I’ve always assumed it was people afraid of being hit on by men. That’s the agenda–turning people gay. They’re petrified that they will become gay.
This is exactly what the fictional “gay agenda” is, and why it’s indeed a pejorative term.
I dunno, if you’re on that side and it seems like every month there’s an article about some fine, upstanding Christian pastor or politician being caught with a gay lover, maybe you think there’s something to this whole ‘being converted’ thing. 
But it’s true! I once saw an article about the progress of the homosexual agenda!
The boogeyman “gay agenda”, in their more polite cover form, is about that there’s a plot to (a) “normalize” LGBTT and (b) deligitimize the anti-gay “values” posture – thus that quote from Conservapaedia about how they are the biggest threat to free speech.
But yeah, the more broad element is the “recruiting” fear. I’ve mentioned it elsewhere on the board, that ISTM that what is at work in the minds of some of the people who are afraid of the gays taking over is that, to them, due to the conditioning and indoctrination, there is no such thing as different sexual orientations that are just how people are. There is normal sex – male-dominant monogamous hetero – and then there’s perverted sex which is EVERYTHING ELSE and which is something* everyone may be lured into*. Because, to them, it is all a part of the scale of perversion, expansion of acceptance of LGBTT is a deliberate effort to spread the contamination: by removing social opprobrium and personal danger from being LGBTT, you are making it easier to yield to the temptation.
Well, that’s the problem, some people *are *thinking of the children… a bit *too *intently.
God, I did SO MUCH prime toot with Buckley back in the 1980s. Chased each line with single malt Scotch. He used to swipe up the last of the freeze onto the tip of a Camel straight and smoke it.
When he put his hand on my knee, though, I pushed it off.
When I was at university in the late 70’s, the gay agenda was, explicitly, the destruction of the institution of marriage, the destruction of the institution of the nuclear family, and the destruction of traditional ideas of sexual morality,
By methods including the education of high-school students and ridicule of religious institutions.
I apreciate that there are other gay agendas, but that was the public face of the gay-rights movement in the late 70’s, as adopted by the university gay rights representative organisation at my university, and as reported by the student press in Australia.
To my parents, that agenda was unattractive, so associating any activity with that agenda would make that activity less attractive. Which is to say, the term would be pejoritive.
That’s what always bugged me. Are there gays who think marriage and monogamy are “heteronormative”? Sure. Do they think they should be allowed to be and act in ways outside of those and not be looked down for it? Sure. But I, at least, don’t recall anyone calling for the “destruction” of those institutions literally, in that not even those who wanted to partake would be able to. I mean, how would you do that? Make marriage illegal? Pass a law forcing a minimum number of sexual partners on pain of imprisonment? It doesn’t make sense. The most I see is de-recognition by the state such that marriage doesn’t invoke special privileges or tax breaks.
In very short words: If a speaker thinks “gay” is pejorative then certainly a “gay agenda” is even worse in their book. The people you’re hearing use that phrase think “gay” is pejorative.
QED.
It is certainly true that there were–most likely still are–some gays and lesbians whose agenda, or policy prescriptions if you prefer, includes the sweeping away of traditional relationships and the destruction of many “societal norms.” For example, I recall reading about the members of a lesbian commune in the early 1990s when the issue of “gays in the military” first came to prominence, whose reaction was, “THIS is what we’ve been struggling for–the right to take orders and kill people?” Similarly, the institution of monogamous heterosexual marriage was viewed by some as something to destroy and not emulate–why continue the practices that had been used for so log to constrain and ostracize gays?
I’m not a sociologist or historian so I can’t really provide more than a gloss on some things I’ve read and learned. The sixties and seventies were a period of intense left radicalism on issues across the political spectrum. However, it served (some of) those on the left to promote an extreme agenda to stand out and distinguish themselves, whether that was the Weathermen or a few anti-marriage gay activists. Similarly it served the purposes of the right to seize upon the most extreme elements and make them representative of the whole movement.
Thus, the “gay agenda” according to American conservatives.
Well, remember that was the Sexual Revolution, when a lot of societal norms were being questioned, broken and changed.
Sounds like a fun society to live in. What’s the argument against this?
You have to remember that the gay agenda extends to treason.
As my BIL puts it, America is special because God loves it, but God will only love America as long as America maintains its moral superiority over those evil Socialists, the Western Europeans nations. They had the birthright first then lost it. Losers! Sad! Now we’ve lost it and if we don’t draw a line in the sand, we’re going to be wiped out.
There are seven trillion ways that America has lost this moral superiority, including but not limited to tattoos, marijuana and rock music.
God hates gays. And unless this is reversed, then God will hate America as badly as He does Iceland and all those other countries that don’t have Forth of July barbeques, just like He wanted.
So why don’t you hate gays, too? Are you a commie or what?
Sadly, this isn’t a parody.
America is or was the most powerful and wealthiest nation in the world. More or less. And may have been easy to get a good job if you just had a college degree and were a white male. More difficult if you were a woman or other race but still straightforward. So there are legitimate reasons to pine for the America of the past. I’ve also heard that, bluntly, it was a lot easier to find women for sex in the 60s and 70s because this was pre obesity epidemic, pre aids, and the population was younger.
All I’m saying is that it’s not the most unreasonable mental position to say “let’s roll everything back to how it was and things will be better, like they were”. This is exactly what “make America Great Again” actually means to these people. Never mind that Trump personally has had good times the whole way through, being uberrich, and he seems to be a con man who can’t deliver. And also that the fundamentals have changed. All those boomers can’t get any younger - maybe they should have funded anti-aging research instead of the world’s largest military. The job market isn’t going to get better for non STEM jobs because the STEM people are rapidly developing intelligent systems to take away most jobs. And so on.
America can be made better but it cannot actually be rolled back like these people want.
Even my Fox News watching mother said something about things being better in the 50’s the other day and I immediately shot her down, telling her that she just didn’t remember all of the bad things and the ways in which she was limited.
I mean, she was younger then, right? Life might have been more enjoyable in some ways. Men were paid enough just for work that women didn’t always have to work…
dude, so you know any college students? I don’t know about the general population, but young adults in college are having as much sex as anyone ever did in America.
Wow. My 80 yr old mother assured me that life just keeps getting better. I mean, she’s old and in poor health, and her life was better when she was young and strong. But she wasn’t allowed to graduate with honors, she wasn’t allowed to become a doctor, she really had no career irons other than “wife and mother” or “cleaning lady”, phone calls were luxuries, refrigerators barely worked and food didn’t keep nearly as well as now, the markets sold less variety, too, there were 3 TV channels, birth control sucked, and made her sick, … She’s pretty happy with most of the changes in the modern world.
This although I would lessen the “hidden” part and I would probably emphasize the negative aspects a little more. Rarely is something like Republican Agenda, Liberal Agenda, or Gay Agenda used in a positive or neutral manner except possibly by actual members of whichever movement/group we’re discussing.
My mother will be 79 this year and is in decline. We’ve noticed her memory going for several years now. Like I said, she’s an avid Fox News watcher and the only Republican in the entire extended family. She has some very unpleasant opinions that are all too flavored by her news watching habits.
Back on topic, while I am not gay, my sister came out 40 years ago when she was 17 and I was 15. It wasn’t pleasant for her and my parents basically kicked her out of the house. When I moved into my first apartment with a friend, we were often the only two young, single straight males at some of the parties we attended. I got propositioned a few times and never saw a problem with it or felt the need to be angry about it. I just politely declined and let them know I was straight, so it wasn’t anything about them. I honestly don’t know why some people get so afraid or terrified by the idea. I always took it as a complement.
Every gay person I’ve ever known only wanted to be able to live their own life and be happy.
Said BIL once threw out a conversational starter: “America lost its moral edge in the 60s.”
To which I sarcastically agreed with him in that the 50s were a wonderful time, as long as you didn’t mind not being able to vote, not being allowed to eat in particular restaurants, stay in certain hotels and you risked being killed if you looked at a white girl the wrong way. “Oh, but we’re white so it didn’t matter! Yes, the 50s were great! We were so moral back then!” I didn’t say anything about what women, gay individuals or other minorities were going through, but he had to do some backtracking.
I don’t get along with him very well.