Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
I think people use it within thier arguments more than to avoid one.
|
In my experience, that is not the case.
I think the distinction can easily be made by simply substituting another, more neutral phrase in place of "Gay Agenda" to see how the argument is affected.
Typically, saying "Gay Agenda" IS considered an argument in and of itself.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
Then why do people directly address homosexuality in the military as part of the gay agenda?
|
You just responded to my statement, with a question that is answered by my statement:
It's harder to demonize gays wanting to serve their country in the military, so it's called a "gay agenda" instead.
A better question to you would be why don't people directly address heterosexuality in the military as part of the "straight agenda"?
Sounds absurd, doesn't it...
U.S. citizens can understand a desire to serve our country. If that person be black, white, Christian, Jew, man, woman, Republican, Democrat...
But for some reason, a gay person wanting to serve our country is an "agenda"...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
What is scary about. What it seems is that those who support a gay agenda hide behind discussion of that than the actual issues that make it up.
|
I have no idea how you could think that statement rational.
You can search through the "civil rights" section and see all sorts of discussions on topics that some people claim is part of the "gay agenda".
I wouldn't be surprised if this thread is the first attempt on this board to actually discuss the issue of why people proclaim "gay agenda".
Your claim of "what it seems ..." is beyond obviously false.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
Yes I think there is a Parent Agenda.
|
Then why don't you hear that phrase?
Why don't you hear people proclaiming "This is part of the Parent Agenda"?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
Perhaps because they disagree with your labling.
|
Is the labelling of an "anti-gay agenda" inaccurate? Especially when it describes groups that have multi-million dollar budgets fixating on JUST gays?
We both know you have no grounds for arguing "no" to that question.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
Seems to me it directly refers to a group of issues that those who support homosexuality bring to the table.
|
In which case, if that is all it is, it would be easy to rephrase it without affecting the argument.
My points are valid.
You aren't even trying to contradict them.
All you're doing is saying something else to side-track from the point. As dabateman said:
"I've heard many individuals reference the "gay agenda". The way it's slipped into articles, posts, and conversations, it seems to be spoken with a spit as if the words leave a bitter taste in the mouth of the speaker."