Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Why? What's wrong with using the proper English term?
|
This thread is not entitled "The Proper English Term Gay Agenda".
It is entitled,
The "Gay Agenda" to signify the root of the issue.
Fxashun made a comment that I think goes a long way to show "What's wrong"...
fxashun: That's because for those that speak those words, it does leave a bitter taste. "Some people" would rather gay people be nonexistent than have any rights at all.
I have already asked you about other terms like "Parent Agenda".
The response I got was totally incomplete, as I asked about PEOPLE using it.
There are more "Parents" out there than gay people.
Shouldn't the "Parent Agenda" be a more prominent term among normal U.S. citizens than "Gay Agenda"?
I realize you are trying to ignore the connotations of the word and fixate on the denotations, but that's not going to fool anybody.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
Well I disagree with the premise that is a "demonizing" but being allowed to serve openly in the military IS part of the "gay agenda", it IS one of the issue that make up that agenda.
|
You don't think utilizing the phrase "gay agenda" is part of demonizing gays?
Going to deny that the earth is round while you're at it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
Feel free to but since it is not an issue............
|
Dodging the question. How predictable.
The reason we don't call it part of the "straight agenda" is because nobody is trying to demonize straights.
You'll notice the question itself, assuming "straight agenda", creates a sinister presumption regarding the motivations of straights.
WITHOUT even attempting to show that such a motivation even exists. Ignoring the REAL motivations of straights.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
Why not? Again do you deny there are specific political and social issues that are of particular concern to the supporters of homosexuality and there are certain societal norms and laws they would liked changed?
|
Completely a non-sequitur to my point.
As I have pointed out, contrary to your claim, gays do not argue over the term "gay agenda" at the exclusion of other topics.
I have yet to see you provide any reason for the basis of your claim.
I suspect I will not see any either.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
I have.
I have.
|
I didn't ask why YOU haven't.
I asked why PEOPLE haven't.
If I google "Gay Agenda", I get 376,000 hits.
If I google "Parent Agenda", I get barely over a 1,000, even though there are many more parents than gays.
People typically don't use the phrase "Parent Agenda".
And definitely not in the same way that "Gay Agenda" is intended.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
Perhaps, a "pro-heterosexual" agenda might be more the comparison. You know like supporting heterosexual marriage and not teaching homosexuality in elementary schools and kindergartens, that could certainly be considered a pro-heterosexual agenda.
|
That is "pro-heterosexual" like discriminating against blacks is "pro-white" or discriminating against Jews is "pro-Christian".
You employ propaganda typically reveled in by racists, who proclaim they are "pro-" by denigrating other groups.
Their actions are "ANTI-".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
What do you object to about the proper phrasing?
|
Considering how many times I have explained what the "objection" truly is, perhaps it is time you stop trying to ask that question?
The "objection" is over the connotations of the phrase.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
What points, I'm reading where for some reason you object to the proper use of the word agenda.
|
Quote me where I object to the "proper use of the word agenda".
I have explicitly showed what my objection is.
You repeatedly attempt strawmans to ignore the real objections.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
Sounds more like you object to the other side stating thier side of it.
Oh well.
|
When the "other side" can't address the real complaints on the issue, but instead have to obfuscate the issue, that isn't "stating their side".
"Stating their side" would involve addressing the real reasons at hand.
What you pull is like Jack buying a Red Corvette which his wife knows they can't afford, and then Jack asks what's wrong with the color red.
Your tricks fool noone.