937:
Lesbian
Alliance Agenda" or something like that, to indicate organizations involved. But I am thinking from a political/lobbyist perspective around the beltway. Agenda is not an evil word there; its a fact of life, taken for granted. Everyone has an agenda! Regarding offensiveness, I was thinking about it some more. Frankly I had not been aware that the term was offensive. I guess that even though our gay friends at GLAAD may find it offensive, I somewhat object to the idea that somehow they are so special a group that they should get a pass on what to me is relatively common useage in political arenas (and this is sort of a political thing). They hate the idea of "special rights" but then they go and make themselves "special". Its weird. On the other hand, its only their enemies that seem to use this term so they probably bristle at hearing it! Does their reaction make it an evil term? Suppose that Social Conservatives bristle and get huffy if they hear the words "Gay Rights". Does THEIR reaction make the term offensive? I suppose to them it does. Should we give that creedence though?
891:
instance and of offending many people generally. I do not detect that the people who use this term -- and they are almost exclusively in the ranks of those who are opposed to the "Gay Agenda" intend for it to be offensive. However, by the association of that term with the people who oppose their interest along with the steretyping that is associated with it, I can readily see how it is, nonetheless, offensive to at least some people. But, I would not claim to know that it is offensive to many, most, a plurality or a majority and I would NOT in an encyclopedic article, describe it as an indisputable fact that the term is offensive right in the first sentence as the current version does.
879:
initiatives by which an organization is seeking to affect legislation, enforcement or political power. Agendas are never in themselves neutral, but the term is not offensive and is often used by the groups themselves to refer to their priorities. There may be a
Republican Agenda, a Democratic Agenda and other agendas, something neither party or other political entities object to or find offensive as a term, though other terms also exist and are also used. (I know this from my time as a lobbyist).
887:
agendas regarding rights for gays and lesbians that converge to form a unified political voice. This is almost certainly what is meant by the term "Gay Agenda" in some quarters. Having said that, and returning to my original statement: I do not think that there is some Gay Agenda that is ascribed to by Gay people nationwide anymore than I know of a "Homeowners's Agenda", though they too have much in common and political groups that represent them.
2418:
31:
895:
them decide. In the same way, this article should not simply open up saying that this term is offensive -- that is POV pushing and is unsupported. I also note that the current heading discusses "Biblical morality" which is certainly an issue with many of the opponents of gay rights, but there are many who are opposed to gay rights who do not particularly focus on "Biblical" morality, so that term is also not particularly correct.
1276:, which recognizes that even the dreaded n-word also has non-offensive uses, such as in colloquial urban slang. In contrast, there is no non-offensive usage for "homosexual agenda". For a good parallel, look at "Zionist conspiracy" and consider whether it can be used non-offensively. In both of these cases, the best you'll be able to manage are examples where the innate offensive is fodder for humor.
1015:
evidence of that. Rhetorical differences may cause offense but they should not lead to a knee-jerk changing of the language to favor one side! In fact, I believe that if I were gay, I would be slightly more offended that some folks think I am such a limp wristed pansy that I could not defend my ego against someone declaring me to be part of some "Agenda" and that I need protection from such bullying.
2142:, please submit a report. However, you will find that I have not been reverting. I have been editing, and certainly not stealthy, since I am announcing them both in the history and here. You are disagreeing with my edits, and you are trying to make me go away. It won't work. I was editing this article before you came along, and I will continue to work to make it balanced and fair.
238:
objecting to the term homophobia? I don't care if I get called names. I find that those who call names tend to reveal more of themselves than those who they call names. I do find it humorous that simply by using a phrase that is hardly derogatory, self-descriptive, and widely used will get you tagged. What I was saying is that to object to every term that is used to oppose a
193:, is said to not be acceptable for the discussion. Sometimes I think some opposition groups wait until an opposition figure uses a particular term, regardless of what it is, then immediately cries foul and starts its campaign to irradicate the term. I think it illustrates the point of the article of those promoting the homosexual agenda redefining words and culture.
901:"Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used chiefly by opponents of the gay rights movement when describing efforts by a variety of organizations and interests to revise religious institutions, marriage, and the family through law, culture, and popular media in the direction of increased rights for gays and lesbians.
2113:
This is untrue. I did not revert. I made several smaller edits explaining each one. If you disagree with an edit, please explain why. You wanted to follow the process of editing and discussion. I did so. Now you claim I am still reverting. I am not. If you dismiss my edits with a mass revert, you are
1981:
Bailey, there's a lot to be said for being bold, but your changes amounted to a wholesale regression away from the consensus and into the dim past of POV-land. Please, don't just ignore all we've worked for. Start with the current version and make small, reasonable changes that we can all agree on.
1370:
Your words pretty much prove my point. Furthermore, "offensive" is a term of perception. In order for offense to happen, there has to be a perception of it on one and/or both sides. That means that those against whom it's used would have to universally find it offensive. You've produced examples that
1304:
There's a structural difference that you're overlooking - "can be used in a derogoatory way" is much different than "is an offensive term." One allow for the possibility, the other denies any other interpretation. Until the intro has that kind of perspective, it's going to be POV. CovenantD 05:31, 29
1232:
I dispute that there is any way in which the term "homosexual agenda" can be used in a non-offensive manner. Moreover, having the opening paragraph read "can be an offensive term" weakens the entire thing and begs the question how it "can be a non-offesive term," which I defy anyone to demonstrate.
996:
Anyone at any time may take offense at just about any thing. I do not subscribe to the theory that because someone takes offense, I have said something bad, evil or wrong. Suppose for example that I were blocked from
Knowledge (XXG) for Vandalism. I might "take offense" at that and want my crime to
583:
point until three paragraphs in. To expand on Al's analogy, it would be like starting an article on the
Zionist Conspiracy with, "The Zionist Conspiracy is the name given to the attempt by Jews to take over the world," and then not mentioning until paragraph 3 that it's a theory that most people find
237:
You can believe that "homosexual agenda" is POV if you like. Nearly all phrases carry some connotations. However, what words would you use to talk about a political agenda of the LGBT movement? To deny that a political agenda exists within LGBT leadership is what is naive or disingenuous. Also, who's
1157:
For example, I once interrupted someone to ask if the gay agenda included rainbow-colored satellites that shoot mysterious radiation in the form of pink triangles that disrupt all attempts at straight sex. My point was not that I found the term "gay agenda" to be harmless fun, but that I wanted him
1070:
On a different note, I disagree with the inclusion of the
Alabama reference as an example of the term's offensiveness. The entire contents of that page are a direct copy of the GLAAD page that is the first reference. If there's something that is not a direct copy it would shore up the argument quite
1032:
Now, as far as counterexamples, there are some. For example, I know (or rather I am pretty sure) that
Internationally the term "Gay Agenda" refers to activites for Gays at vacation spots. Its gays who use that term, so clearly they are not insulting themselves. Which is an interesting thought in
894:
I have read through the introductions for the historical versions. To my eye, none have been perfectly neutral but the current version is seriously defective. For example, in the NPOV instructions, it says that we do not open up and say "Hitler was evil" but we let the acts speak to people and let
772:
Leave it be. Your changes were harmful. First, you make it sound as if a few groups consider it objective, when in fact many people who aren't associated with any such groups are offended by the term. You don't have to be a member of the NAACP to be offended by "nigger". Moreover, you inserted a
544:
David gives good advice but can I ask that Al's version be the one to stand for the next 24 hours as his is much closer to my (UK) understanding of the term and as Al is from the US his version should be pretty close to NPOV - more so than
Chooserr's which relegates the insulting nature of the term
2339:
Edits that are made to fix bias and to improve an article are always acceptable according to
Knowledge (XXG) policy. If you have a problem with my edit, I'd appreciate you discuss it rather than reverting wholesale. Unlike some, I am trying to improve the balance and content of the article, instead
2328:
and our consensus. In due time, they will invariably be reverted. I recommend that you first discuss proposed changes here to see if there is a consensus in support of them, instead of directly editing the article. Remember, it's much easier for us to revert away your bad changes than for you to
1400:
Contrary to your apparent implication, words do have meaning. Moreover, they have connotations in addition to their denotations. Fundamentally, meaning is attached through usage, and the usage of "homosexual agenda" is such that it offends those who recognize that the gay rights movement is about
878:
This article is apparently divisive. I feel pretty unbiased either direction in that I am not gay but I would never use the term "Gay Agenda" in that I do not believe such a thing exists in quite that way. In politics (well, at least around
Washington), agenda's are common. They are the slate of
393:
I'm at a loss as to what point David (Bailey) was trying to make. Nothing he's said has in any way suggested that "homosexual agenda" can be used in a neutral manner. It's about as neutral as "Zionist conspiracy". Both of these terms seek to make the opposing view look like a secret cabal out to
2224:
Yes, the first time. Then you said, "rv - please read the conversation from today - this version is the nearest we have got to a consensus - please improve on it rather than revert to earlier version" . So I responded, "Okay. Here goes.... It's not rhetoric." and made a series of non-revert edits.
1359:
The term is offensive as it is used almost exclusively by opponents of gay rights as a rhetorical tool to discredit the gay rights movement by associating it with an implicit conspiracy to undermine "family values". I'm sorry that this is not entirely clear to you, but I can't think of any way to
936:
Reading some of the conversation above, I note that while it is "OK" to use "Agenda" for other social reform issues, it is supposedly not OK to use that same terminology in this one instance. I never used it because it seemed clumsy and somewhat incorrect. I could much more easily see a "Gay and
206:
There's nothing "neutral" about the term "homosexual agenda". As
Alienus asked, are there any instances of it being used in a non-derogatory/non-critical context? Quoting dictionary definitions to prove that a term is neutral is either naive or disingenuous. Are we denying that words carry emotive
882:
So, with that in mind, there may also be *political organizations* who represent some constituents with an "agenda" (which is a valid term for legislative initiatives) supporting civil rights for gays in certain ways. But these organizations do not necessarily represent all gay perspectives. It
507:
Al's version of the intro didn't need to be quite so strong to make the point, but Chooserr's relegation of the point to a later paragraph is misleading. It needs to be made clear in the opening paragraph that this is a term with an underlying concept, both of which are offensive to gays and used
302:
Just out of curiousity, why do you suppose so many feel that way? Do you think that all of those opinions are completely without merit? That would be enforcing your POV, right? However, using Google algorithm is hardly authoritative. However, to illustate, let's use Google to search for something
186:
It continues to amuse me that various political action groups will take any term used by their opposition to discuss them and continually call it offensive. I see it as an attempt to stifle free speech regarding their group. IE- We will pick only terms that refer to our movement/agenda/group in a
102:
To be quite clear, "homosexual agenda" is to "gay rights" as "nigger" is to "black". You can't find the term used by anyone who supports equality for gays, and it's easy to come up with references to reliable sources that that demonstrate how offensive this term is. Any attempt to hide this is
473:
I've never said that much of the agenda of the LGBT movement is secret. You and others have said that. And if you are trying to tell me that gays/lesbians aren't trying to change the culture, religious views, laws, and word definitions, I refer you to this discussion and the discussions on many
1014:
Furthermore, this is not as though the term "Gay Agenda" is calling anyone a name or slurring them. It is simply a term used frequently but not exclusively by their enemies -- and taking away the term would help defang their enemies. Both sides propagandize through rhetoric -- there is ample
890:
Regarding its offensiveness, I think there is always a risk of offending by lumping people together into stereotypes. That does not necessarily make it wrong for us to use stereotypes in making certain decisions and in communication, but doing so carries the risk of being wrong in a particular
886:
But, newspapers, magazine, activists, etc. speak in short cut language rather than spending time in great definitions. The term "Gay Agenda" certainly appears in print and on the lips of people (mostly those who are against "it"). And certainly there is a coalition of organizations that have
149:
I've never found a non-derogatory usage of "gay agenda". You won't find those who support gay rights even bringing up the term except to point out how offensive it is. In this way, it's even more offensive than "nigger", which is at least sometimes used in a non-offensive way among blacks.
1182:
I'm not sure that this term is used at all outside of the USA. If so, then it makes sense for the article to be USA-centered. On the other hand, if it's used elsewhere, it would be helpful if we had some citations to demonstrate it. I'm ok with the article either way, I just want cites.
958:. Words gain their meaning through the way they are used. "Gay agenda" is used almost exclusively by social conservatives as shorthand for the concept of a sinister takeover of society by a unified gay front, and its usage is derisive. No one has provided counterexamples to show otherwise.
1931:
I quite agree. If we're going to say "can be considered offensive," then we have to show how and when it "can be considered not offensive," which we're unlikely to be able to. I can envision no scenario in which the term "homosexual agenda" might be used in a neutral or positive way.
2291:
That, my friend, was accidental. I must have clicked the wrong link to edit, or perhaps I clicked the middle button (I'm using Linux, which pastes the clipboard) inadvertantly. However, I see that CovenantD has decided to revert my entire efforts of the past hour, so what's the point?
2092:
I'll second that and please request that DavidBailey make no further changes but join the conversation here. It is unfair to make a string of changes when others such as myself are very patiently holding off making edits and trying to hash out the issues here in the discussion thread.
1196:
So the article should refer to the term being an American one, or a at least typically used whilst referring to American politics. At the moment, that's only implicit and needs clarification. I'd make the edit myself, but I'm just not bold enough given the current high temperatures.
138:
There's a structural difference that you're overlooking - "can be used in a derogoatory way" is much different than "is an offensive term." One allow for the possibility, the other denies any other interpretation. Until the intro has that kind of perspective, it's going to be POV.
883:
would only be technically correct to address that individual organization's agenda. And that organization may also not be composed exclusively of gay members, so would it be right to say that a heterosexual has a "gay agenda"? So, I think the term may be a bit misleading.
1161:
In fact, that person was unable to explain precisely how equal rights for gays will, in his words, "destroy Biblical marriage", as he did not choose to endorse the "gaydiation" theory. He was at something of a loss, actually, which was my intention. Humor can be a weapon.
860:
Thanks to Chooserr for fixing the links - I should have been more careful. Hopefully we can move on from this version to something everyone feels is NPOV. I should make it clear however that I don't feel the current intro needs much work as it reads pretty fair to me.
2350:
Whatever your intent, the end result of your edits to to add bias to the article, so I will revert that bias in accordance with the consensus that you seem not to care much about. This is not a threat, it is an explanation so that you're not surprised or offended.
1401:
equality, not the subversion of society. I'm sorry if this is not as clear to you as it is to the rest of us, but we can't stop the world for one person's error. Oh, and as for what most gay people you know think, that'll become relevant the moment they becomes
2314:
Of course, I'll assume good faith, so I'll accept your claim that one of your reverts was inadvertant. As for what the point is of editing against the consensus? None. That's why you shouldn't do it. Come join us in discussion, not edit-warring. Please.
1863:
I'm aware I edited more than one word. You asked me to improve the article. I attempted to do so. You are objecting to the removal of one word. Are you planning to object to all of the other edits as well? If not, please don't revert all of them. If so, why?
1098:
I never said neutral, nor did you limit your request to neutral. It is, however, an example of another view of the term, namely dismissive or, as you phrased it, satirical. The point is that it is not seen exclusively as offensive or derogatory or derisive.
1371:
some organizations do, but that doesn't equate to all. For the same reason that the term itself is invalid (there is no universal "homosexual agenda"), it cannot be universally offensiveness. The most you can prove is that some gay organizations say it is.
261:
You only have to look at how the term "homosexual agenda" is used to see it is not a neutral term. It is a phrase coined by the opponents of gay rights and is used derogatorily to criticize homosexuals and attempts at equality between gays and straights.
1287:
Consider "Nigger is a term which can be used in a derogatory way to refer to black people". Note how it avoids burying the lead. It would, in fact, be POV to hide how offensive this term is by moving it to some later paragraph. Al 05:22, 29 May 2006
997:
be called "Unauthorized Editorializing" to soften the blow. But it would not change things. (Now before anyone takes "offense" I was not comparing Homosexuality with Vandalism -- I was making a point about taking offense and its implications).
601:
Yes, but the thing is that it isn't necessarily a racial term - or more precisely doesn't always have to be. Take the court case section at the bottom. With Alienus' version it seems that the court is going out of their way to offend gays.
657:(edit clash) Chooserr refers to the "so called homosexual agenda" quote I presume. That is not a ringing endorsement of the term but a turn of phrase most people use to indicate something they do not subscribe to - good o'l weasle words.
2044:
Any changes you make against consensus will eventually be reverted. I don't really care if this article is a mess in the meantime; it's the end that matters. I suggest that you stop trying to alter the article and come join us here.
1966:
and who use the term to discuss the activities of those who support them. I have heard the term used, both personally, and in media, in a non-derogatory way that discusses this conflict. And it is not always used in a political sense.
1438:
As far as following consensus, I count 3 in favor of "definitely offensive" to 5 in favor of something that allows for other viewpoints. Of course I've been known to miscount before, so perhaps you could double check that for me.
289:
Those are just the top results (some of which are repeated a few times in the first few hits). How much more evidence do we need that "homosexual agenda" is a conservative political concept rather than a neutral descriptive term?
584:
racially offensive. It needs to be made clear from the start that this is a debatable political concept used by people who oppose the gay rights movement, and a term that gays and lesbians (and their supporters) find offensive.
2177:
You can continue to show the links, but I am telling the truth. Look at the history. I did not revert. I did not copy and paste. I went to the edit page and made a series of minor and "major" edits. I described each one.
343:
Yep. The basic concept is inherently POV; that homosexuals and their supporters have a (hidden) agenda, which is hostile to "regular folk". There are no examples of neutral use, only partisan and always anti-gay.
526:
I don't see how my version is misleading it is roughly the third paragraph, before the first header, the first word is a link to GLAAD (which any homosexual or Heterosexual on this page will know about), now it has
187:
favorable light, and if you disagree with us and refer to us by anything else, we will call you racist/homophobe/bigot/sexist/etc/etc/etc. It is definitely POV when even a clinical, neutral term, such as homosexual
127:
is a term which can be used in a derogatory way to refer to black people". Note how it avoids burying the lead. It would, in fact, be POV to hide how offensive this term is by moving it to some later paragraph.
1602:
This is not inflamatory at all. I'm pointing out that offensive terms are used by one group to offend another, which means that the former group is not offended by the terms they use. Please assume good faith.
511:
I suggest everyone hold off on editing for a few hours until a bit more discussion has taken place, as this will only turn into an edit war that is bound to end up in one side or the other being banned under the
2003:
If you would look at the history, it was not a revert. It was a step-by-step edit including descriptions of why I edited it. There are inaccuracies and POV wording that I was editing, as well as invalid links.
1770:, you seem to be reverting with no regard to this entire discussion thread or the consensus reached. It really is not fair to go in making major changes while a discussion of this nature is still taking place.
814:
Alienus, the one thing about you that ticks me off the most is your persistence in saying "Use the talk" and "wait for a consensus" when you don't. If you set rules for others be prepared to follow them first.
843:
No actually I have plenty, most I put into my version, however you seem intent to suppress a point of view you don't agree with. Its like appealing to those who commit crimes against you for help.
1408:
I think we've debated this to death. I've made my point as clearly as I can, so we'll have to agree to disagree. I recommend you supplement this by agreeing to go along with the consensus here.
642:
Yes, but with Alienus' intro it seems that they worked to find a way to offend homosexuals. It is tantamount to saying that the Supreme Court is Racist or Sexual Preferencists as the case may be.
153:
So, please show me how this term can be used in a non-derogatory way, and then I'll agree with your changes. However, Chooserr's changes are uniformly bad, so I'll be reverting those regardless.
1791:
If the other users involved in this discussion can please confirm that I've not misread this discussion (in assuming that we'd reached some sort of consensus with the above edit), I will revert.
1521:
Whatever other differences individual gays and lesbians and their supporters have between them, I think it is safe to assume they are united in being offended by a term that is consistently (and
1945:
in that case you should have just changed the word rather than reverting wholesale to an earlier version. What would be a good word to reflect its POV nature other than "rhetorical"? Political?
676:
In fact, they did work to find a way to offend homosexuals. They were quite successful, as it is indeed offensive to claim that there there's some secret agenda shared by gays and their allies.
1310:
Yes, it's different. And, for "homosexual conspiracy", it is correct to say that it is an offensive term, not merely one that can be used in a derogatory way. Thank you for understanding.
1889:
Your first edit was a wholesale reversion to a completely different opening paragraph, one which had an entirely different slant to that which we (I think) have agreed here by consensus.
1914:
Also, rhetoric has the connotation that it is just a phrase and typically untrue. That is why I object to it. It's biased. I think earlier versions were more neutral in its explanation.
1500:
Your second sentence purports to represent gays and lesbians and their supporters as a cohesive group with a single perspective on this topic. That is not only false, it's unverifiable.
698:
Alienus, I don't believe that. Because if the term is Equal to Nigger than it would be totally stricken from the books. Also as for Scalia being "far right" I can't agree with you less.
452:
I've already given my suggestion, which is to word it in a way that allows for the possibility of it being an offensive term without presenting that as the only possible interpretation.
263:
904:
It is not definitively known who first coined the term, but it is most often used by social conservatives (most noteably by Christian Fundamentalists), especially in the United States.
407:
This article is about a term the lesbian and gay community find offensive and is widely used to slur their motives. The version Chooserr keeps installing does not make this clear. Al's
508:
almost exclusively by opponents of gay rights to portray gay rights in a sinister light. The intro as it was before gave no indication that it was anything other than a neutral term.
325:"A key reason is that they feel they can get elected now while news of the sponsorship scandal weakens the Liberals and takes news coverage away from a focus on their hidden agenda."
549:
article it is in the first paragraph and I think Chooserr misunderstood my comments about using that article as a style guide rather than just making a list of comparable insults.
304:
1335:
Funny, I meant to type "homosexual agenda", but I accidently mixed it with "Zionist conspiracy" to get "homosexual conspiracy". What's really funny is how this changed nothing.
757:
Oh okay, Any way I've made a few slight edits to the article (including re-adding the section on alternative meaning). I also got rid of the extra s! I hope it suits everyone.
376:
Just out of curiousity, why do you suppose so many feel that way? Do you think that all of those opinions are completely without merit? That would be enforcing your POV, right?
2103:
Now DavidBailey is just obfuscating with his major revert followed by several small changes, then demanding that every one be justified. This is NOT operating in good faith.
2082:
Now DavidBailey is just obfuscating with his major revert followed by several small changes, then demanding that every one be justified. This is NOT operating in good faith.
1050:
I also know of other examples, which I shall find. But I do not believe that examples to the contrary will make any difference and I will be wasting my time. Am I wrong?
1033:
itself... this topic has a very definite Anglo-American bias, something that NPOV strives to avoid. So this article starts off being contrary to NPOV in its current state.
911:
I think that is a fair and neutral opening, short and to the point, covering the full spectum of the concept and probably each statement is supportable with citations.
332:
However, you will note that although many conservatives disagree with many of those memes, there is hardly an outcry to remove the term from all media and public forums.
2124:
It's quite clear that you're making stealth reverts. It doesn't particularly matter whether you deny it. What matters is that you will still get blocked for violating
437:
Unfortunately, Chooserr continued to edit war (and admits to doing so). In the end, though, his version is unacceptable and I will make sure that it does not remain.
1698:
I suggest in future edits (and discussion) we improve upon this rather than reverting to the earliest version, which I think almost everyone agrees is inadequate.
113:
That needs to be expanded in the article, not the introduction. Your intro allows for no other perspective other than it's offensive - it's inherently POV.
1172:
It seems to me that the article is USA-centred. As far as I am aware the term is not commonly used in the U.K. or elsewhere - could this be made clear? --
979:
Of course it is a fallacy to argue that -- and that is not what I argued. Where do you see me saying it is not offensive? I think you missed the point.
2258:
if not a revert? You changed the entire paragraph back to an older version with a completely different slant and wording. A rose by any other name...
1246:
This term is intended to offend and mislead. It offends those who support gay rights and misleads everyone else by implying a mythical conspiracy.
319:
Conservatives want to have "more conservative federal judges, a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and boosting oil exploration in Alaska"
2057:
Clearly there is no concensus. I do not like the current version but it is better than one you reverted previously. You should stop reverting.
378:
You've just admitted that they're all opinions. Isn't that all that I have tried to argue? That the "homosexual agenda" is a POV concept?
1781:
characterize the gay rights movement. Why is there a problem with acknowledging that "homosexual agenda" is a POV term and concept?
1384:
Basically I don't get your vehemenence. Most gay people I know find the term amusing rather than offensive. An organization like
1323:
It's a red herring to suddenly throw "homosexual conspiracy" in there when that hasn't been used by anybody at all on this page.
1992:
I've made some suggestions, above. Anybody want to look at them? Maybe get the focus back on improving the compromise version?
1550:
Here is an example of someone using the term to describe politically opposing the views, without using it in a derogatory way.
1259:
What's ironic is that I'm taking that wording directly from a Wiki article that Alienus referenced near the top of this page.
411:
analogy is a good one and the way that article is handled could give us some ideas on how to sort this one out. Any thoughts?
1349:
argument. It seems that you are saying that it HAS to be offensive because only those who oppose it are likely to use it.
164:
1215:
1085:
entitled, "Attack of the Gay Agenda". How can that possibly be roped in to support the notion that it is a neutral term?
1137:
Hey, I'm totally in line with it being ridiculous. That's my point - it doesn't have to be offensive to be ridiculous.
1116:
The point of the cartoon was to lampoon the notion of a "gay agenda", which presupposes it is ridiculous or offensive.
1748:
Reason: Once again, you can't prove that such a statement is true in all cases for the opponents. It works both ways.
188:
2476:
2425:
89:
38:
1804:
So let me get this right. You're going to revert all of my edits because you disagree on the removal of one word?
1525:
ever, unless someone has finally found a counterexample) used to portray gays and gay rights in a negative light.
1426:
Of course words have meaning, but not everybody agrees on that implicit meaning. That's the point of this article.
191:
2468:
2463:
2451:
2446:
81:
76:
64:
59:
1735:, add a citation request at the end of the first sentence (of just throw in three or so references as examples).
786:
Yeah...and your POV incorectly formated version is the best wikipedia can ask for. Man you are such a saint.
1773:
No one has been able to find an indisputable occurrence of "homosexual agenda" that is not being used as a
1572:
I suppose that Klansmen don't consider "nigger" offensive, either, so David R.'s suggestion is reasonable.
1553:
Of course, I'm sure Al will find it insulting and offensive. It seems that anything not pro-gay is to him.
1551:
923:
It certainly seems to be less biased than either of the two versions we've been seeing so much of lately.
313:"Conservatives have no use for such liberal concepts as progress, equality, social justice, or democracy."
2058:
1051:
938:
914:
2404:
2259:
2200:
2094:
1946:
1890:
1822:
1792:
1782:
1699:
1628:
1526:
1480:
1219:
1117:
1086:
959:
624:
585:
517:
483:
379:
293:
221:
1651:
This is the current version, and the one for which we seemed to have reached the greatest consensus:
1962:
Political is closer to being accurate, but perhaps not completely valid. There are those who oppose
1690:
1154:
It is quite common to ridicule what is offensive. This doesn't make it any less offensive, though.
513:
679:
In any case, the SCOTUS didn't use the term, Scalia did, and he's nearly as far right as Roberts.
1933:
1234:
1067:
Actually I did, but because of the humorous nature it seems to have been completely dismissed.
2070:
623:
It was used by the Supreme Court, but so far as I am aware, by no means without controversy.
2362:
2341:
2293:
2226:
2179:
2143:
2115:
2005:
1968:
1915:
1865:
1805:
1767:
1586:
1554:
1419:
1388:, which exists to root out anti-gay defamation, is understandably broad in its definitions.
1346:
487:
358:
333:
243:
194:
2325:
2139:
2125:
2434:
47:
17:
1402:
2161:
2104:
2083:
2036:
2020:
1993:
1843:
1749:
1639:
1501:
1440:
1389:
1372:
1350:
1324:
1260:
1138:
1100:
1072:
924:
475:
453:
273:
The homosexual agenda is an attack on everything our Founding Fathers hoped to give us.
167:
140:
114:
954:
It's a fallacy to argue that a term is neutral or non-offensive simply because of its
844:
816:
787:
758:
720:
699:
643:
603:
532:
239:
176:
Yes, making fun of an offensive term, not using it in a non-offensive way. Come on.
566:
If you want some other version, go ahead and change it. Everyone else is doing it.
2513:
2352:
2330:
2316:
2129:
2074:
2046:
1983:
1618:
1604:
1573:
1409:
1361:
1336:
1311:
1294:
1277:
1247:
1184:
1163:
830:
800:
774:
680:
567:
438:
428:
395:
345:
177:
154:
129:
104:
1617:
David, I've made one attempt at implementing your suggestion. What do you think?
220:
crying foul because an opposition group uses a particular term in the discussion?
2492:
2155:
Why do you keep denying it when there's ample proof that you did in fact revert?
1685:
through law, culture, and popular media so as to shift society's focus away from
2433:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2394:
862:
737:
658:
550:
412:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2407:
2397:
2365:
2355:
2344:
2333:
2319:
2296:
2262:
2229:
2203:
2182:
2164:
2146:
2132:
2118:
2107:
2097:
2086:
2077:
2061:
2049:
2039:
2023:
2008:
1996:
1986:
1971:
1949:
1936:
1918:
1893:
1868:
1846:
1825:
1808:
1795:
1785:
1752:
1702:
1642:
1631:
1621:
1607:
1589:
1576:
1557:
1529:
1504:
1483:
1443:
1412:
1392:
1375:
1364:
1353:
1339:
1327:
1314:
1297:
1280:
1263:
1250:
1237:
1222:
1201:
1187:
1176:
1166:
1141:
1120:
1103:
1089:
1075:
1054:
962:
941:
927:
917:
869:
847:
833:
819:
803:
790:
777:
761:
744:
723:
702:
683:
665:
646:
627:
606:
588:
570:
557:
535:
520:
490:
456:
441:
431:
419:
398:
382:
361:
348:
336:
296:
246:
224:
197:
180:
170:
157:
143:
132:
117:
107:
2199:
David, you yourself used the abbreviation rv when you described the edits...!
1662:
479:
276:
The Main Goal of the Homosexual Agenda is the criminalization of Christianity.
2537:. Association of Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Issues in Counseling of Alabama
1431:
1198:
1173:
955:
207:
content, connotations and suggestions that go beyond dictionary definitions?
1982:
There is room for compromise, but there is no room for rogue elephants.
1678:
1674:
394:
destroy the world as we know it. It doesn't get any more POV than that.
2534:
1689:. It is generally considered to be highly offensive by those within the
1670:
1158:
to unpack its meaning and tell us what that term was intended to imply.
799:
Feel free to discuss any suggested changes here. My mind is wide open.
486:??? When you're not winning the against the opposing views, obfuscate!
898:
Instead, I suggest that the opening statement go something like this:
1840:
I have to agree. I see many more edits than the removal of one word.
1682:
1273:
907:
Some gay and lesbian rights supporters consider the term offensive."
546:
528:
482:
not being called gay rights, or anything else that would make sense.
408:
124:
2361:
I agree. Please don't take it personally when I revert your revert.
2160:
It's this dishonesty that is hampering any ability to move forward.
1686:
1385:
2514:"Horowitz accuses Christian right of "intolerance" toward gays"
2412:
1666:
773:
pretty silly paragraph that's entirely uncited. This is bad.
357:
That is debatable, therefore your opinion, and therefore POV.
25:
1496:
You were one of the people that I'd counted as part of the 3.
2376:
Presumably the homosexual agenda looks something like this:
1272:
Yes, taking it out of context. The article I referenced is
829:
Ah, I see. So you don't have any suggestions? Fine by me.
1293:
I've already shown how it is not parallel in this manner.
2324:
Bailey, your recent changes are likewise in violation of
1821:
You replaced the entire opening paragraph, not one word.
270:
The homosexual agenda is: to destroy the American family.
2069:
Clearly, you are mistaken. No matter what anyone says,
2255:
2158:
2156:
2034:
2032:
2018:
1841:
1456:
an introduction that makes the following things clear:
282:
The homosexual agenda is more powerful than the Reich.
242:
is hardly constructive to the arguments of the cause.
1585:
Please refrain from making inflamatory comments, Al.
427:I suggest the version that I most recently edited.
1471:by those opposed to gay rights. It is viewed as
1434:count? I knew him the last 10 years of his life.
579:It is misleading because it fails to mention a
2073:is an absolute rule and will not be ignored.
719:Now I'm being accused of Weasle words? What?
8:
1661:) is a rhetorical term used by opponents of
322:Communist leaders are wary of conservatives.
2114:doing what you claim to be trying to stop.
1638:I think that works very nicely. Thank you.
279:Homosexual Agenda is to silence the church.
216:Also, by objecting to "homophobia", aren't
1475:by gays and lesbians and their supporters.
285:The homosexual agenda needs to be stopped.
264:A Google search for "homosexual agenda is"
1673:leaders and their supporters to redefine
2484:
310:Conservatives want to oppress the poor.
2431:Do not edit the contents of this page.
2403:Thanks for a bit of light relief!Ā :Ā¬D
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
1214:I archived off much of this page to
474:related pages about everything from
2380:Approval of minutes of last meeting
2031:Or, if you prefer the long format,
1665:to describe an alleged attempt by
257:"Homosexual agenda": A POV concept
24:
2340:of skewing it to a pro/con view.
2138:If you feel that I have violated
2493:"Offensive Terminology to Avoid"
2416:
1345:This is beginning to resemble a
503:Opening paragraph (and edit war)
266:turns up the following results:
29:
1715:In the spirit of moving on...
1627:We're getting there, I think!
1:
545:to the 3rd paragraph. In the
303:like "conservative agenda".
2562:
316:Conservatives are anti-gay
2408:23:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2398:23:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2372:Homosexual agenda items?
2366:00:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
2356:00:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
2345:00:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
2334:00:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
2320:00:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
2297:23:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2263:23:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2230:23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2204:23:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2183:23:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2165:23:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2147:23:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2133:23:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2119:23:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2108:23:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2098:23:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2087:23:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2078:23:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2062:22:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2050:22:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2040:22:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2024:22:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2009:22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1997:22:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1987:22:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1972:01:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
1950:22:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1937:22:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1919:22:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1894:22:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1869:22:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1847:22:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1826:22:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1809:22:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1796:22:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1786:22:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1753:22:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1703:22:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1643:21:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1632:21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1622:21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1608:21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1590:21:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1577:21:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1558:23:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1530:21:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1505:21:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1484:21:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1444:19:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1413:18:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1393:18:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1376:18:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1365:18:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1354:18:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1340:17:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1328:17:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1315:17:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1298:17:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1281:17:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1264:17:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1251:16:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1238:16:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1223:15:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1202:23:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1188:23:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1177:22:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1167:16:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1142:16:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1121:16:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1104:16:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1090:15:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1076:15:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1055:22:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
963:15:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
942:15:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
928:14:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
918:14:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
870:11:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
848:09:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
834:09:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
820:09:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
804:09:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
791:09:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
778:09:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
762:09:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
745:09:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
724:09:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
703:09:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
684:09:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
666:09:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
647:09:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
628:08:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
607:08:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
589:08:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
571:08:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
558:08:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
536:08:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
531:in it. Very misleading.
521:08:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
491:21:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
457:16:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
442:08:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
432:08:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
420:08:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
399:18:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
383:17:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
362:17:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
349:17:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
337:17:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
297:17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
247:15:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
225:13:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
198:12:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
181:07:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
171:06:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
158:05:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
144:05:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
133:05:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
118:05:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
108:05:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
166:a pretty humorous one.
2535:"Terminology to Avoid"
1418:Oh yeah, definitely a
1360:further clarify this.
1228:Re: "can be offensive"
2429:of past discussions.
1243:Very simply, I agree.
736:Not you - the quote!
484:LGBT social movements
42:of past discussions.
1691:gay rights movement
1081:Your example was a
374:DavidBailey wrote:
2386:Any other business
2482:
2481:
2441:
2440:
2435:current talk page
2389:Next meeting date
2383:Management report
1687:biblical morality
1655:Homosexual agenda
1461:Homosexual agenda
1083:satirical cartoon
95:
94:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2553:
2546:
2545:
2543:
2542:
2531:
2525:
2524:
2522:
2521:
2510:
2504:
2503:
2501:
2500:
2489:
2460:
2443:
2442:
2420:
2419:
2413:
2405:David L Rattigan
2260:David L Rattigan
2201:David L Rattigan
2095:David L Rattigan
1947:David L Rattigan
1891:David L Rattigan
1823:David L Rattigan
1793:David L Rattigan
1783:David L Rattigan
1723:remove the word
1700:David L Rattigan
1629:David L Rattigan
1527:David L Rattigan
1481:David L Rattigan
1420:no true Scotsman
1347:No true Scotsman
1220:David L Rattigan
1118:David L Rattigan
1087:David L Rattigan
960:David L Rattigan
867:
742:
663:
625:David L Rattigan
586:David L Rattigan
555:
518:David L Rattigan
417:
380:David L Rattigan
294:David L Rattigan
222:David L Rattigan
73:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
2561:
2560:
2556:
2555:
2554:
2552:
2551:
2550:
2549:
2540:
2538:
2533:
2532:
2528:
2519:
2517:
2512:
2511:
2507:
2498:
2496:
2491:
2490:
2486:
2456:
2417:
2374:
1765:
1230:
1212:
863:
738:
659:
551:
505:
413:
259:
103:unacceptable.
100:
69:
30:
22:
21:
20:
18:Talk:Gay agenda
12:
11:
5:
2559:
2557:
2548:
2547:
2526:
2516:. AmNation.com
2505:
2483:
2480:
2479:
2474:
2471:
2466:
2461:
2454:
2449:
2439:
2438:
2421:
2411:
2410:
2391:
2390:
2387:
2384:
2381:
2373:
2370:
2369:
2368:
2348:
2347:
2312:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2241:
2240:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2170:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2150:
2149:
2122:
2121:
2101:
2100:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2059:64.178.145.150
2029:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2017:Uh, try again
2012:
2011:
2000:
1999:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1940:
1939:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1799:
1798:
1764:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1729:generally used
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1646:
1645:
1635:
1634:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1580:
1579:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1498:
1497:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1447:
1446:
1436:
1435:
1428:
1427:
1424:
1423:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1379:
1378:
1357:
1356:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1318:
1317:
1305:May 2006 (UTC)
1301:
1300:
1284:
1283:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1254:
1253:
1244:
1229:
1226:
1211:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1191:
1190:
1170:
1169:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1093:
1092:
1066:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1052:64.178.145.150
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
947:
946:
945:
944:
939:64.178.145.150
931:
930:
915:64.178.145.150
910:
877:
875:
874:
873:
872:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
807:
806:
796:
795:
794:
793:
781:
780:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
750:
749:
748:
747:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
689:
688:
687:
686:
677:
671:
670:
669:
668:
652:
651:
650:
649:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
594:
593:
592:
591:
574:
573:
563:
562:
561:
560:
539:
538:
504:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
476:nuclear family
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
445:
444:
425:
424:
423:
422:
402:
401:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
367:
366:
365:
364:
352:
351:
340:
339:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
323:
320:
317:
314:
311:
287:
286:
283:
280:
277:
274:
271:
258:
255:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
230:
229:
228:
227:
211:
210:
209:
208:
201:
200:
174:
173:
147:
146:
121:
120:
99:
96:
93:
92:
87:
84:
79:
74:
67:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2558:
2536:
2530:
2527:
2515:
2509:
2506:
2494:
2488:
2485:
2478:
2475:
2472:
2470:
2467:
2465:
2462:
2459:
2455:
2453:
2450:
2448:
2445:
2444:
2436:
2432:
2428:
2427:
2422:
2415:
2414:
2409:
2406:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2396:
2388:
2385:
2382:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2371:
2367:
2364:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2354:
2346:
2343:
2338:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2332:
2327:
2322:
2321:
2318:
2298:
2295:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2284:
2283:
2282:
2281:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2264:
2261:
2257:
2253:
2252:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2231:
2228:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2205:
2202:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2184:
2181:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2171:
2166:
2163:
2159:
2157:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2148:
2145:
2141:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2131:
2127:
2120:
2117:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2109:
2106:
2099:
2096:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2085:
2080:
2079:
2076:
2072:
2063:
2060:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2048:
2042:
2041:
2038:
2035:
2033:
2025:
2022:
2019:
2016:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2010:
2007:
2002:
2001:
1998:
1995:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1985:
1973:
1970:
1965:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1951:
1948:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1938:
1935:
1934:Exploding Boy
1930:
1929:
1920:
1917:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1895:
1892:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1870:
1867:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1848:
1845:
1842:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1827:
1824:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1810:
1807:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1797:
1794:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1771:
1769:
1762:
1754:
1751:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1720:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1704:
1701:
1697:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1653:
1652:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1644:
1641:
1637:
1636:
1633:
1630:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1620:
1609:
1606:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1591:
1588:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1578:
1575:
1571:
1570:
1559:
1556:
1552:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1531:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1506:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1485:
1482:
1479:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1457:
1455:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1445:
1442:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1411:
1406:
1404:
1394:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1377:
1374:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1363:
1355:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1338:
1329:
1326:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1316:
1313:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1299:
1296:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1282:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1270:
1265:
1262:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1252:
1249:
1245:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1236:
1235:Exploding Boy
1227:
1225:
1224:
1221:
1217:
1209:
1203:
1200:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1189:
1186:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1175:
1168:
1165:
1160:
1156:
1153:
1152:
1143:
1140:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1122:
1119:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1105:
1102:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1091:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1074:
1068:
1056:
1053:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
964:
961:
957:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
943:
940:
935:
934:
933:
932:
929:
926:
922:
921:
920:
919:
916:
912:
908:
905:
902:
899:
896:
892:
888:
884:
880:
871:
868:
866:
859:
858:
857:
856:
849:
846:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
832:
821:
818:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
805:
802:
798:
797:
792:
789:
785:
784:
783:
782:
779:
776:
771:
770:
763:
760:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
746:
743:
741:
735:
734:
733:
732:
725:
722:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
704:
701:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
685:
682:
678:
675:
674:
673:
672:
667:
664:
662:
656:
655:
654:
653:
648:
645:
641:
640:
639:
638:
629:
626:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
608:
605:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
590:
587:
582:
578:
577:
576:
575:
572:
569:
565:
564:
559:
556:
554:
548:
543:
542:
541:
540:
537:
534:
530:
525:
524:
523:
522:
519:
515:
514:3 revert rule
509:
502:
492:
489:
485:
481:
477:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
458:
455:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
443:
440:
436:
435:
434:
433:
430:
421:
418:
416:
410:
406:
405:
404:
403:
400:
397:
392:
391:
384:
381:
377:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
363:
360:
356:
355:
354:
353:
350:
347:
342:
341:
338:
335:
331:
324:
321:
318:
315:
312:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
301:
300:
299:
298:
295:
291:
284:
281:
278:
275:
272:
269:
268:
267:
265:
256:
248:
245:
241:
240:cause celebre
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
226:
223:
219:
215:
214:
213:
212:
205:
204:
203:
202:
199:
196:
192:
189:
185:
184:
183:
182:
179:
172:
169:
165:
163:Well, here's
162:
161:
160:
159:
156:
151:
145:
142:
137:
136:
135:
134:
131:
126:
119:
116:
112:
111:
110:
109:
106:
97:
91:
88:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
72:
68:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2539:. Retrieved
2529:
2518:. Retrieved
2508:
2497:. Retrieved
2487:
2457:
2430:
2424:
2392:
2375:
2349:
2323:
2313:
2123:
2102:
2081:
2068:
2043:
2030:
1980:
1963:
1778:
1774:
1772:
1766:
1733:by opponents
1732:
1731:in front of
1728:
1724:
1718:
1716:
1658:
1654:
1616:
1522:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1453:
1407:
1399:
1358:
1334:
1303:
1302:
1286:
1285:
1231:
1213:
1171:
1082:
1069:
1065:
913:
909:
906:
903:
900:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
876:
864:
828:
739:
660:
580:
552:
510:
506:
426:
414:
375:
292:
288:
260:
217:
175:
152:
148:
122:
101:
70:
43:
37:
2423:This is an
2363:DavidBailey
2342:DavidBailey
2329:make them.
2294:DavidBailey
2227:DavidBailey
2180:DavidBailey
2144:DavidBailey
2116:DavidBailey
2006:DavidBailey
1969:DavidBailey
1916:DavidBailey
1866:DavidBailey
1806:DavidBailey
1768:DavidBailey
1587:DavidBailey
1555:DavidBailey
488:DavidBailey
359:DavidBailey
334:DavidBailey
244:DavidBailey
195:DavidBailey
36:This is an
2541:2006-05-30
2520:2006-05-30
2499:2006-05-30
2477:ArchiveĀ 10
1964:gay rights
1779:negatively
1775:rhetorical
1763:Reversions
1717:wiki link
1681:, and the
1663:gay rights
1659:gay agenda
1469:negatively
1467:term used
480:gay rights
123:Consider "
90:ArchiveĀ 10
2469:ArchiveĀ 5
2464:ArchiveĀ 4
2458:ArchiveĀ 3
2452:ArchiveĀ 2
2447:ArchiveĀ 1
2162:CovenantD
2105:CovenantD
2084:CovenantD
2037:CovenantD
2021:CovenantD
1994:CovenantD
1844:CovenantD
1750:CovenantD
1640:CovenantD
1502:CovenantD
1473:offensive
1441:CovenantD
1432:Harry Hay
1422:argument.
1390:CovenantD
1373:CovenantD
1351:CovenantD
1325:CovenantD
1261:CovenantD
1216:Archive 2
1139:CovenantD
1101:CovenantD
1073:CovenantD
956:etymology
925:CovenantD
454:CovenantD
168:CovenantD
141:CovenantD
115:CovenantD
82:ArchiveĀ 5
77:ArchiveĀ 4
71:ArchiveĀ 3
65:ArchiveĀ 2
60:ArchiveĀ 1
2254:What is
1777:term to
1725:rhetoric
1719:rhetoric
1679:marriage
1675:religion
845:Chooserr
817:Chooserr
788:Chooserr
759:Chooserr
721:Chooserr
700:Chooserr
644:Chooserr
604:Chooserr
533:Chooserr
2495:. GLAAD
2426:archive
2071:WP:NPOV
1671:lesbian
1463:" is a
1210:Archive
1071:a bit.
581:crucial
39:archive
2395:Karada
2326:WP:POV
2140:WP:3RR
2126:WP:3RR
1727:, add
1683:family
1430:Would
1274:nigger
865:Sophia
740:Sophia
661:Sophia
553:Sophia
547:nigger
529:Nigger
415:Sophia
409:nigger
190:agenda
125:Nigger
1452:I am
1403:WP:RS
1386:GLAAD
1288:(UTC)
16:<
2256:this
1669:and
1657:(or
1523:only
1199:Eine
1174:Eine
2393:--
1667:gay
1465:POV
1454:for
1405:.
478:to
218:you
98:POV
2473:ā
2353:Al
2331:Al
2317:Al
2130:Al
2128:.
2075:Al
2047:Al
1984:Al
1677:,
1619:Al
1605:Al
1574:Al
1410:Al
1362:Al
1337:Al
1312:Al
1295:Al
1278:Al
1248:Al
1218:.
1197:--
1185:Al
1164:Al
831:Al
801:Al
775:Al
681:Al
568:Al
516:.
439:Al
429:Al
396:Al
346:Al
178:Al
155:Al
130:Al
105:Al
86:ā
2544:.
2523:.
2502:.
2437:.
1721:,
1693:.
1459:"
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.