From your follow-on comment, I think my objection over your comment was mostly semantical.
I agree(?) that the usage with "gay agenda", and in multiple other examples have negative connotations.

And where did they get this power from

I am watching FOX news, they just had a story about a guy somewhere putting up a big billboard sign saying "Don't Believe in God'. He is the leader of the state's atheist group. They are inteviewing him and the reporter quotes the Family Reserach Council, you know Dr. Dobson's group, as saying they are just trying to promote an Atheist Agenda, the guy replies Of COURSE we are. That is what his group is for.

There is nothing WRONG with that.


Speak for yourself.

I interpret it in the normal common English meaning it has.

Don't complain about the proper use of English when it is used to destroy your argument, try to use it to win your argument on it's merits.

You>>Quote:
You employ propaganda typically reveled in by racists,


Me>> Kiss off, if you're so desperate as to now have to try and associate me with racist that it's, take your post elsewhere.



I don't even try to have civil conversations with people who when losing the debate steep to insinuating people are racist and then say we'll prove your not.

Kiss off................on the ignore list.


If you want to post a public appology and a promise to keep the debate civil then perhaps we can continue.

yeah...here's a perfect example of the "neoconservative right wing Christian lunatic fringe" you speak of...

From...Oh...just a few hours ago on this very forum...

I get it now...

People who oppose homosexuality saying homosexuals have an "agenda"?...They're lunatics...

Homosexuals saying people who oppose homosexuality have an agenda?...A-OK...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

You're pulling the same crap that Stinger was.
The objection, explained over and over and over again, is that the anti-gay right-wing utilizes the phrase "gay agenda" in a technique to stereo-type gays.
In an effort to produce strawman arguments for gays.
In an attempt to take isolated instances, and pretend that it's typical of homosexuals.

If you look at what I quoted from "conservapedia", you'll see that there are multiple examples of ISOLATED instances that suddenly get stereo-typed as unilaterally part of the "gay agenda".

That would be like using Fred Phelps as an example for the "Christian agenda".
And then when you complain, me arguing pretending your complaint is over whether Christians can have an "agenda"...

Also, it's about the use of the word to AVOID discussion on the actual topic matter of the issue in question.
Which amusingly, you just did...

Completely nontopical...


It's amusing that no matter how many times we explicitly make plain WHAT the problem is with the use of the phrase, you keep trying to pretend that we're saying something else...


Ergo, if somebody complains about YOUR use that would be a valid response.
But YOU are only speaking for YOURSELF.
WE are talking about OTHER PEOPLE who use the word.
We are QUOTING OTHER PEOPLE in how they use the word.

Over and over again, we point out that the anti-gay crowd keep using this word in a specific way, and for some reason you think it intelligent to pipe in (ad nausieum) and repeatedly say "But I use it this way..."




I never said you were a racist.
I said the TACTIC you described (calling anti-gay legislation as "pro-heterosexual") is a TACTIC that racists use in proclaiming anti-BLACK legislation as "pro-white".

I never called you a racist.

Just because a dog and wolf may use the tactic of baying at the moon doesn't mean a dog is a wolf.


You get no apology for an offense I never committed.

Just like you used an isolated incident in your post earlier as an example just the same...

There's a problem with your contention...

I'm not complaining about the USE of the word "agenda"...Only the consistancy...

Don't really care if it's used or not...just be able to do so across the board...

This "when I say it against people I don't agree with it's alright but when they say it against me it's not" display seems double-standardish...

Correct (although I wouldn't use the word "avoid")...I was just simply pointing out the inconsistancy of tristan accusing one side of using it in a "conspiratory" manner (which I have no doubt is true) when he should've just came out saying both sides use it...

Works the same with Pelosi's old "culture of corruption" slogan...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

What "isolated incident" are you referring to?
There is no "isolated incident" for the numerous multi-million dollar organizations out there who make it their business to discriminate against gays.
That isn't "isolated" at all.
I was talking about the "agenda" that they had.
And furthermore, the point was NOT the use of the word "agenda". Substitute another synonym in there, and my meaning is undiminished.


There's a problem with your reply.
You're talking about OUR complaints on the word "agenda", and attacking us on a strawman argument.

It's not the denotation of the word that is the problem, but the CONNOTATIONS involved.

And then you reply with "People who oppose homosexuality saying homosexuals have an "agenda"?...They're lunatics...
Homosexuals saying people who oppose homosexuality have an agenda?...A-OK..."

Did you ever stop to think about whether it's a chicken or an egg?
Cause I typically do NOT use the word "agenda".
But for some reason, it's a common use amongst anti-gay activists.

And for the record, the people who make it their life's work to oppose homosexuality...
To try to keep sodomy illegal...
To try to keep gays out of the military...
To try to prevent gays from adopting...
To fight against legislation which prevent gay employment discrimination...

Regardless of whether or not I use the word "agenda" in their description, they definitely deserve some descriptors that aren't flattering.
Same goes for those who obsess about atheism, christianity, blacks, whites, ...


I did a quick search through all the times I used the word "agenda".
Most times are me responding to somebody else using the word "agenda", or discussing the topic of "gay agenda".

This is hardly "double-standardish".
Especially when you aren't even addressing the REAL reasons we have a problem with it.


You're trying to make mountains out of molehills.
I did the same search for TristanRobin using the word "agenda".
Most of his hits came up in threads talking about the "gay agenda"...

You're not even addressing what we ARE talking about, and then you say we are being hypocritical in what we are talking about.
What you are doing is like if Jack complained that John drives 60 MPH in the neighborhood 25 MPH zone, and then Mark criticizes Jack as a hypocrite because Jack drives a car.

exactly!

__________________
"No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities."
...Christian Nestell Bovee

I think there is a minority of Activists that have an "Agenda". Not quite sure what the end game they have in mind is, and I'm not even sure if the rights for homosexuals is the goal, or a means to another end.
All I know is that all people DO need a job, all people DO need a place to live, and all those are "rights" that all people should have. But whether we need to call the mistake of two human beings of the same gender forming what we consider a legal recognized "marriage" is my only issue with the whole idea. I couldn't care less otherwise. And outside of debate forums, it's not like my one opinion makes a difference any way.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)