On the "Gay Agenda"

"There are two types of people--those who come into a room and say, 'Well, here I am!' and those who come in and say, 'Ah, there you are.'" - Frederick L Collins

***

On the "Gay Agenda":

CITIZENS WATCH - CULTURAL & MORAL AWARENESS: Is There A Gay Agenda That I Should Be Worried About?

"This Blog site is the place for concerned citizens and people of all races to voice their opinions and comments about our values as an Asian Society in Singapore which is being systematically undermined and molded to conform to extreme liberal values and activism.

When people use the term “gay agenda,” it can bring many different things to mind.

While it’s important to reach out to and love those people in your world who call themselves gay or lesbian, or who are struggling, you also need to be aware that there is a movement to reshape our culture–and it pays no small attention to the hearts and minds of young people.

Not every gay-identified person participates in these often militant efforts, but the efforts are very real and they have specific goals when it comes to youth. Those goals include:

• Promoting homosexual, bisexual and transgender lifestyles as healthy, positive and normal.
• Disintegrating all meaning of gender.
• Silencing and vilifying any different point of view.
• Undermining parental authority to indoctrinate kids.
• Rewriting Religious principles to suit their Agenda.
• Polarizing students, so that anyone who is not “gay-affirming” is labeled a bigot."


This list is actually a pretty accurate description of the "gay agenda", but it doesn't mean that all of the items on it are unworthy goals to pursue. After all, just because one has an "agenda" does not mean that one's aims are inevitably nefarious or sinister.

Two people asked me why the list was correct, so here is my explanation:

• Promoting homosexual, bisexual and transgender lifestyles as healthy, positive and normal.
-> For the homosexual and bisexual aspects this is definitely correct.

The transgendered one is more ambiguous, because there's a fundamental tension here: if there's nothing wrong with transgendered people, why do they need surgery?

• Disintegrating all meaning of gender.
-> Gay activists are indeed favour of blurring or demolishing the concept of gender. How far is another question, since there is certainly a lot of diversity within the movement.

• Silencing and vilifying any different point of view.
-> This point is a bit more complex and depends what you mean by "different".

A few gay activists are more conciliatory, but the bulk regard anti-gay people as homophobes.

Some go beyond this and move into the realm of heterophobia. This is like minority-group activists who claim that if you oppose affirmative action, you are racist. Just because you don't agree with everything gay activists say does not mean that you are evil.

It is hard to get statistics on how many gay activists try to silence their opponents, but overall one can say that this point is at least partly true.

• Undermining parental authority to indoctrinate kids.
-> Gay activists are against parents' rights to indoctrinate children and want to indoctrinate the children themselves.

[Addendum: Someone asked if it was indoctrination to oppose an initiatial indoctrination, but gay activists want to teach children that LGBTQ is okay, not just to prevent parents from teaching that LGBTQ is bad.]

• Rewriting Religious principles to suit their Agenda.
-> I am skeptical of some claims that religious doctrine can be compatible with a gay-friendly approach, because they are deeply dishonest and twist said doctrine.

Would a mainstream Muslim be upset if Islam was reinterpreted to proscribe polygyny? Or to allow polyandry?

• Polarizing students, so that anyone who is not “gay-affirming” is labeled a bigot.
-> "Homophobe", and especially "bigot" are very strong terms.

While they would apply to many who are opposed to gay rights (and can sometimes serve as terms of convenience, since they read more easily than "anti-gay people" or the like), one can believe that gays deserve rights while, for example, thinking marriage should remain off-limits (while reserving for them the right to civil unions). I don't think they would deserve the titles of "bigot" and "homophobe", though they certainly aren't in the forefront of the gay-cause.

One should also look at these things in historical and social context.

Labelling Abraham Lincoln and other abolitionists racists and bigots would seem shocking and deliberately provocative, but by today's standards they would certainly qualify as such, since while they were in favour of liberating Blacks from the shackles of Slavery, they certainly were not in favour of granting them equal rights.


So yes, there is a gay agenda. But it isn't necessarily, or always, something we should be worried about.

The blog's obsession with gay issues despite being a "Citizens' Watch" is curious though. I'd have thought "extreme liberal values" would extend to more things. Like frolicking gymnasts' bare antics.

[Addendum: More clear-cut example of the (or a) Gay Agenda seems to include:

- infusing geography, maths and science with homosexual references
- firing or demoting people for their views on homosexuality (even when it is not even relevant to the job)
- Collecting case notes for files for children as young as four for "homophobic" incidents such as using "gay" as an adjective in a non-homosexual way]