references to that section are either citing journalist's or lawyer's opinions, not facts or any quote from the people who are alleged to hold the agenda under discussion.

I am prohibited from editing the page but I suggest that the Agenda is moved to the top, and the original source for it cited, rather than a vague second-hand reference. The judge's quote should then be indented as a block quote so it is more clearly identifiable as quoting the judge. The Goals and Opposing Christian Agenda should be cleaned up and cite proper sources not opinions, or be more clearly marked as only opinions of people who oppose the Homosexual Agenda. If Conservapedia could handle it, even a quote from someone who supports it would be good. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 06:06, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:[[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion) is superceded by [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''
:Note: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:ListUsers/sysop sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', which means if a sysop has decided it is so it is so. If you continue to argue you may get blocked.
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

What about Hot man on man/woman on woman action? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that homosexuals were pretty in favor of that.

== Is this really as big as people make it out to be? ==
While I personally do not like anyone being too open about their personal lives, especially concerning anything to do with sex, still when I hear about a "Homosexual Agenda" I can only think of another fear that other people once tried to infect people with: it was called "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion." I think some of you may understand my point... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I don't really understand why people even care if someone is homosexual or not. If you're not a homosexual yourself you're not gonna be involved with homosexuality so why even care? It doesn't affect you in that case. If someones is homosexual, then fine. Let them be. Has nothing to do with you. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Do you not care about God, JohnKite? Do you not care about His society? Do you not acre about moral erosion, disease, and the future of humanity? Do you not care about what is right and what is wrong? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 11:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)

==Please remove the reference to Scott Lively's propaganda book==
This is propaganda. It seems you don't allow neutrality here. [[User:GayMan|GayMan]] 21:51, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:I agree. Numbers 1-5 on there are kinda wrong, and number 6 tops it off as crap. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:11, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Hey, now... ==
I'm LGBT and I'm certainly not aware of any sort of "agenda" being discussed. Perhaps this is just a typical case of right-wing paranoia? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:07, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

==What the hell?==

The “homosexuality agenda" was created by Focus on the Family, which you say later in the article, ACTIVELY OPPOSES homosexuality. You wouldn’t let me post Jon Stewart quotes on the Bush page, so why is this kind of crap aloud here? [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 11:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

This is exactly the sort of thing that inspires violence against homosexuals. Be more neutral.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 12:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck pal, I've been saying that for months. And watch your language, they'll ban you for that here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 12:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

==Politics and science==

Dr. Ronald Bayer, writing in Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis said the APA decision was a political one, not a scientific one: "The result [of the APA removal of homosexuality from the DSM] was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times." [http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf]
==Liberal Deceit==
I suggest we change the category from Deceit to Liberal Deceit because liberals universally support the gay agenda. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 22:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
*Good idea! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:08, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
::Bad idea. It's not deceit. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:16, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

==Sources?==

Are there any sources besides those accusing the gay agenda? There's no evidence of any organized "agenda", and all of the goals and such are provided by those opposing it. Best case, this is an article about a pundit talking point, and worst case it's a conspiracy theory masked as an encyclopedia article. Shouldn't it at least mention that there has never been any evidence of even a mildly organized or centralized gay agenda? The fact that it's permanently locked further undermines CP credibility. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 12:32, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Specific suggestion:
:Focus on the Family quotes below from a leading book in the homosexual movement which outlines the points of the homosexual agenda:
There is no source cited here. The source is "The Overhauling of Straight America," an article which appeared in the November 1987 issue of a gay magazine called ''The Guide''. [[User:Shii|Shii]] 22:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: Thanks, I just added an online link to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 23 November 2007 (EST)

== Mottos? ==

The edit replacing "beliefs" with "mottos" was unjustified. There is a (baseless) belief system inherent in the homosexual agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:41, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== References: "small looks better" ==

Why? All the other articles I've seen have references at regular text size. What's particular about this article that it needs to have really tiny footnotes? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 17:24, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

== Sources? ==

So I was reading the page, and I clicked one of the sources (#4). I checked the link out, and it makes a claim that the article it quotes "appeared in Guide Magazine, a homosexual publication, in November 1987." I looked up Guide Magazine, and I was surprised to find that it was not only ''not'' a homosexual publication, but in fact a ''Christian'' magazine, owned by what seems to be a Seventh-Day Adventist group. This might explain the article--I could see this much more easily as a smear than a real pro-gay piece.

Here's the source I mentioned:
http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm
And here's the source ''it'' mentions, Guide Magazine.
http://www.guidemagazine.org/aboutguide/

Just wanted to let you know. Thanks for the consideration.
-C

[[User:Cerveau|Cerveau]] 15:44, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Homosexual Agenda

2009-06-04T01:20:10Z

Cerveau: /* Sources? */ new section

Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Vic Eliason passage should be removed ==

I write this because I have met VE here in Wisconsin and believe he'd be uncomfortable with the logic of including this information in this particular article. The passage: "Vic Eliason of Crosstalk America rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies." Nobody believes that homosexuality is contagious, like a virus, and the probability is 0% that "all Americans" would turn homosexual. I doubt that any homosexual, including activist leaders, would think it would be possible at all or even desirable. There is as little temptation for a heterosexual to want homosexual sex as there is for homosexuals to want heterosexual sex. Also, the comment about the US being more vulnerable to attack because the country doesn't procreate also makes no sense, given that the likelihood of that happening for this reason is 0%. Three other potential problems. 1) The passage is completely undocumented. 2) The link for biographical information for VE is to Wikipedia. Couldn't someone here write an article about him for CP? He has been, after all, a leading figure in Christian radio for 40+ years. 3) Besides being unrelated to the topic of the article and having 0% possibility of describing a real situation, the passage detracts from the credibility of the article and CP. This passage should be removed.

== WOV's got a point ==

Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''

Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.

I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.

Seconded. If this is a homosexual agenda, then what homosexual wrote it? This is nothing but political game-playing: Identify a group as ''The Enemy'' and then brand them haters and abusers of family, children, and country. It makes dehumanising them so much easier. - Suricou

: I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.

: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!

: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with the comments of [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] and [[User:Splark|Splark]]. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific "agenda" is an all-too common one, but such agendas are more often touted by those who oppose than by those who support a group. That a Supreme Court Justice referred to it, or that it's in some leaflet somewhere, isn't substantive evidence that it exists.. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED

I will go on the record and say that yes, there is a homosexual agenda. As a homosexual myself, I'm pretty much in the middle of it. All we want is to be treated the same as any other tax-paying American. If my partner is injured, I would like to be able to have the same visitation and decision-making power as a husband/wife would. I would like to be able to transfer property when I die without having to jump through a million legal hoops. Many people claim that we want "special" rights. We really don't. We just want to be treated the same as everyone else.--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:01, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here.
-Gasmonkey

== Everything you post must be true and verifiable ==

This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment. There is no homosexual "agenda" -- no "they" who "wrote a book", no 10-point plan. It's the same kind of paranoid nonsense that's in the articles here on Joseph McCarthy and Alger Hiss (WP has far more accurate articles on both subjects, with the one on Hiss very clearly identifying areas of controversy), with conspiracy-theorist types quoting and sourcing one another. I propose this entire article for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 10:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. The "Homosexual agenda" is no more factual than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Delete, or recreate as an article about the popular (?) but false belief in this "agenda." [[User:Pkoad|Pkoad]] 00:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:It refers to the [[gay rights]] activism, which may be a [[grassroots]] movement but which has multiple goals which are easily identified. The Liberal POV that such goals are non-existent is a kind of denialism.

:It will be good for the article to discuss this denial, in conjunction with [[gay rights]] critics who oppose the points which the denialists says no one advances. (Not worded right, but I think you get the gist.) See you all tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::There's no more gay agenda other than there was a "black agenda" before ''Brown'' came down. The gay agenda is equal treatment. Oh no, quick, ma, shut the doors! Equality's a-comin'!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]

:::I'd say "keep it" so the world can really see how these strange nutkins think. But in the interest of humanity, decency, and honesty, it is a pack of paranoid, politico-religious agenda lies. Really, really strange nutjob lies. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:'''Keep:'''Let's assume for one moment that the homosexual agenda is complete hogwash and homosexual activists don't believe in it: Isn't the fact that Conservative Christians do believe in it enough to keep the article so that the "opinions" of Christians about homosexual activists be here. The fact that many talk about it is clear evidence that this is a valid article--[[User:Djcreativity|Djcreativity]] 15:47, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
::Shouldn't we present information that is factual, and not misleading, though? If the intention of the article was to present Christian responses to gay rights activism, it should be presented as such. Given that ''After the Ball'' was published twenty years ago, presenting it as an active force in the gay rights movement (rather than as a foundation of the movement as a whole) is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? If we were talking about the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam we could reference Malcom X and Louis Farrakhan, but to act as though their works were part of current politics and national discourse would be misguided at best, and flatly wrong, at worst. --[[User:Jfavor|Jfavor]] 00:40, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Opposing Christian Agenda ==

I can't work out what the point of the "Opposing Christian Agenda" section is. The sentences don't make sense, and the referenced page does not mention homosexuality or gay. I propose the section be deleted by someone with the privilege to edit the article. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think it's not nearly explicit enough. More than anything else except perhaps abortion, the homosexual subversion of Christian values is illustrative of the influence of Satan upon liberals and other leftists, and his influence through them on our society. Should I rework the section to include such? --[[User:Nathan|Nathan]] 22:20, 11 February 2009 (EST)

== Improvements ==

Shouldn't ''Gayness'' in part 1. of the agenda be ''Gaiety''?
The term ''[[homosexual protectors]]'' in part three surely merits its own article. Is this the same as ''[[Homosexualist]]s''? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Any attempt to trivialize or confuse the issue will be frowned upon here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

We should delete the cite at the bottom saying that homosexuality caused Nazism. That's a truly disturbing allegation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Especially considering that the Nazis actually murdered thousands of homosexuals during World War II.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yes they did, but it was because of Hitler. NOT homosexuality. And waaay more Jews were killed than homosexuals, giving Jews a larger spotlight. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] I'm liberal, but I don't edit pages-just [[User talk:Clorox|talk page]]s. don't worry. 23:25, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

'''
I believe langauge needs to be corrected in the the first bullet of the list of homosexual goals. It currently states "Censoring sections of the bible condemning homosexuality." The source cited is an article about an offensive tee shirt being censored not the bible its self. There needs to be eaither a new source about Homosexuals attempting to change the bible or the wording must be changed to "preventing materials that denounce homosexuality from being displayed publicly."

Reference number "8" rrefers back to the Conservapedia site. In order to maintain integrity it must refer to an ouside source if one is not provided the reference and quote should be deleted. Currently it is a logical fallacy and is not up to encyclopedic standards. Someone not dyslexic (i.e. somone who isn't me.) should get on that.

== Very Informative ==
'''

Excellent portrayal of the truth. This is a nice breather from the left-wing saturated wikipedia.com. If you agree with the article, you should check out the highly accurate article on homophobia. Everyone knows that the creation of homophobia is a foundation of the gay agenda.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia

Wikipedia is subject to open edits that don't reqier an account. Are you suggesting that the monitors of wikipedia aka "everyone who can type" has a liberal bias?

== Is this real? ==

This article seems like a parody. I can't believe that... oh yeah, I'm at conservapedia. I can believe anything. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

As well as the mysterious reference to a "leading book in the homosexual movement", it refers to a book claiming that the Nazi Party supported homosexuality. Clearly this has to be satirical. Either that, or someone has a serious case of paranoia - all the sources, as well as being of dubious credabililty, point towards independent events but the whole point of the page is to talk about a shadowy conspiricy - a 'Secret Society' of homosexuals trying to gayify the world. I suggest deleting the whole page - and if it reappears in a similar form, delete and protect. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

== Agendas ==
So since there are so many references on this wiki to the "homosexual agenda" can we also cite the "Conservative Agenda" or "Republican Agenda" or "Christian Agenda"? {{unsigned|prof0705}}
:I don't see why not, as long as they sourced and reasonably recognizable as phrases in common use. In fact, here, I would expect an article on [[conservative agenda]] to be very good. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

This article violates the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion).
#It claims to quote Focus on the Family for the definition of The Homosexual Agenda without giving a specific reference, and FotF is only claimed to be quoting "a leading book in the homosexual movement" without even bothering to name the book or its author.
#The two bulleted points in "The Goals" (about 8-year-old boys and 12-to-14 year olds) are stating as fact the opinion of Craig Osten, a vice president at the Alliance Defense Fund.
#Several of the other references to that section are either citing journalist's or lawyer's opinions, not facts or any quote from the people who are alleged to hold the agenda under discussion.

I am prohibited from editing the page but I suggest that the Agenda is moved to the top, and the original source for it cited, rather than a vague second-hand reference. The judge's quote should then be indented as a block quote so it is more clearly identifiable as quoting the judge. The Goals and Opposing Christian Agenda should be cleaned up and cite proper sources not opinions, or be more clearly marked as only opinions of people who oppose the Homosexual Agenda. If Conservapedia could handle it, even a quote from someone who supports it would be good. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 06:06, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:[[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion) is superceded by [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''
:Note: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:ListUsers/sysop sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', which means if a sysop has decided it is so it is so. If you continue to argue you may get blocked.
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

What about Hot man on man/woman on woman action? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that homosexuals were pretty in favor of that.

== Is this really as big as people make it out to be? ==
While I personally do not like anyone being too open about their personal lives, especially concerning anything to do with sex, still when I hear about a "Homosexual Agenda" I can only think of another fear that other people once tried to infect people with: it was called "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion." I think some of you may understand my point... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I don't really understand why people even care if someone is homosexual or not. If you're not a homosexual yourself you're not gonna be involved with homosexuality so why even care? It doesn't affect you in that case. If someones is homosexual, then fine. Let them be. Has nothing to do with you. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Do you not care about God, JohnKite? Do you not care about His society? Do you not acre about moral erosion, disease, and the future of humanity? Do you not care about what is right and what is wrong? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 11:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)

==Please remove the reference to Scott Lively's propaganda book==
This is propaganda. It seems you don't allow neutrality here. [[User:GayMan|GayMan]] 21:51, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:I agree. Numbers 1-5 on there are kinda wrong, and number 6 tops it off as crap. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:11, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Hey, now... ==
I'm LGBT and I'm certainly not aware of any sort of "agenda" being discussed. Perhaps this is just a typical case of right-wing paranoia? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:07, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

==What the hell?==

The “homosexuality agenda" was created by Focus on the Family, which you say later in the article, ACTIVELY OPPOSES homosexuality. You wouldn’t let me post Jon Stewart quotes on the Bush page, so why is this kind of crap aloud here? [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 11:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

This is exactly the sort of thing that inspires violence against homosexuals. Be more neutral.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 12:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck pal, I've been saying that for months. And watch your language, they'll ban you for that here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 12:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

==Politics and science==

Dr. Ronald Bayer, writing in Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis said the APA decision was a political one, not a scientific one: "The result [of the APA removal of homosexuality from the DSM] was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times." [http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf]
==Liberal Deceit==
I suggest we change the category from Deceit to Liberal Deceit because liberals universally support the gay agenda. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 22:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
*Good idea! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:08, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
::Bad idea. It's not deceit. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:16, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

==Sources?==

Are there any sources besides those accusing the gay agenda? There's no evidence of any organized "agenda", and all of the goals and such are provided by those opposing it. Best case, this is an article about a pundit talking point, and worst case it's a conspiracy theory masked as an encyclopedia article. Shouldn't it at least mention that there has never been any evidence of even a mildly organized or centralized gay agenda? The fact that it's permanently locked further undermines CP credibility. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 12:32, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Specific suggestion:
:Focus on the Family quotes below from a leading book in the homosexual movement which outlines the points of the homosexual agenda:
There is no source cited here. The source is "The Overhauling of Straight America," an article which appeared in the November 1987 issue of a gay magazine called ''The Guide''. [[User:Shii|Shii]] 22:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: Thanks, I just added an online link to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 23 November 2007 (EST)

== Mottos? ==

The edit replacing "beliefs" with "mottos" was unjustified. There is a (baseless) belief system inherent in the homosexual agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:41, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== References: "small looks better" ==

Why? All the other articles I've seen have references at regular text size. What's particular about this article that it needs to have really tiny footnotes? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 17:24, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

== Sources? ==

So I was reading the page, and I clicked one of the sources (#4). I checked the link out, and it makes a claim that the article it quotes "appeared in Guide Magazine, a homosexual publication, in November 1987." I looked up Guide Magazine, and I was surprised to find that it was not only ''not'' a homosexual publication, but in fact a ''Christian'' magazine, owned by what seems to be a Seventh-Day Adventist group. This might explain the article--I could see this much more easily as a smear than a real pro-gay piece.

Here's the source I mentioned:
http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm
And here's the source ''it'' mentions, Guide Magazine.
http://www.guidemagazine.org/aboutguide/

Just wanted to let you know. Thanks for the consideration.
-C