Will the Homosexual Agenda become an important issue in 2012?

[The Mikado]

Gallup:  "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

5/5-8/11

Should  53
Should Not  45   

Unsure  3

CNN:  "Do you think marriages between gay and lesbian couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

4/9-10/11

Should 51   
Should Not 47   
Unsure 2

ABC/Washington Post

"Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?"


3/10-13/11   

Legal 53   
Illegal 44   
Not Sure 3   



Have fun with your wedge issue, GOP.  (And, yes, the Republican candidates are all smart enough to not tackle this issue)

[CJK]

With this it just did. We need to take it out of federal play like Ron Paul does.

That's the same thing as surrendering. It will not stop the Agenda.

[Lief 🗽]

If Western Civilization is so shitty that it can't withstand a couple of dudes marrying each other, maybe it's not worth saving in the first place.

[CJK]

Gallup:  "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

5/5-8/11

Should  53
Should Not  45   

Unsure  3

CNN:  "Do you think marriages between gay and lesbian couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

4/9-10/11

Should 51   
Should Not 47   
Unsure 2

ABC/Washington Post

"Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?"


3/10-13/11   

Legal 53   
Illegal 44   
Not Sure 3   



Have fun with your wedge issue, GOP.  (And, yes, the Republican candidates are all smart enough to not tackle this issue)

That might just be because nobody is focusing on it right now. Remember how people thought the referendums in California and Maine would fail?

This could change if we had a candidate who stood up and called out the Agenda.

By no means do I think this is the only important issue, but it has to be reckoned with nontheless.

[CJK]

If Western Civilization is so shitty that it can't withstand a couple of dudes marrying each other, maybe it's not worth saving in the first place.

Again, this is not about a couple of dudes getting married. This is about setting a moral precedent and mandating societal approval and tolerance for the homosexual lifestyle.

[Holmes]

Remember how people thought the referendums in California and Maine would fail?

Erm, please don't revise history to support your narrative. I probably followed Question One's campaign the most on this site, I know the No on 1 campaign's was organized, committed and didn't take anything for granted.

[courts]

We have some remarkably dense people this evening. Please stop handing the man popcorn, guys.

[useful idiot]

With this it just did. We need to take it out of federal play like Ron Paul does.

That's the same thing as surrendering. It will not stop the Agenda.

Surrendering? I honestly don't understand why federal implementation of one's social values or its impediment of the contrary has any bearing. Gay marriage, banning prayer in schools, removing  iGwt from the pledge, no-fault divorce, etc etc are a result of shifts in society, and can't be changed by legislation. Legislation flows from the public will, not the other way around. This is still marginally a democracy.

The "homosexual agenda" isn't something that can be separated from a much larger slate of issues that promote a secular worldview. 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. It has been successful, and will continue to be so.

If you want my advice, get over it. Government recognition of homosexual marriage isn't the end of the world, and the government sanctions other sinful activities all the time. That doesn't mean you have to support it, but there are hills on which to die, and this ain't one of em.

Unfortunately the evangelical community focused on government solutions to spiritual problems this past 10 years or so, and they're reaping their reward. Not to mention they completely wasted a decade fighting gay marriage when they could have been focusing on things of far more value, such as fighting no-fault divorce and abortion.

*Yes, I realize you're probably just trolling, but in case you aren't...*

[Joe Republic]

THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA

CLASSIFIED

0600  Gym

0800  Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)

0900  Hair appointment

1000  Shopping

1200  Brunch

1400	• Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments
	• Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle
	• Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages
	• Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels
	• Establish planetary chain of "homo breeding gulags" where over-medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership
	• Bulldoze all houses of worship
	• Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers

1430 Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest

1600 Cocktails

1800 Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)

2000 Theater

2300 Bed



(Credit to the long-forgotten Internetizen who came up with this.)

[The Mikado]

Turning women into artificial-insemination breeding slaves doesn't work out well for the lesbian agenda, though.   

[King]

Moral precedent?  Most of these moral precedents actually violate the moral precedent set thousands of years ago in the Roman Empire.

Also, Joe's agenda: Only 7 hours of sleep a night? The agenda is appalling.

[afleitch]

Define 'agenda'.

[CJK]

With this it just did. We need to take it out of federal play like Ron Paul does.

That's the same thing as surrendering. It will not stop the Agenda.

Surrendering? I honestly don't understand why federal implementation of one's social values or its impediment of the contrary has any bearing. Gay marriage, banning prayer in schools, removing  iGwt from the pledge, no-fault divorce, etc etc are a result of shifts in society, and can't be changed by legislation. Legislation flows from the public will, not the other way around. This is still marginally a democracy.

The "homosexual agenda" isn't something that can be separated from a much larger slate of issues that promote a secular worldview. 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. It has been successful, and will continue to be so.

If you want my advice, get over it. Government recognition of homosexual marriage isn't the end of the world, and the government sanctions other sinful activities all the time. That doesn't mean you have to support it, but there are hills on which to die, and this ain't one of em.

Unfortunately the evangelical community focused on government solutions to spiritual problems this past 10 years or so, and they're reaping their reward. Not to mention they completely wasted a decade fighting gay marriage when they could have been focusing on things of far more value, such as fighting no-fault divorce and abortion.

*Yes, I realize you're probably just trolling, but in case you aren't...*

Okay, but it is possible to oppose the Agenda on secular grounds, for example national interest and evolutionary theory. The fact that it happens to agree with the Bible is due to the fact that the Bible contains many elements that are beneficial from an evolutionary perspective. But most people do not understand/grasp evolutionary theory so they simply cite the Bible as the basis for their beliefs.

In other words, it's like saying we can't have a law against murder because it corresponds to "thou shalt not kill" in the Bible.

[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.

[Meeker]

With this it just did. We need to take it out of federal play like Ron Paul does.

That's the same thing as surrendering. It will not stop the Agenda.

Surrendering? I honestly don't understand why federal implementation of one's social values or its impediment of the contrary has any bearing. Gay marriage, banning prayer in schools, removing  iGwt from the pledge, no-fault divorce, etc etc are a result of shifts in society, and can't be changed by legislation. Legislation flows from the public will, not the other way around. This is still marginally a democracy.

The "homosexual agenda" isn't something that can be separated from a much larger slate of issues that promote a secular worldview. 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. It has been successful, and will continue to be so.

If you want my advice, get over it. Government recognition of homosexual marriage isn't the end of the world, and the government sanctions other sinful activities all the time. That doesn't mean you have to support it, but there are hills on which to die, and this ain't one of em.

Unfortunately the evangelical community focused on government solutions to spiritual problems this past 10 years or so, and they're reaping their reward. Not to mention they completely wasted a decade fighting gay marriage when they could have been focusing on things of far more value, such as fighting no-fault divorce and abortion.

*Yes, I realize you're probably just trolling, but in case you aren't...*

Okay, but it is possible to oppose the Agenda on secular grounds, for example national interest and evolutionary theory. The fact that it happens to agree with the Bible is due to the fact that the Bible contains many elements that are beneficial from an evolutionary perspective. But most people do not understand/grasp evolutionary theory so they simply cite the Bible as the basis for their beliefs.

In other words, it's like saying we can't have a law against murder because it corresponds to "thou shalt not kill" in the Bible.

There have been scientifically documented cases of birds (seagulls and penguins specifically) exhibiting homosexual behavior. Is there a homosexual penguin agenda? Do seagulls choose to be gay?

[useful idiot]

With this it just did. We need to take it out of federal play like Ron Paul does.

That's the same thing as surrendering. It will not stop the Agenda.

Surrendering? I honestly don't understand why federal implementation of one's social values or its impediment of the contrary has any bearing. Gay marriage, banning prayer in schools, removing  iGwt from the pledge, no-fault divorce, etc etc are a result of shifts in society, and can't be changed by legislation. Legislation flows from the public will, not the other way around. This is still marginally a democracy.

The "homosexual agenda" isn't something that can be separated from a much larger slate of issues that promote a secular worldview. 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. It has been successful, and will continue to be so.

If you want my advice, get over it. Government recognition of homosexual marriage isn't the end of the world, and the government sanctions other sinful activities all the time. That doesn't mean you have to support it, but there are hills on which to die, and this ain't one of em.

Unfortunately the evangelical community focused on government solutions to spiritual problems this past 10 years or so, and they're reaping their reward. Not to mention they completely wasted a decade fighting gay marriage when they could have been focusing on things of far more value, such as fighting no-fault divorce and abortion.

*Yes, I realize you're probably just trolling, but in case you aren't...*

Okay, but it is possible to oppose the Agenda on secular grounds, for example national interest and evolutionary theory. The fact that it happens to agree with the Bible is due to the fact that the Bible contains many elements that are beneficial from an evolutionary perspective. But most people do not understand/grasp evolutionary theory so they simply cite the Bible as the basis for their beliefs.

Well I don't particularly care for the national interest or evolutionary theory, so I guess we'll have to just part company on this one. I personally don't understand how homosexuality could be viewed as "immoral" in a secular context, but whatever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You lost me there...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Talk about blaming the boogeyman. The various problems of the West are of the West's own creation. Even the social dislocation that has led to the breakdown of the traditional family structure is just a byproduct of the capitalist system. Industrialization, urbanization and later - suburbanization and the rise of the service economy have logically led to the place we now inhabit. Social conservatives make it sound like some shadowy cabal is plotting the downfall of all that is good and right; rather than chalking the changes up to obvious rearrangement of the social structure. Not every trend or change requires some evil group with an Agenda (capitalized).

This also has no real relevance for 2012. Gay marriage will not decide this election.

So the capitalist system caused both rising divorce rates/out of wedlock births and the homosexual agenda? How is that not totally absurd?

The capitalist system did in fact destroy the family when urbanisation/suburbanisation started (since the nuclear family is an unholy abomination and twisted parody of the older and more organic extended model), and the homosexual agenda, as you call it, isn't really a "problem" at all.

Also, we as a people have already tried basing public policy on the family on evolutionary theory. It was called the eugenics movement, and thousands (in this country) died horrible screaming deaths.

[useful idiot]

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)

[CJK]

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%.

[afleitch]

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%.

Define 'traditional values'

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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)

The type of Christianity followed in the European/American West has always been cut with European paganism, the cult of Mithra, ongoing social changes both material and immaterial, (in some areas) Amerindian religion, (since a few hundred years ago) scientific and logical outlooks on the world, and many other things, and always will be. This isn't a bad thing or anything to be afraid of. It is simply how religion as a human phenomenon behaves under normal circumstances.

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%.

First of all, it's more like ~5-10%ish (just gays and lesbians) to ~20-25%ish (anybody who could be considered queer). My numbers might be a little off there though. But in any case it's a roughly similar number, certainly not orders of magnitude bigger or smaller, to the proportion of the population that's black.

Second of all, assuming you are straight and cisgendered and have relatively traditional gender performativity, how do the lives of people who don't degrade or affect your values at all, as long as they're not trying to seduce or rape you or something?

[CJK]

There have been scientifically documented cases of birds (seagulls and penguins specifically) exhibiting homosexual behavior. Is there a homosexual penguin agenda? Do seagulls choose to be gay?

There have been documented cases of cannibalism in the animal kingdom, is that okay too?

[CJK]

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%.

Define 'traditional values'

Concepts people have used to make decisions regarding other people and things in their everyday lives.

[King]

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%.

Define 'traditional values'

Concepts people have used to make decisions regarding other people and things in their everyday lives.

Do you really have to apply yourself to make the decision "do not marry another man" everyday?

[CJK]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nonsense. Only 4% claim to be gay, lesbian or bisexual (exit polls and gallup support this). Take out "bisexual" and you are left with 1 or 2%

I can see where you get the misconception though. Thanks to the Agenda the uninformed public thinks that 25% are homosexuals, something like 10 times the real figure.  

And no, it doesn't affect me personally, but it is a bad influence on society as a whole.