Forgive me, but for years I have been perplexed by claims of "a homosexual agenda"--it is something onto which the worst fears are projected (see Jon Carroll's column provided by Robert Sheridan). It's right up there with "homosexual lifestyle"--another empty phrase that baffles me. Or it is right up there with "special interests"--a meaningless but useful label slapped on anyone and anything with which one disagrees or which one wishes to discredit. (Of course now that liberals are all "guilty" of "treason" . . . . ) To tie in to Con Law: Lest list members point out that after *Lawrence* there are pressures from LGBT people to recognize same-sex marriage, adoptions, etc., I know, I know. But again, "homosexual agenda" just doesn't fit the variety and political diversity of the many LGBT people I know or organizations. Wanting to be full-fledged human beings under law is an agenda of sorts,but hardly it can be confined to homosexuals. Respectfully, Lynne ----- Original Message ----- From: "David M Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 10:07 AM Subject: "Agenda"
> The socially conservative Scalia remarked, from the depth of his heart, > I have no doubt, that the majority in Lawrence seems to have signed on > to "the homosexual agenda." I think the combined majority in Lawrence > would be almost amused to think that's what they'd done. > > _____________ > > > I believe Scalia's words were "the so-called homosexual agenda." > > But what's the big to-do about the existence of an agenda, anyway? Of > course there's a homosexual agenda. And there's a conservative agenda. > And a libertarian agenda. And a feminist agenda. And an Islamist > agenda. Etc. etc. (Of course there is more than one agenda under each > heading, but the word "agenda" is already plural -- the singular is > "agendum" = thing to be done). > > I can see getting passionate about one agenda over/against others, but > why the flying feathers over the EXISTENCE of an agenda? > > One can always do a word-play on "agenda" that makes it look silly: this > consists of deliberately confusing "agenda" in the sense of "list of > political and social goals" with "agenda" in the older sense of "a piece > of paper or other medium of communication detailing my appointments for > the day, or, as the case may be, the topics to be dealt with at this > meeting." > > I've used this word-play myself. Once at a meeting, the mild-mannered > facilator began by asking, "Does everyone here have an agenda?" -- > meaning, of course, the paper kind. I said, "This is Washington: OF > COURSE everyone here has an agenda." But it was, like, a JOKE. > > > -- David Wagner > > > "Pardon me but your agenda is showing."
