Will the Homosexual Agenda become an important issue in 2012?

[CJK]

The only reason we are "losing" is because a) the Homosexual Agenda dominates the media and b) we don't have an articulate person out there explaining the nature of the Agenda's threat or even that there is an Agenda at all. We just have people muttering about "traditional marriage" without explaining why it is important.

You know what kind of debate is truly unwinnable for the right? Cutting funding for Medicare. There is no way in hell that it will be politically acceptable ever. Yet people keep thinking we should run on that nonsense.

It is widely recognized that social conservatism has played an important role in Republican success. Isn't that why they coined the term "God, guns, and gays"?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Blue Avatar. Ohio. Very conservative.    Hmmmmmmmm

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Get a grip, then get a clue...

If you really think championing the anti-gay marriage cause is some sort of well-argued wide-spread vote-winner for the GOP... then my original statement well and truly applies...

[pbrower2a]

The only reason we are "losing" is because a) the Homosexual Agenda dominates the media and b) we don't have an articulate person out there explaining the nature of the Agenda's threat or even that there is an Agenda at all. We just have people muttering about "traditional marriage" without explaining why it is important.

You know what kind of debate is truly unwinnable for the right? Cutting funding for Medicare. There is no way in hell that it will be politically acceptable ever. Yet people keep thinking we should run on that nonsense.

It is widely recognized that social conservatism has played an important role in Republican success. Isn't that why they coined the term "God, guns, and gays"?

Maybe it is just impossible to craft a coherent defense of "traditional marriage" that attacks homosexuality.

Nobody knows what makes people gay or lesbian. Maybe we simply need to recognize the legitimacy of homosexuality as such. Gays and lesbians can make a coherent argument on their behalf. Nobody can make that for something so objectionable about rape or sexual child abuse, or of household brutality. 

[TheGlobalizer]

it is just impossible to craft a coherent defense of "traditional marriage" that attacks homosexuality.

[afleitch]

The only reason we are "losing" is because a) the Homosexual Agenda dominates the media and b) we don't have an articulate person out there explaining the nature of the Agenda's threat or even that there is an Agenda at all. We just have people muttering about "traditional marriage" without explaining why it is important.

You've never explained precisely what you mean by 'agenda' and why you are so against it.

I would like to hear an argument for each of the following;

Denying next of kin rights including rights over property and estate
Denying hospital visitation rights.
Denying rights to shared pensions, social security and tax status.
Denying the rights of gay couples to remain together in the event that one or both requires residential care.

Do you feel that it is in the best interests of the state by disallowing same sex marriage to, on the death of a man of old age who has been with his male partner for 40 years, make the surviving partner fight the state and other interests to secure rights to their home and to the monies and to the estate and ultimately to the legacy of their late partner? Does allowing the family of the deceased who no had contact with him and who rejected both of them make a claim to his estate over that of his partner make America a better and a fair place?

Do you feel that allowing the state to recognise same sex marriage and grant the partner the status that other spouses would have is wrong and do you feel it is fair to make men such as these suffer and fight and waste money and energy and sometimes become homeless so that you feel safe?

[Simfan34]

51% of Republicans support recognition of same-sex unions... considering only three candidates support recognition, it would be in the best interests of everyone else not to make it an issue.

[afleitch]

It just happens to possibly be the biggest weapon that those of that secular worldview have in curbing what remaining influence Biblical Christianity has on the broader culture.

From a historical and social perspective 'biblical Christianity' has not excerted very much influence on broader culture and neither it should.

Explain

(And we're talking about the United States, not the ancient Greeks or 4th century Laotians or whatever)

Apologies for the late response. I am speaking from familiarity as a history graduate but in brief, you have to make a distinction between the state (which was Christian) and society. Historical records and accounts of every single discernable act you could consider to be 'un-christian' either now or at one point were breathtakingly commonplace throughout European history from abortion, to contraception, to same sex relationships. And this is the case for all classes; it was the state that often enforced laws against them.

In short, in the European context at least, the people were 'godless' long before the state caught up.

[Simfan34]

What on earth is "the Homosexual Agenda", anyways?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

What on earth is "the Homosexual Agenda", anyways?

Well the agenda of this homosexual for tomorrow is:

1) Take a shower
2) Find a birthday present for my best friend
3) Accomplish something at work
4) Make a delicious dinner
5) Flirt with a gay co-worker of mine
6) Only if I have time: Destroy Western civilazation and force straight Conservative Americans to marry men.

[Simfan34]

What on earth is "the Homosexual Agenda", anyways?

Well the agenda of this homosexual for tomorrow is:

1) Take a shower
2) Find a birthday present for my best friend
3) Accomplish something at work
4) Make a delicious dinner
5) Flirt with a gay co-worker of mine
6) Only if I have time: Destroy Western civilazation and force straight Conservative Americans to marry men.

I see. Any chance of leftovers to share?

[pbrower2a]

People are beginning to accept the reality of homosexuality.

Homophobia is anti-family. I have faced gay-bashing, and I came to the realization that such behavior could hurt or kill someone that other family members could miss. In that case it would have been I who got hurt or killed. I related the situation to two people who are very right-wing, one an elderly entrepreneur who found the violence abominable and inexcusable. Another was a Religious Right type who was still convinced that homosexuality was a great sin but that nobody was going to become straight because of the threat of a beating -- and that the would-be gay-basher needed to turn to Jesus! 

Gays and lesbians are everywhere. You might be surprised at who they are, as some scrupulously give no signals. But even if they do, I find that I can get along with gays so long as we both keep our zippers closed and our pants up.

Of male suicides between ages 16 and 21, fully a third are by homosexuals. Something is terribly wrong. Family problems can spur suicides by people who would never otherwise do suicide. Families, no matter how conservative, are going to need to accept someone who for no apparent reason or cause is gay or lesbian.

Homophobia is anti-family no matter how conservative and Christian that family may be.     

[King]

CJK, you have friends over at Free Republic who share you're concern of being found "turned" gay:

http://fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=82238

[TJ in Oregon]

CJK:

The only reason we are "losing" is because a) the Homosexual Agenda dominates the media and b) we don't have an articulate person out there explaining the nature of the Agenda's threat or even that there is an Agenda at all.

I completely agree with you on (a) that the main political endgame here is recognition that homosexual relationships are morally equal to heterosexual relationships. But, it’s pretty obvious that this is the goal and revealing it doesn’t really help a whole lot (at least not in intellectual-ish circles like this).

Part (b) really is the crux of our political problem, coming up with an articulate explanation of how homosexuality is bad for society without bringing up morality and/or religion is rather hard. The reason why morality/religion are not satisfactory for an argument is that most people who think homosexuality is a sin either already oppose gay marriage or don’t believe that morality should be a consideration in making laws. In order to do this, we really need a powerful utilitarian argument about how homosexuality hurts society and it is in our best interests not to recognize same-sex marriages. To be honest, I’m still searching for a coherent argument that makes sense to people who don’t believe homosexual acts are morally wrong and would love to hear one.

I think the closest anyone on this board has come is Millhouse when he was posting about declining birth rates and the economic effects. It is completely correct that population changes can cause economic booms and busts. Look up “Contraceptives and the Celtic Tiger” if you want some proof of this. Our country does have a declining birth rate, now below the replacement rate and that probably will hurt us economically in 10-20 years if we aren’t saved from demographic doom by immigration. But this is a bit of a stretch to argue against gay marriage from. It’s really suited to argue for banning contraceptives, but that’s political suicide. I’m not sure this argument will convince anyone who doesn’t already oppose gay marriage.

We also need to find a way to talk with gay people without looking like @$$holes. We’ll have to find some way of respectfully saying no to all the LBGT(and sometimes Q) people in this country. As someone else already said beating up gay people won’t make them decided to go straight.

It would take an exceptionally skilled politician to pull all this off. I have never seen nor met such a person with this capability, though maybe he or she is out there somewhere…

We just have people muttering about "traditional marriage" without explaining why it is important.
 

This is a great point. I haven’t heard anyone on the Republican side ever really explain this. Maybe somewhere in here lies the elusive answer I can’t find

[Simfan34]

People are beginning to accept the reality of homosexuality.

Homophobia is anti-family. I have faced gay-bashing, and I came to the realization that such behavior could hurt or kill someone that other family members could miss. In that case it would have been I who got hurt or killed. I related the situation to two people who are very right-wing, one an elderly entrepreneur who found the violence abominable and inexcusable. Another was a Religious Right type who was still convinced that homosexuality was a great sin but that nobody was going to become straight because of the threat of a beating -- and that the would-be gay-basher needed to turn to Jesus! 

Gays and lesbians are everywhere. You might be surprised at who they are, as some scrupulously give no signals. But even if they do, I find that I can get along with gays so long as we both keep our zippers closed and our pants up.

Of male suicides between ages 16 and 21, fully a third are by homosexuals. Something is terribly wrong. Family problems can spur suicides by people who would never otherwise do suicide. Families, no matter how conservative, are going to need to accept someone who for no apparent reason or cause is gay or lesbian.

Homophobia is anti-family no matter how conservative and Christian that family may be.     

True, very, very true.

CJK:

The only reason we are "losing" is because a) the Homosexual Agenda dominates the media and b) we don't have an articulate person out there explaining the nature of the Agenda's threat or even that there is an Agenda at all.

I completely agree with you on (a) that the main political endgame here is recognition that homosexual relationships are morally equal to heterosexual relationships. But, it’s pretty obvious that this is the goal and revealing it doesn’t really help a whole lot (at least not in intellectual-ish circles like this).

Part (b) really is the crux of our political problem, coming up with an articulate explanation of how homosexuality is bad for society without bringing up morality and/or religion is rather hard. The reason why morality/religion are not satisfactory for an argument is that most people who think homosexuality is a sin either already oppose gay marriage or don’t believe that morality should be a consideration in making laws. In order to do this, we really need a powerful utilitarian argument about how homosexuality hurts society and it is in our best interests not to recognize same-sex marriages. To be honest, I’m still searching for a coherent argument that makes sense to people who don’t believe homosexual acts are morally wrong and would love to hear one.

I think the closest anyone on this board has come is Millhouse when he was posting about declining birth rates and the economic effects. It is completely correct that population changes can cause economic booms and busts. Look up “Contraceptives and the Celtic Tiger” if you want some proof of this. Our country does have a declining birth rate, now below the replacement rate and that probably will hurt us economically in 10-20 years if we aren’t saved from demographic doom by immigration. But this is a bit of a stretch to argue against gay marriage from. It’s really suited to argue for banning contraceptives, but that’s political suicide. I’m not sure this argument will convince anyone who doesn’t already oppose gay marriage.

We also need to find a way to talk with gay people without looking like @$$holes. We’ll have to find some way of respectfully saying no to all the LBGT(and sometimes Q) people in this country. As someone else already said beating up gay people won’t make them decided to go straight.

It would take an exceptionally skilled politician to pull all this off. I have never seen nor met such a person with this capability, though maybe he or she is out there somewhere…

We just have people muttering about "traditional marriage" without explaining why it is important.
 

This is a great point. I haven’t heard anyone on the Republican side ever really explain this. Maybe somewhere in here lies the elusive answer I can’t find

I'm far more worried about the rise in divorce rates than any effect gay marriage may have upon "traditional marriage".

The problem with arguing against homosexuality is that homosexuals will be homosexuals. You can't change that unless you decided to have the government undertake massive ex-gay programs. Gay people make no more than 2% of the population. They have no significant effect upon population growth.

I'm pro population growth (the idea of an United States with a billion people tickles the cockles of my heart). If fast growth is your desire, then there are millions of qualified people with degrees and experience who want nothing more to come to this country. If you happen to be someone who dislikes "brown people" (not saying anyone here does), a great chunk of those millions are from Europe. I think the WSJ had a poll the other day saying that something like 60 percent of Chinese millionaires were thinking about leaving the country... think of all the capital they could bring. Immigrants drive economic and population growth, and its sad that that kind of immigration is often forgotten.

I really can't find a valid secular argument against same sex marriage, and while I'm religious, I need secular answers for politics.

[Holmes]

Gays are 2% of the population? cite?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Gays are 2% of the population? cite?

Its worth pointing out that even if that statistic were accurate (and no statistics on this issue ever will be), then that would still mean that the number in the U.S would be counted in millions.

[Simfan34]

Gays are 2% of the population? cite?

Its worth pointing out that even if that statistic were accurate (and no statistics on this issue ever will be), then that would still mean that the number in the U.S would be counted in millions.

Source

Another 2% is bisexual... and yes it's in the millions, but it's still in single digits, not the 1-10 Kinsey touted and certainly not the 1 in 4 people think it is.

[King]

Gays are 2% of the population? cite?

Its worth pointing out that even if that statistic were accurate (and no statistics on this issue ever will be), then that would still mean that the number in the U.S would be counted in millions.

Source

Another 2% is bisexual... and yes it's in the millions, but it's still in single digits, not the 1-10 Kinsey touted and certainly not the 1 in 4 people think it is.

20% of Americans not believing Obama was born in America /= 20% Obama was not born in America.

Stats don't always tell the truth.

[Simfan34]

Gays are 2% of the population? cite?

Its worth pointing out that even if that statistic were accurate (and no statistics on this issue ever will be), then that would still mean that the number in the U.S would be counted in millions.

Source

Another 2% is bisexual... and yes it's in the millions, but it's still in single digits, not the 1-10 Kinsey touted and certainly not the 1 in 4 people think it is.

20% of Americans not believing Obama was born in America /= 20% Obama was not born in America.

Stats don't always tell the truth.

Of course, which is why 25% of Americans aren't gay. But this wasn't a survey of opinions, it was a study, which is very different. Of course, it's certainly no authority, but it's what I've found to be the percentages in studies like this... and it's from a study done by a guy at UCLA and posted at the Huffington Post, so I doubt there's a conservative bias.

Be sure to read the second part of my prior post, lest anyone think I have something against gay marriage.

[King]

People lie about this issue.  Bisexuals I would imagine especially so round themselves up to hetero.

[Simfan34]

People lie about this issue.  Bisexuals I would imagine especially so round themselves up to hetero.

True. True. Let's say 5% for both bisexual and gay.

[afleitch]

People lie about this issue.  Bisexuals I would imagine especially so round themselves up to hetero.

True. True. Let's say 5% for both bisexual and gay.

It is a very difficult figure to assert. For example, the UK government tried the same thing and tried to 'interview' people to ascertain how many gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered were in the country.

Of course if you ask such things, you will never get a good answer. The Office of National statistics put the figure at just 720,000; around 1%. Another government department, the Treasury had the figure at 6%.

It is worth noting that one social networking site in the UK, Gaydar (and multiple profiles are not allowed) has 2.2 million registered users in the UK. Government figures suggested that up to 9.2 million adults in the UK didn't use the internet in 2010, There are an estimated 50.8 million adults in the UK. So of the 41.6 million who had access to the internet, 2.2 million of them were members of Gaydar (myself included); 5.3% of the UK adult internet using population.

And that is just one site. Taking into account those who are not members of this site, are members of other sites or have no reason to be the member of any gay site, you're probably looking at closer to 7 or 8%

There's no reason why such figures would vary across the world. So if we're looking at 5% of Americans that's about 16 million.

[sg0508]

New York's recent legalization of homosexual "marriage" has made me wonder whether or not it will become an important issue in 2012.

I hope it does. The homosexual agenda is just as big a threat to this country as the economy, health care, unemployment, the wars, and the budget deficit. In some ways, it actually is worse because it strikes at our core values.

I will support any candidate who stands up to the homosexual agenda the most. Anyone who doesn't just isn't serious.

Hateful idiot.  Keep living in the middle of nowhere where you belong.  America should only throw your ass out.

[sg0508]

Define 'agenda'.

It means that there is a group of people who, although most of them are not homosexual, nevertheless want to force acceptance of it upon society for no other reason than to disrupt and destroy traditional values which have served people well for thousands of years.
 
Seriously, why else does the straight left push it so hard? Homosexuals are only a small fraction of the population, are there not a multitude of other issues the left could focus on besides securing the "rights" of 1% or 2% of the population?

The answer is that the left doesn't care about the 1% to 2% of the population, they care about degrading the values of the other 98% to 99%.

I'll ask this idiot the same question I ask others.

"How in the hell does gay marriage PERSONALLY AFFECT YOUR LIFE? The answer.  It doesn't.  It has no tax consequence to you, poses no hazard to your health or well-being."

This guy is an idiot.

I'd be willing to bet he's been divorced 2-3x too, which of course society accepts because most marriages are object failures.