The "Radical Gay Agendaâ„¢" Explained

[Haven]

Many members of America's Religious Right and religious conservative communities across the world are concerned about the effect the Radical Gay Agendaâ„¢ may have on society. As a gay person, I want to clarify a few things about this Agendaâ„¢ and explain what most TLGBQ people (like with any community, not all queer people want the same things -- this list just explains what most of us want) desire from society. I'll also debunk a few nefarious myths.

The "Radical Gay Agendaâ„¢" -- What We Want:

1. The same civil rights as anyone in society. This includes the right to get married, adopt children, enter any public establishment, visit our loved ones in hospitals, enter spaces appropriate for our gender identities, and not face discrimination in employment. Right now, TLGBQ people can be denied marriage and family rights, fired, or even arrested simply because of our sexual or gender identities.

2. Freedom from violence or verbal assaults based on our sexual orientations or gender identities. TLGBQ people in general--and especially gay men and lesbians of color and all trans women--face a disproportionate number of violent assaults, "corrective" rapes, and even murders compared to the straight, cisgender population.

3. Acceptance and inclusion within society, in the same way as any other minority group. This includes, but is not limited to, the marginalization of anti-gay hate speech and anti-gay "education" in schools, and
visibility within society.

Myths about the "Agendaâ„¢"

1. We're not after your kids. There is no nefarious gay plot to recruit children into the "homosexual" or "transsexual" "lifestyle." We do want kids who are born gay, bi, lesbian, trans*, or asexual to be supported by their families and society, though, and not be driven to suicide by intolerant / hateful parents or peers.

2. We're not after your churches or mosques. Most gay people don't care what religious people believe about homosexuality, as long as those beliefs don't translate into discriminatory public policies or public acts of harassment, violence, or terrorism.

3. We don't want to take over the world. I mean, puh-lease! There is no plan to institute "gay authority" on the rest of the planet. We just want to be treated like everyone else.

Debate question: is this "Agendaâ„¢" reasonable? Is it evil? Why or why not?

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 1 by Haven]

Acceptance and inclusion within society, in the same way as any other minority group. This includes, but is not limited to, the marginalization of anti-gay hate speech and anti-gay "education" in schools, and
visibility within society.

Does this mean that the scriptures that clearly define homosexuals and homosexuality in a negative way is "anti-gay" speech and therefor defined by homosexuals and bi-sexuals and transgendered individuals and groups . . . as a "hate crime" and are Christians that believe as Christians should about the sin and sinfulness of homosexuality are to be marginalized?

That term "marginalized" sounds very threatening.

[KCKID]

Does this mean that the scriptures that clearly define homosexuals and homosexuality in a negative way is "anti-gay" speech and therefor defined by homosexuals and bi-sexuals and transgendered individuals and groups . . . as a "hate crime" and are Christians that believe as Christians should about the sin and sinfulness of homosexuality are to be marginalized?

There ARE no scriptures that address male/male sexuality other than within idolatry practices and temple prostitution. Anyone who has taken the time to study such scriptures will know this.

[Bust Nak]

Does this mean that the scriptures that clearly define homosexuals and homosexuality in a negative way is "anti-gay" speech and therefor defined by homosexuals and bi-sexuals and transgendered individuals and groups . . . as a "hate crime" and are Christians that believe as Christians should about the sin and sinfulness of homosexuality are to be marginalized?

That term "marginalized" sounds very threatening.

That is covered by misconception 2, They are not after your churches or mosques. Most gay people don't care what religious people believe about homosexuality, as long as those beliefs don't translate into discriminatory public policies or public acts of harassment, violence, or terrorism.

That is unless your scriptures preaches harassment, violence, or terrorism?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 1 by Haven]

Debate question: is this "Agendaâ„¢" reasonable? Is it evil? Why or why not?

The 'gay agenda' is a battle cry from people who are fearful and, in most cases, unintelligent, uniformed and ignornant. But some are just hareful SOBs in general.
There's no good reason why gay people shouldn't be able to adopt, marry, visit family members in the hospital or be treated any differently simply for being gay.
Just like there's no good reason why black people need a different restroom - simply because you may not 'like it' means only that.

Is it evil? I'm not sure I'd say it's evil as it's more 'driven by idiots' Now if that makes it evil in your opinion, so be it. But over all, while there are some evil people promoting it, I wouldn't go as far as saying, in general, it's evil. I'm not sure one can call a non-tactile thing 'evil' legitimately as that seems to be a human only descriptor.
Is it bad? Sure. Evil? Eh....?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 2 by 99percentatheism]

...are Christians that believe as Christians should about the sin and sinfulness of homosexuality are to be marginalized?

If they use their belief to limit the lives of others, absolutely.
If they sit on their porch and bad mouth others based on their belief? No, though they probably should be laughed at.

[99percentatheism]

connermt
[Replying to post 2 by 99percentatheism]

...are Christians that believe as Christians should about the sin and sinfulness of homosexuality are to be marginalized?

If they use their belief to limit the lives of others, absolutely.

Well, can't ask for a better description of "anything goes" to secularism huh? "Christians" believe the STOP sign means stop. What hate and bigotry to demand others not violate the word when driving in neighborhoods where the children of Christians live.

If they sit on their porch and bad mouth others based on their belief?

So much for the First Amendment for Christians.

No, though they probably should be laughed at.

Do you think Christians heard that by Nero and his male bride Sporus as they (the Christians) were tortured and killed - by the edict of Nero - in the Coliseum? Seems the history of LGBT's versus Christians goes back to the very beginning doesn't it? Or at least the debate about same sex marriage? History seems immutable on this subject as well doesn't it?

There are clear limits according to Jesus in the Gospels and of course for the way of life for Christians as set forth in the New Testament witness. Is this now to be ghettoized? It seems there is a "radical gay agenda" planned for Christians that will not be bowed by a sexualized pop culture. But if it is just to be laughed at, well, none of us will be able to hear that kind of bullying in our Mega Churches anyway. And at home we can live the truth of the Gospel without having to be bullied by being laughed at or persecuted for the faith. (Not yet anyway.) We just have to block certain cable channels . . . and exist at work as did the first Christians that brought us the faith delivered only once to the saints. Peter makes the point 2000-years ago. And why would we expect a declaration for an immutabkle truth would notr be laughed at in today's idolatry of relativistic morality? It's interesting when looking at the word immutable. Mocking Christians doesn't really change:

For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry.

They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For this is the reason the gospel was preached . . .

I guess certain kinds of people have always thought the Gospel was hate speech to their chosen way of life. Neologisms, propaganda or not:

im•mu•ta•ble (ɪˈmyu tə bəl)

adj.
not mutable; unchangeable; changeless.
[1375–1425; late Middle English < Latin]
im•mu`ta•bil′i•ty, im•mu′ta•ble•ness, n.
im•mu′ta•bly, adv.

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

immutable (ɪˈmju�təbəl)

adj
1. unchanging through time; unalterable; ageless: immutable laws.
imˌmutaˈbility imˈmutableness n imˈmutably adv

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

im·mu·ta·ble

adj.
Not subject or susceptible to change.
im·muta·bili·ty, im·muta·ble·ness n.
im·muta·bly adv.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[Divine Lies]

Well, can't ask for a better description of "anything goes" to secularism huh? "Christians" believe the STOP sign means stop. What hate and bigotry to demand others not violate the word when driving in neighborhoods where the children of Christians live.

So, why is it that Christians are the one's who decide where the stop sign is placed? It's not just your neighborhood, Christian's are not the only people living on the block. Not to mention this is just a crappy analogy anyway. By pairing children and the idea of stop signs (you may have well used speed limits, it would have made more sense) you are relating stop signs to child safety. How is an adult person's private sexual life a threat to child safety?

If they sit on their porch and bad mouth others based on their belief?

So much for the First Amendment for Christians.

You're setting up a straw man argument here. Connermt never said that the First Amendment rights of Christians should be taken away. He specifically said that Christian's have the right to bad mouth others based on their belief but equally others have the right to criticize them in return.

No, though they probably should be laughed at.

Do you think Christians heard that by Nero and his male bride Sporus as they (the Christians) were tortured and killed - by the edict of Nero - in the Coliseum? Seems the history of LGBT's versus Christians goes back to the very beginning doesn't it? Or at least the debate about same sex marriage? History seems immutable on this subject as well doesn't it?

You seem to be linking Nero's killing of Christians as evidence of a conflict between homosexuality and Christianity. There is evidence that Nero was being blamed by the Christians for setting a fire. In order to escape blame, he pointed his finger back on his accuser.

This persecution your talking about happened in the year 64 C.E. and Nero's marriage to Sporus didn't occur until 3 years later. It seems like Nero had many people betrothed to him, women and men. So, I highly doubt Sporus, who Nero castrated and presented as his wife, was holding Nero's hand as the fires were lit.

I would also like to add that homosexuality was accepted in a wide variety of societies from nearly every continent on this planet, including Rome, until Christianity came to rule. Since the spread of Christianity, there has been a widespread acceptance regarding homosexuality as immoral and sometimes punishable by death.

There are clear limits according to Jesus in the Gospels and of course for the way of life for Christians as set forth in the New Testament witness. Is this now to be ghettoized? It seems there is a "radical gay agenda" planned for Christians that will not be bowed by a sexualized pop culture. But if it is just to be laughed at, well, none of us will be able to hear that kind of bullying in our Mega Churches anyway. And at home we can live the truth of the Gospel without having to be bullied by being laughed at or persecuted for the faith. (Not yet anyway.) We just have to block certain cable channels . . . and exist at work as did the first Christians that brought us the faith delivered only once to the saints. Peter makes the point 2000-years ago. And why would we expect a declaration for an immutabkle truth would notr be laughed at in today's idolatry of relativistic morality? It's interesting when looking at the word immutable. Mocking Christians doesn't really change:

I'm hoping this is some sort of satire, to be honest. You have got to know that not everybody is a Christian and therefore are not bound by those laws. If Christians want to live by those rules, then nobody is going to stop you. But, Christians equally do not have the right to enforce their moral laws on others or punish others based on those moral laws. The choices that people make regarding their own lives in not the equivalent of them forcing you to break the moral limitations you have placed upon yourself. You immediately follow with what seems to be bragging about the financial success of your religion, an entire concept that I am sure would have been completely rejected by Jesus. You're talking about secluding yourself because hearing anything of an outside world that may not pander to your specific religion is just too hard on your faith to be a reasonable burden? It's hard not to find something to criticize when you're being so dishonest about the world that exists independent of your belief system.

For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry.

They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For this is the reason the gospel was preached . . .

In all you have said, one message seems to stand above all other messages. By not accepting the Christian doctrine to be the ultimate authority of morality within our society, and sometimes criticizing that sense of morality, secularists are in turn abusing Christians? This is what we call a persecution complex. You're literally saying that because I refuse to adhere to a moral code based in a belief that I do not have, I am abusing Christians. It's this very train of thought that had religions burning their way through the Middle East and Europe for centuries trying to conquer lands to spread their religion. It's this train of thought that led so many people to be jailed, tortured, and murdered because they dare question the authority of the church.

I guess certain kinds of people have always thought the Gospel was hate speech to their chosen way of life. Neologisms, propaganda or not:

Quite frankly, I have always thought of the Old Testament and the New Testament as hate speech to all human nature equally, not just my chosen way of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/christians.htm

[Bust Nak]

Well, can't ask for a better description of "anything goes" to secularism huh? "Christians" believe the STOP sign means stop. What hate and bigotry to demand others not violate the word when driving in neighborhoods where the children of Christians live.

Except the "STOP sign" being appealing to, looks like is homemade from cardboard and broom handles, held up by Christians to harass particular cars they don't like the look of. The nerve of Christians to paint themselves as upholding the law.

So much for the First Amendment for Christians.

What about the First Amendment for Christians?

Do you think Christians heard that by Nero and his male bride Sporus as they (the Christians) were tortured and killed - by the edict of Nero - in the Coliseum? Seems the history of LGBT's versus Christians goes back to the very beginning doesn't it? Or at least the debate about same sex marriage? History seems immutable on this subject as well doesn't it?

Not sure what you are getting at here, history is about things that has happened of course history is immutable, that is unless you have a time machine?

There are clear limits according to Jesus in the Gospels and of course for the way of life for Christians as set forth in the New Testament witness. Is this now to be ghettoized?

Hopefully, the sooner the better. The "limit" in question is outdated.

It seems there is a "radical gay agenda" planned for Christians that will not be bowed by a sexualized pop culture. But if it is just to be laughed at, well, none of us will be able to hear that kind of bullying in our Mega Churches anyway. And at home we can live the truth of the Gospel without having to be bullied by being laughed at or persecuted for the faith. (Not yet anyway.) We just have to block certain cable channels . . . and exist at work as did the first Christians that brought us the faith delivered only once to the saints. Peter makes the point 2000-years ago. And why would we expect a declaration for an immutabkle truth would notr be laughed at in today's idolatry of relativistic morality? It's interesting when looking at the word immutable. Mocking Christians doesn't really change:

For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry.

They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For this is the reason the gospel was preached . . .

Immutable truth? Ha ha ha ha.

I guess certain kinds of people have always thought the Gospel was hate speech to their chosen way of life.

Here you highlight the Gospel, yet the OT was far worse.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 7 by 99percentatheism]

Well, can't ask for a better description of "anything goes" to secularism huh?

Why do you want to limit something someone else does that doesn't impact you?
If you love to eat ham, would you want me to limit the amount of oak trees that are planted?
Like most anything 'gay', oak trees don't impact you ham and thus, none of your business.
Unless, of course, you had really does have some interest in the oak trees that only you know about. Then you might have a reason to protest. Otherwise, you're simply wasting time

What hate and bigotry to demand others not violate the word when driving in neighborhoods where the children of Christians live.

If your kids don't live there, no you have no legitimate right to complain about driving in said neighborhood citing 'children'. Unless, of course, one is so nosey that they must have their hands into everyone's business. But I wouldn't call that a legit reason or a right. Boredome maybe....

So much for the First Amendment for Christians.

Simply because you CAN say something doesn't mean you should NOR does it mean you can't & won't be laughed at about it.
Besides, freedom to say something does not mean you're free of consequences.

Seems the history of LGBT's versus Christians goes back to the very beginning doesn't it?

Adam was gay? Wasn't he the beginning? Are you claiming Adam was on the DL?

History seems immutable on this subject as well doesn't it?

Are you talking YOUR church history, or history of mankind outside the box of the church?

There are clear limits according to Jesus in the Gospels and of course for the way of life for Christians as set forth in the New Testament witness.

Then by all means christians, follow them.
By that statement of yours, you are saying EVERYONE should live the way YOU think YOUR god wants (independent of the fact that you bible was written by men and edited by other men - no proof of any divine intervention past the 'the bible says so').
If christianity says 'XYZ is bad/sin, don't do it. But if you're not a christian, you don't much care what a book says.
This is the part of the equation that many believers seem to be missing: NOT EVERYONE IS A CHRISTIAN, BELIEVES IN IT OR CARES what the bible says.
As a christian, you are free to live your live via your own GOD GIVEN free will. When you start using your own GOD GIVEN free will to hinder the GOD GIVEN free will of others, that's where problems arise.

To make it simply:
Your bible says X is a sin
Then use your own free will and DON'T do it
I don't believe in your bible and thus dont' believe X is a sin
I will live my life based on my free will.
So long as my life doesn't negatively impact yours, you have not a legitimate right to say anything with the expectation something needs to change to fit your POV (and vice versa.).

To the point of the thread, the gay agenda is:
Allow gay people to live their lives as they see fit, following the same legalities everyone else does, being allowed to live (which includes worship) as they see fit.

If this seems 'radical' to someone, that's rather disturbing; those people should probably seek anger management help or the like.