Talk:Gay agenda

Ugandan content apparently removed here by mistake

On June 19, content about the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act, which properly belongs in this article, was removed from Anti-LGBT rhetoric in revision 1029277457 of 00:20, 19 June 2021 (with edit summary Moving to main article per WP:SUMMARY) and copied here at 00:23 by Sangdeboeuf. Twenty minutes after that, in an apparent misunderstanding, User:Anachronist, believing (so I assume) that the same content was duplicated in both places, removed the newly copied material from this article, leaving a summary here, in the assumption that the other article is the parent article, and this one the child, whereas in reality, it is the reverse, the content having already been removed from the other. The upshot is that the well-sourced full text originally developed at the other article resides nowhere, and each article has but a summary, assuming the other to be the "main" article.

In my opinion, section #Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act of revision 1029277810 should be restored as a sub-section of #Usage outside the United States to reestablish that the full content resides somewhere (in my opinion, this article is the right place for it) and the brief summary should remain in the other article as it is already. (If consensus is that the other article should be child and this should be parent, then the content should be restored there instead of here.) But we can't have a situation where both articles have a brief summary, with no child article to contain the more detailed treatment, which is where we are now. If the two of you can agree with what you want to do, then I'll make it unanimous, because I don't care where the content lives, as long as it lives somewhere. Edits to that section following 19 June can be remerged in (if not moot after the reinstatement of old content), and I'm happy to help with that, if needed. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

You're right. Good catch. I have restored the section. ~Anachronist (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed most of this material (including some bizarre errors) since the topic is now covered at The Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 § Background. None of the sources are primarily about the concept of the "gay agenda". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2022

The "Gay agenda" article is harshly biased and hateful towards conservatism. I couldn't get through the first two paragraphs without rolling my eyes. But I can tell you how to start a fix, 1; Don't blame Christians for inventing the term, 2; Neither blame conservatives.

In fact, the first paragraph can be deleted entirely. The second paragraph also attacks conservatives. This article fuels hate.

It is a legitimate term, if one is to accept the word "gay" as meaning homosexual. I'm not sure why there is any kind of denial about it. Any kind of cause or intent to do something is an agenda.

These days it seems that splitting hairs among terms in the English language is becoming the "new normal". Especially in the arena of social politics. Please, if this "encyclopedia agenda" (wiki) is going to gain some respect, it's gonna need to drop the social slant. Facts are neutral. 174.119.154.242 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Facts are neutral. Very true. And it's a simple fact that religious conservatives are behind the phrase "gay agenda". Unclear how this neutral fact fuels hate. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we should change the words “used by” in the following sentence:

“"Gay agenda" or "homosexual agenda" is a pejorative term used by sectors of the Christian religious right”

to “originated in certain”. I think it would be more unbiased wording while retaining the factual historical context initially provided. Palmetto Carolinian (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The term is not just used by 'Christian' right wing people. It is used by the islamic movement and by many non-religious people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A44B:48AB:1:D01B:F23C:27D:86BD (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Homintern, Atlas Obscura ref

I removed the citation to the Atlas Obscura article about the "Homintern" a.k.a. "Gay Mafia". The article is mostly a review of Gregory Woods's 2016 book Homintern and doesn't mention the "gay agenda" except in passing. Any relevant facts should probably be cited to the book itself. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2023

There is a typo in this section, as LGBT rights is written as "GBT rights" instead. 173.47.14.244 (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 19:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2023 (2)

LGBT rights is written as "GBT rights" in the beginning of the article. This is probably a typo. 173.47.14.244 (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I'm just blind. 173.47.14.244 (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 Note: closing: edit request withdrawn. M.Bitton (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Categories

Why is "Conspiracy theories in the United States" listed at the bottom of the article? 188.26.145.178 (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Because the subject is a conspiracy theory popular in the United States. Melmann 08:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Used by the Christian religious right?

This is going to seem nitpicky, but the first paragraph of this article makes it sound like gay agenda (or other terms) is only used by a subset of the christian faith.

While this may have been true in the past, light of what some may perceive to be heavy-handed changes in the tv, film, and video game industries in the US, in over-representing diversity, people of color, various sexual orientations, there is a growing 'anti-woke' sentiment among various groups.

Whether those views are right or wrong is irrelevent to the point i'm trying to make here- this is not specific to a subset of christianity. It may have been before, but in reaction to these recent pop culture changes, there are people who are expressing attitudes regarding for example an 'LGBTQ+ agenda' that are doing so for reasons that are entirely unrelated to their religion.

As an example, I stumbled across this article by seeing the link under 'Audience Response' on The Acolyte (TV Series), referencing an LGBTQ+ agenda. This is something that's actively discussed in the US, wholly separate from religion, as a result of studios race,gender, orientation swapping characters, or transparently making some characters particular races, genders, orientations, or varying levels of abled-ness, in order to 'check boxes' for the sake of diversity. It's a very contentious issue in the US at this time and in this context, does not have anything to do with conservative christians.

At least, by me saying this, I mean while this may have originated with them, there are instances where people are using this term or having these attitudes separate from their religious views.

In summary, I think the article could use a slight change to this wording in the first paragraph. It's very useful to call out where these ideas originated from, but I think it would be better to clarify it to where it's not implying that this is a (pejorative) term used only by the conservative christians.

Perhaps the second paragraph could be expanded along the lines of saying that it's also used to describe LGBT activists influence on movies, tv, video games. I can't articulate this well, but hopefully someone else knows what I'm getting at here (Genuinely, this isn't me trying to troll) and can contribute.

I'm not well versed with wikipedia, so hopefully this has been helpful and isn't just a long rant; I just stumbled upon the article and felt it was an odd thing to see. Heimerslinger (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles rely on evaluation and analysis by published secondary sources. There will be many sources that use terms like "LGBTQ+ agenda" without being about the terms themselves. Especially with articles about words and phrases, we need sources that examine the social or historical significance of the term itself, rather than just using it in passing to talk about something else as in the coverage of The Acolyte. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

To summarise your long rant, you are saying that social conservatism and its emphasis on traditional gender roles are not exclusive to Christianity, nor primarily motivated by religious concerns. In real life, I have a brother who is agnostic but has supported social-conservative parties for most of his adult life, and I have met several lifelong socialists who were social conservatives in their opinions on family structure and gender roles (including both of my parents). But in Wikipedia, we are obligated to summarise the perspective of reliable sources, not our personal experiences. Do you have sources for your suggested changes? Dimadick (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)