Gay Agenda gone too far?

keanooo

Has the gay agenda not gone too far when it results in this sort of thing?

what the hell!

I do sometimes get embarrassed when the gay community jump on every single thing that may be said in jest or as a slip of the tongue. Not saying that this was but for god sake stop thinking that the whole world is out to get you

keanooo

what the hell! wrote: »

I do sometimes get embarrassed when the gay community jump on every single thing that may be said in jest or as a slip of the tongue. Not saying that this was but for god sake stop thinking that the whole world is out to get you

I have to agree. I think it does more harm than good...

Didn't they see that South Park episode!

Killer Pigeon

Well, when he said "rehearsing is for fag", I would speculate that it was just an off remark, slip of the tongue and probably not intended to offend.

HOWEVER! OP, I would question your use of the phase "Gay Agenda", would you like to elaborate on what exactly you considered the "Gay Agenda" to be?

baby and crumble

Here's the article for anyone on mobile boards:

Comedian Eddie Murphy has quit as host of next year's Oscars, a day after director Brett Ratner resigned as the producer of the Los Angeles awards ceremony for using a homophobic insult.

Ratner brought Murphy in as Oscars host as part of his efforts to breathe new life into the ceremony following this year's poorly received event.

Tom Sherak, president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which stages the Oscars, said: "I appreciate how Eddie feels about losing his creative partner, Brett Ratner, and we all wish him well."

Ratner, the director of Rush Hour and X-Men 3, resigned after he received widespread criticism for using a homophobic slur during a promotional interview about his new film Tower Heist last week.

Asked about using rehearsals ahead of a film shoot, he replied "rehearsing is for fags". He subsequently apologised, but gay rights groups and some members of the academy took issue with his use of the slur.

The 42-year-old film-maker also gave an interview on Monday on shock jock Howard Stern's radio show in which he spoke about his past sexual conquests, masturbation, his skill at performing oral sex, pubic hair, the size of his testicles, the erotic habits of Hollywood moguls, his dislike of using condoms and his supposed habit of sending potential partners to his doctor to be checked for sexually transmitted diseases before he sleeps with them.

In his resignation letter, Ratner said he had "gotten a well-deserved earful from many of the people I admire most in this industry expressing their outrage and disappointment over the hurtful and stupid things I said in a number of recent media appearances. To them, and to everyone I've hurt and offended, I'd like to apologise publicly and unreservedly.

"As difficult as the last few days have been for me, they cannot compare to the experience of any young man or woman who has been the target of offensive slurs or derogatory comments. And they pale in comparison to what any gay, lesbian or transgender individual must deal with as they confront the many inequalities that continue to plague our world."

Academy president Sherak said Ratner had done "the right thing for the Academy and for himself". He added: "Words have meaning, and they have consequences. Brett is a good person, but his comments were unacceptable."

Ok, first of all I have to take issue with the term "Gay Agenda". Seriously.

Secondly, I don't think it's appropriate to use terms like that, no matter who you are. Ok, a lot of people don't have a problem with certain words, and that's fair enough. You also have to take into account the words around the term that causes offence- in this ase the director was insinuating that rehearsal is not something 'real men' do, by equating it with being gay. That's not cool, because it plays to the stereotype of gay men not being real men.

Everyone would rightly kick up a fuss if someone said "Working on a building site is for Paddys" or "Adult nappies are for retards" (GOD I hate that word, it pained me to even write it). Why is it ok to use disparaging words in a homophobic manner?

And lastly, I'm delighted that Eddie Murphy quit because he is quite frankly one of the least funny comedians they could pick for the Oscars, in my opinion.

keanooo

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Well, when he said "rehearsing is for fag", I would speculate that it was just an off remark, slip of the tongue and probably not intended to offend.

HOWEVER! OP, I would question your use of the phase "Gay Agenda", would you like to elaborate on what exactly you considered the "Gay Agenda" to be?

It refers to the group of people within the gay community who are who go on the attack at any perceived slight with an almost religious zeal, trying to brow-beat everyone in society into accepting them.

BanzaiBk

Oh no lads, it's the gay agenda again. Hide your membership details!

Killer Pigeon

baby and crumble wrote: »

Everyone would rightly kick up a fuss if someone said "Working on a building site is for Paddys" or "Adult nappies are for retards" (GOD I hate that word, it pained me to even write it). Why is it ok to use disparaging words in a homophobic manner?

I don't think that the director should have used the phase, of course. But phrases such as "...like a retard", etc.. are thrown about rather profusely. I don't think that the director intended to case any offense or even if he actually equates rehearsing as something a gay person would do. I think he just wasn't thinking. If you rated his homophobia between 1 and 10, I'd probably rate it 0.5, simply because he probably didn't mean it and that he probably wasn't thinking.

Now, of course, I wouldn't defend the use of the word in that context.

Killer Pigeon

BanzaiBk wrote: »

Oh no lads, it's the gay agenda again. Hide your membership details!

I lost my gaydar transponder, do you know if HQ will give me a new one?

baby and crumble

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I don't think that the director should have used the phase, of course. But phrases such as "...like a retard", etc.. are thrown about rather profusely. I don't think that the director intended to case any offense or even if he actually equates rehearsing as something a gay person would do. I think he just wasn't thinking. If you rated his homophobia between 1 and 10, I'd probably rate it 0.5, simply because he probably didn't mean it and that he probably wasn't thinking.

Now, of course, I wouldn't defend the use of the word in that context.

Oh I agree that he probably didn't mean it to be homophobic, but the way these words which can and do cause offense to some people are thrown around can really really make it ok to have certain perceptions. I know I often bring it back to people with intellectual disabilities and the word 'retard', but now it's used to mean either stupid, non-functional, or off your face drunk when you can't walk straight. Every single person I know with intellectual disabilities HATES that word being used, and yet it still is, because so many people in the public eye just use them with out thinking how they can effect other people, and then ignore it or brush it off when people who are effected say they don't like it.

Baffles me.

Killer Pigeon

baby and crumble wrote: »

Oh I agree that he probably didn't mean it to be homophobic, but the way these words which can and do cause offense to some people are thrown around can really really make it ok to have certain perceptions. I know I often bring it back to people with intellectual disabilities and the word 'retard', but now it's used to mean either stupid, non-functional, or off your face drunk when you can't walk straight. Every single person I know with intellectual disabilities HATES that word being used, and yet it still is, because so many people in the public eye just use them with out thinking how they can effect other people, and then ignore it or brush it off when people who are effected say they don't like it.

Baffles me.

The word "idiot" and "stupid" were used officially in the same light, to describe someone with intellectual disabilities, about a century ago. I remember looking a 1902 census record of some family of mine going way back and the word "idiot" was used. Words change meaning all the time.

baby and crumble

I know, my point is that if it's offensive to someone now, it's not a word that should be used lightly, that's all I'm saying.

Same with "queer", "fag" etc.

floggg

keanooo wrote: »

It refers to the group of people within the gay community who are who go on the attack at any perceived slight with an almost religious zeal, trying to brow-beat everyone in society into accepting them.

No, it's not. It's a bull**** term used by people who right articles starting with "Some of my best friends are gay, but"

We ain't got no master plan. The gay agenda thing is a new politically correct way of saying gays should stay in their place.

And if you think Eddie Murphy quitting the Oscars is a travesty and outrage, then you really gotta rethink your priorities

uberwolf

baby and crumble wrote: »

I know, my point is that if it's offensive to someone now, it's not a word that should be used lightly, that's all I'm saying.

everything is offensive to someone. Which is why the intention of the person using the word is more important than the word itself. It seems disproportionate to me that this eejit lost his job for an ill advised word usage.

Killer Pigeon

baby and crumble wrote: »

I know, my point is that if it's offensive to someone now, it's not a word that should be used lightly, that's all I'm saying.

Same with "queer", "fag" etc.

I know this might be a silly argument, but if we want words to loose their original meaning (like in the case of "idiot", "stupid") etc., should we just ignore how people use them as long as the individuals doesn't explicitly use them in seriously derogatory way, like the way the Westboro Baptist Church explicitly use "fag" to refer to gay people, etc..

baby and crumble

The problem is not that he used an 'ill advised word' in my opinion, but that he didn't think it through enough to realise that the fact he was saying it to an interviewer who would relay across the word would invariably result in bad press. You could probably get away with something like that if you were working in a bank and no-one heard you.

I understand that words are just words, but I do feel really strongly that if a term that causes offense to a group of people, and can still be used against them, is allowed to pass without any kind of censure, it's not a good thing.

The fact is that few people think about the ramifications of their word usage. I'm not saying we have to censor people, but I just don't think that people who are not a part of the group that is offended by a word or term being used in a way that effects them have the right to say "it's all gone too far, it's PC GONE MAD!" or some such.

keanooo

floggg wrote: »

No, it's not. It's a bull**** term used by people who right articles starting with "Some of my best friends are gay, but"

We ain't got no master plan. The gay agenda thing is a new politically correct way of saying gays should stay in their place.

Every group has their militant wing and their zealots and gays are definitely no exception.

Perhaps the reason you can't recognise this is that you are one yourself.

Killer Pigeon

If you take a word (any word) and say that it really offends you, then people, enemies, opposition, etc., will begin to use that word because they know that it could hit you where it hurts the most.

However, if you just ignore people's use of the word then its use in a derogatory manner will recede, meanwhile you yourself will also forget about the use of the word. After a while, the word will become normalised. If it's normalised, there's nothing really to be offended about.

If people continue explicate their feelings about certain words, then, in hindsight, that's just more ammunition for the opposition.

That's just my two cents.

Killer Pigeon

keanooo wrote: »

Every group has their militant wing and their zealots and gays are definitely no exception.

Perhaps the reason you can't recognise this is that you are one yourself.

I don't think what you define as a "gay agenda" is a bad thing, considering all they want is for homosexuality to become normalised and that homosexuals gain full and equal rights as heterosexuals (in terms of marriage, adoption, etc.).

MOSSAD

Please define "the gay agenda".

keanooo

MOSSAD wrote: »

Please define "the gay agenda".

Please read the thread.

MOSSAD

keanooo wrote: »

Please read the thread.

I did. Pretty narrow agenda? Not one that I'm familiar with.

floggg

keanooo wrote: »

Every group has their militant wing and their zealots and gays are definitely no exception.

Perhaps the reason you can't recognise this is that you are one yourself.

To be honest, you couldn't be further from the truth.

The fact that you would accuse me of it so readily wouldn't inspire me with confidence of the bona fides of your complaints about a so called gay agenda.

I just dislike the way people bandy this "gay agenda" about. It implies that gays have some form of common nefarious plan. We don't, we're a bunch of individuals with widely differing views and beliefs.

If you think it's only an unrepresentative minority, then the term gay agenda is misleading as implying it is an agenda shared by a majority of gays.

If your complaint is with a minority, make that clear.

If you complaint is with the majority, fine. I just prefer when people re up front with that sort of thing. I'd at least respect you for your honesty and integrity in having the courage of your convictions.

wonderfulname

keanooo wrote: »

Every group has their militant wing and their zealots and gays are definitely no exception.

Perhaps the reason you can't recognise this is that you are one yourself.

It's you that has failed to realise your misuse of the term "gay agenda", the most concise definition of the term I have come across is "rhetorical invention of anti-gay extremists seeking to create a climate of fear by portraying the pursuit of civil rights for LGBT people as sinister", it is not used with regard a minority sect, it is used to describe the movement for LGBT rights as a whole.

The article you cite is a non-issue, the only way it can possibly be perceived as interesting is that it suggests that the majority of people, or at least a very sizeable number, think casual usage of derogatory terms is a bad thing.

Mike 1972

MOSSAD wrote: »

Please define "the gay agenda".

If there is a gay agenda (TM) surely there must be a hetrosexual agenda too

Would someone be kind enough to send me on the memo when theyve finished with it ?

spurious

There is no gay agenda.

keanooo

wonderfulname wrote: »

It's you that has failed to realise your misuse of the term "gay agenda", the most concise definition of the term I have come across is "rhetorical invention of anti-gay extremists seeking to create a climate of fear by portraying the pursuit of civil rights for LGBT people as sinister", it is not used with regard a minority sect, it is used to describe the movement for LGBT rights as a whole.

So is the "right-wing agenda", "catholic agenda" etc. simply a "rhetorical invention" by their opponents as well. Or is the gay agenda unique in being a figment of the imagination?

Mike 1972

keanooo wrote: »

So is the "right-wing agenda", "catholic agenda" etc. simply a "rhetorical invention" by their opponents as well.

People choose to be Catholic/Right wing/whateveryerhavinyerself

Theres a bit of a difference

floggg

keanooo wrote: »

So is the "right-wing agenda", "catholic agenda" etc. simply a "rhetorical invention" by their opponents as well. Or is the gay agenda unique in being a figment of the imagination?

Question: do you think all gay people share an agenda?

If yes, please continue to use the term gay agenda and be honest about your views.

If not, stop using a term please which implies that all gay people share a common agenda of any sort, whether good or bad.

rainbow kirby

Shakti

To quote SD 'Hollywood kids making movies of themselves you know they don't give a fcuk about anybody else'
Most of us don't have the luxury of splitting when we get into the **** in our jobs we have to stay and take it and make it better so no my heart is not breaking for this particular set of cronies I say get Gervais, or Coogan .

Sir Ophiuchus

Edit: Never mind, misread your post.

Beruthiel

Gay Agenda gone too far?

What does that mean?
If I lived back in the day of Martin Luther King, would it mean the same thing as Black Agenda?
If not, can you explain what you are referring to?

As for Eddie Murphy, well it was a stupid remark, people make stupid remarks all the time. Comedians are notorious for saying things that are far from PC.
It was way OTT for him to loose the job over though.

Don't forget this is America where being gay in a lot of the country is no picnic. I guess when you take that into consideration, a public figure like this should not be seen to encourage homophones.

oisindoyle

The title of the thread Gay "Agenda" got to me I have to say.
That phrase is usually used by those who are against gay people,the David Quinns of this world and other various anti gay "people".

I am a gay man I dont have an agenda nor do msot gay people .The only thing I want in this life/society is EQUALITY,,,,it's not much to ask for is it ?
Perhaos the OP could rephrase his/her title...

As for the director stepping down because of his comments ,yes I agree he should have stepped down.These type of comments like the one made by him have to be stamped out ,,there are no ifs or buts about it .
If he had said "rehearsals are for ****",would people be saying "oh its just a word and"dont be so sensitive" ect ect .....
Unless this word "FAG" is stamped out once and for all ,it only gives credence to bullys /anti gay people to use it against others ,,,and thats not right ,,,
Think of the schoolyard bully useing it against a vunerable teenager coming to terms with his sexuality ,,,We have all been there it is NOT nice

apache

the op probably worded it badly but it just proves his point by the reaction of some people here. if you have to think before you speak in free flowing speech then you would probably end up having a very stilted conversation.

it was an off the cuff remark. no big deal. the film was good

BuffyBot

I must put getting a copy of this gay agenda on my gay to-do list..

apache

ah c'mon now - don't be like that!

jaffacakesyum

This sort of thing really annoys me. Totally OTT to fire him. He's a comedian for God's sake. It was one silly little remark.

I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion but this is the one of the reasons I don't get 'involved' much in things like gay pride, gay activist groups etc.

BuffyBot

Murphy wasn't fired, he resigned by choice.

The director made the remark, not Eddie Murphy..

keanooo

It’s very simple, to my mind. All of us are members of some group or viewpoint or some-such. Whether we be black, right-wing, gay, libertarian or whatever. Those of us who are comfortable in ourselves, are who we are and aren’t too perturbed about what others think of us. But within these groups we have sub-groups who aren’t content until they have beaten the rest of the population into accepting our way of thinking, life etc… These are the people who form the “agenda” that I referred to in the title.

I would have thought it went without saying that it does not refer to the entire gay community… but for clarity let me state that, in my view, it doesn’t.

df1985

My mam and dad mustnt have got my copy of the agenda from the nurses when i was born....cant find it anywhere.

floggg

Keanooo I appreciate that you may not believe that all gays are extremist. But do you not think so that the term gay agenda is at the very least a poor choice of words? If there is any such agenda it is shared by only a minority of gay people. They aren't representative of, or have ownership of the term, gay.

There are plenty of radical feminists out there, but nobody would dare use the term "women's agenda" to describe them as it would imply all women shared the same agenda.

Just out of curiosity though, can anybody point me to the gay backlash against his comments? I ask as I've seen plenty of people criticise the fact that he resigned over the comments but I actually didn't see much in the way of any sustained calls for him to do so (though I don't follow the entertainment news so may well have missed it).

jaffacakesyum

BuffyBot wrote: »

Murphy wasn't fired, he resigned by choice.

The director made the remark, not Eddie Murphy..

Apologies. I am still quite hungover :( and didn't read it properly.

keanooo

floggg wrote: »

Keanooo I appreciate that you may not believe that all gays are extremist. But do you not think so that the term gay agenda is at the very least a poor choice of words? If there is any such agenda it is shared by only a minority of gay people. They aren't representative of, or have ownership of the term, gay.

There are plenty of radical feminists out there, but nobody would dare use the term "women's agenda" to describe them as it would imply all women shared the same agenda.

Your analogy with "women's agenda" is instructive. Many women disown the feminist movement and think it is ridiculous. They just want to get on with being women. That's why if you were to refer to such an agenda you would have to say "feminist agenda".

You will note that on this thread that there is hardly any criticism of the browbeaters (I'm going to have to come up with a more expansive vocabulary) - with a few notable exceptions - indeed most defend them. Obviously the boards LGBT forum isn't representative of the gay on the street, and you're more likely to get the whingey moaney type on here... but it still stands that there appears to be too much solidarity shown to these zealots by the community as a whole.

keanooo

I only inserted the "whingey moaney type" bit to rile you...

floggg

Good.

Can you actually point me to something from the zealots on what Ratner said? I haven't seen anything?

And just wondering why should one not be a little less then happy when a derogatory term is used?

I don't think too many here actually thought he should have lost the job. An apology was fine in my book. But the reason why some people here might disapprove of the term fag being used so flippantly is because they may well have been the victim of that word in the past.

It's harmful when used as a direct insult in a homophobic context or alternatively where, such as in the present, it is used in a negative sense generally - which does an awful lot of harm to people struggling with their sexuality, by constantly reinforcing that anything associated with gay is wrong or a negative.

Hence why people probably aren't tripping up over themselves to defend him.

apache

floggg wrote: »

Good.

Can you actually point me to something from the zealots on what Ratner said? I haven't seen anything?

And just wondering why should one not be a little less then happy when a derogatory term is used?

I don't think too many here actually thought he should have lost the job. An apology was fine in my book. But the reason why some people here might disapprove of the term fag being used so flippantly is because they may well have been the victim of that word in the past.

It's harmful when used as a direct insult in a homophobic context or alternatively where, such as in the present, it is used in a negative sense generally - which does an awful lot of harm to people struggling with their sexuality, by constantly reinforcing that anything associated with gay is wrong or a negative.

Hence why people probably aren't tripping up over themselves to defend him.

where are you learning this all from? are you long out? is this your own opinion or trying to fit in?

an aplology was fine in your book? well thats nice to know.

i'm certainly not tripping over myself to defend him. i just see the big picture. it was an off the cuff remark! jesus get a smile

WonderWoman!

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

This sort of thing really annoys me. Totally OTT to fire him. He's a comedian for God's sake. It was one silly little remark.

Jaffa not everyone is like us there are sad and poorly developed people who cant take innocent fun without making more of it - sadly they seem to be in the majority

Meesared

Wooow all the seriousness people, chill out!
Eddie Murphy hasnt been funny since the 80s anyway so maybe this is a blessing in disguise!

apache

i already said that meesared

i think the moral of the story is we are all different and nobody really represents anyone here.

WonderWoman!

we only represent ourselves thats as far as it goes