Difference between revisions of "Talk:Homosexual Agenda"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Everything you post must be true and verifiable: wow)
Line 71: Line 71:
::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'!-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub>
::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'!-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub>
:::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-religios agenda lies.  Really, really strange nutjob lies. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
== Opposing Christian Agenda ==
== Opposing Christian Agenda ==

Revision as of 00:51, 28 April 2007

! Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism.
Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.

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

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.--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.--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 [1] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book After the Ball. -)Crackertalk 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--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. --Splark 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with the comments of AmesG and 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.. 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.--Epicurius 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED

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

Eliminate this Hate

The aforementioned article makes me shake with fear as I think that people will actually be exposed to this. Present both sides of the issue fairly. I agree with Gasmonkey that this entire article should be deleted. Moreover, this entire web site should be deleted. It claims to be an informative, "Christian" site that in fact promotes hate and spews false information across our nation.

Teaching God's word that homosexuals are sinful and militant is not hate speech, but free speech. God's teachings of homosexuality indicate that throughout history, homosexuals have continuously been savage aggressors -- with an agenda. The story of Sodom is particularly informative. It described the homosexual agenda of the ancient city of sodom in 1898 B.C. as forcible homosexual assault and enslavement by the homosexual inhabitants of the city to any men who visited the city. If you believe the bible is hate, then you can head over to Wikipedia and read the alternate viewpoint there. RightWolf2 02:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
"The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 326 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean God doesn't love heterosexuals--He just thinks they need more supervision"--Jack 02:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry, but you are flat wrong. There are over 30 admonishments against homosexuality in the Bible. God specifically states he hates homosexuals and has given them up as servants of the devil. There are 132 passages in the bible where specifcally states he HATES either a person or group of people. God does not love everyone, and he says as much in his word. I know you have heard this soul destroying lie from many people claiming to teach God's word. It simply is not true. RightWolf2 12:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Exactly where does God say that he hates homosexuals? He refers to it as 'abomination' in Leviticus...but then again, the Bible also uses the same term to refer to the eating of shellfish.--M 09:40, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
RightWolf2: Leveticus 19:17-18. Whether God hates people or not, He has commanded us to not. You mentioned "over 30 admonishments against homosexuality". Passages, please. Ilikepie 18:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, can I just point out, (as a happily married, middle aged heterosexual), there is nothing in the Bible which proscribes female homosexuality. Aren't lesbians homosexuals too? KT

Some would reply with Romans 1, but not me. (BTW, you can sign with the sig button next to the SLASHED W above or simply four tildes ~~~~) --Crackertalk 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
You are a piece of work. I am sorry you are so angry about the world you live in. But you certainly make one thing easy: if there is an afterlife and you are the type of person who is going to be occupying heaven, I'd much rather burn in eternal hell with my incredibly wonderful gay friends.--Jack 13:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
What would you know Jack? With one up the transom and another one in the gob, it's hard to hear you. GodisGreat 15:14, 21 March 2007 (PST).
You know, that's funny...I'm bi, and I've never been involved in intercourse with more than one person. Fancy that. --M 09:40, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

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. 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." 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. --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'!-AmesGyo!
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-religios agenda lies. Really, really strange nutjob lies. Human 02:51, 28 April 2007 (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. --Scott 01:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)


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 Homosexualists? Auld Nick 07:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Any attempt to trivialize or confuse the issue will be frowned upon here. --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.-AmesGyo! 12:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)