The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Does the reported "gay agenda" actually exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 899 times Debate No: 38357
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




the underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group.

I do not believe gay rights activists have an underlying intention or motive. The main points I plan to stress in this debate include the following:

    1. Gay rights activism does not preach being gay, but rather, acceptance and tolerance for those who are.

    1. Those who preach gay rights are not asking for special privileges to gay folks.

    1. Being gay is not immoral or unethical.

    1. Gay rights activism, at its core, is simply about freedom and respect.

I am not accepting arguments from a religious standpoint.



Like the people in the comment section, I understand what the phrase "gay agenda" means, as technically all groups seeking change have an agenda. Thereby I am willing to excuse the imperfect formality for the intended implication. And as Pro, I am advocating that the LGBT community does have an ulterior agenda aside from the standard four statements you mentioned. My proposition is that the gay community is using mass media to alter public perception to gain undeserved sympathy and champion gays as an faultless citizen. I will elaborate such reasons in round two.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


KaleBevilacqua forfeited this round.


May I be candid in saying that simply because an agenda exist, not all proponents of the agenda (LGBT) necessarily support or encourage the ulterior or pending ideals the group may hold or that may be held by both confidential and public persons with an influential status.

Now I wish to counter or concede your four statements.

Statement 1: Gay activism does not preach being gay...

I'd have to generally disagree. Suggesting that teachers should be legally required to tell their pre-pubescent students that, "being gay is okay"[1], thus informing them about sexual fetishes they know nothing of. Teachers informing their students that they are homosexual in an attempt to prevent discrimination. And thirdly, it irrefutably teaches pride in homosexuality, which in today's society normally includes hyper-sexuality. It takes no skill to be a homosexual, and the skill that sexual performance does include should be confined to pornography and private encounters, not on the streets and in the schools.

Statement 2: Advoates of gays do not want special privileges.

The LGBT movement has pushed for logically inconsistent acts such as allowing individuals, including children, who feel that they are a different gender to enter the bathrooms of the opposite sex. And even good willed efforts of only for the homosexuals, such as in my school there is an LGBT center for homosexual kids being bullied (which only had 4 students) meanwhile there were literally hundreds of heterosexual kids being bullied without a designated center. And I'm sure many of them were refused the LGBT service and directed elsewhere simply because they were not homosexual.

Statement 3: Being homosexual is not immoral.

Morality is determined by many factors: ideals, religion, and many derivatives from sociology. However I am willing to tackle what I assume to your standard as well. We shall use this definition of morality--concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior[2]. Firstly homosexual acts are significantly more dangerous than those of the heterosexual variety. Roughly 2% of the American population is homosexual yet account for 61% of the HIV infection rate. Such infections also affect the financial world as the U.S. spends roughly $12.1 billion annual payments to fight and prevent the HIV rate, which is drastically attributed by homosexuality, which is radically spread since homosexuals are much more sexual active and thereby spread their infestations on a widespread scale[3]. All of these actions combined produce and encourage a hedonistic society that values pleasure over general welfare.

Statement 4: Gay activism is about freedom and respect.

Perhaps at its core--yes--but the core of a sphere is not the only element of the sphere, especially when dealing with non-artificial objects. This statement can be countered by this combination of my previous statements. However, I choose to refute this statement in my actual refute to the debate as a whole (not a counter to your claims).
The "gay agenda" is a motion set forth by those who advocate the LGBT movement. It seeks to indoctrinate all societies, both domestic and foreign, into conforming to the hyper-homosexual hysteria. It main tool in its campaign is the use of media.

My first statement that I wish to unveil is the hypocrisy of the movement. The recent event of the launch of the move Ender's Game is a perfect example. The movie itself has absolute nothing in relation to homosexuality and does not scorn it. However many LGBT fanatics have insist on not only boycotting the movie themselves, but telling other not to see the movie as well[4]. Why? Because the Author of the book, which the movie is based upon, is anti-gay marriage. Image if there was a rally of heterosexuals who sought to financially weaken the directors and staff of a movie almost a decade in the making simply because the writer of the book which the movie is based of is homosexual. Wouldn't that be an outrage? "Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute," states it best[5]. This is not the only situation where the LGBT community wanted rights based from a double-standard.

The LGBT movement constantly exaggerates it's dilemmas. The kiss-ins to disrupt the Chik-fil-a franchise simply because the owner is against same sex marriage, emphasis on the fact that he used to insults to the LGBT community[6]. What made this event in more outrageous is that fact that they were mimicking the sit-ins that the African American community had to endure to gain their civil rights, which were restrained because of their skin--an aspect that cannot practically change. These kiss-ins not only cost the fast-food chain large sums of money, but many workers were unjustly insulted by homosexuals for having a job relating to Chik-fil-a. What if a rally of heterosexuals did the same to another business simply because the CEO was pro-marriage. Would it not be slammed in the media? Where is the tolerance?

Lastly, the media has portrayed the homosexual individual to be something of an innocent angel, who gets mercilessly abused by heterosexuals. The media never, if ever--rarely, portrays a homosexual in negative light or by the their true nature: promiscuous. The LGBT agenda also seeks to indoctrinate television involving a younger audience in an attempt to promote tolerance, which has a side-effect of exposing innocent children to sexuality that they should not have to deal with nor be aware of. And the question arises, if homosexuality, why not bring tolerance towards necrophilia, insect, auto-erotic asphyxiation, and other unnatural fetishes? The answer is simple: the homosexual community wants superiority, not equal rights.


Debate Round No. 2


I am forfeiting because this debate veered wildly off topic.


Assuming you mean I veered it off topic, I would like to know it what manner? I began the debate in your favor as good sportsmanship and I provided arguments with correlation with your statements. If you don't wish to continue a debate because you're bored, can't compete, don't have the time or energy, whatever--fine, but don't blame fault on me.
Debate Round No. 3


KaleBevilacqua forfeited this round.


So not only are you not going to apologize for your false claim but you also feel the need to have us wait three days to forfeit instead of speeding the process by typing a few letters and pressing enter.
Debate Round No. 4


KaleBevilacqua forfeited this round.


The majority of my debates have ended in FF and have therefore been tied. Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
I'd be interested in debating this topic with you, but not on the grounds that gay people have an agenda, but that the gay movement is unconsciously pushing an agenda. Or at least that there is a movement (more so than people consciously trying to push an agenda) happening here, conscious or not, that will radically affect America.
Are you interested?
Posted by Dragonfang 3 years ago
What qualifies something as "underlying" in that (weird) definition of agenda?

Also, if I point an extremist gay group, or someone who spread false information in favor of homosexuality, I would win the debate?
Posted by KeytarHero 3 years ago
Also, I think you mean "purported," and not "reported" in the resolution.
Posted by KeytarHero 3 years ago
I agree with Roy. Also preaching tolerance and acceptance for homosexuals would fall under an agenda.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
There is a semantic problem with the resolution. The underlying motivation is for gays to have equal legal rights with non-gays. That's an agenda by the definition. Possibly the resolution should be something like, "Gays are not trying to convert people to homosexuality."
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Yes it does, they want to do terrible things like buy dog food, and pay for fancy cell phones... And other acts of PURE EVIL. You know, like buying concert tickets to the opera.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con said he was forfeiting because the debate had veered off topic. However it's Con's job as instigator of the debate to write a clear resolution that he can defend, and it particular be able to argue what is on topic and what is not. forfeiting is a conduct violation and leaves argments unanswered.