AmeriNZ 183 – Live chat: WHAT Agenda?

amerinz_podcast_150x150Recorded live and presented unedited (be warned): Joining me for today’s Live Chat on were regular panellists Steven in Wisconsin and LurryDean, as well as Brother Cinaedus and Larken. Today we look at the gay “agenda”.

The radical right goes on and on about the “Gay Agenda”. We find that hilarious, because we can’t agree on what we should be trying to accomplish, let alone what our priorities should be. Agenda? It’s not even as strong an action plan as a grocery list is.

What we seek is really a simple objective: To be treated as equal citizens. There are many things needed to get there, like passage of ENDA, for example. Should we prioritise what we want and need to happen, or should we just “go with the flow”? Does it even matter what order things happen in?

This leads into all sorts of related topics: Race, religion, and more—all the sorts of things that people aren’t supposed to talk about (unless they’re Arthur, who talks about little else). We even talk about t-shirts. Daniel Brewer joins us toward the end, after Arthur dares to paraphrase him. Sadly, we lost Brother Cinaedus part way through. Still, it was a lot of fun, and anyone is welcome to join us!

Join us on for the next live podcast on for a lively, wide-ranging discussion. The next live chat starts at 8pm Eastern North American time on Thursday, November 5 (1pm Friday, November 6 New Zealand time). You can also join other listeners in the chatroom, where you can ask questions or make comments as the show is streamed.

Links for this episode

Dubious Intent.

Shit My Dad Says on Twitter.

Reality Check Podcast.

The Triumph of Bullshit.

Please leave a comment, ring my US Comment Line on 206-666-5172, or send an email to arthur{at]

Get AmeriNZ Podcast for free on iTunes


7 thoughts on “AmeriNZ 183 – Live chat: WHAT Agenda?

  1. Great topic. I’ll try my best to get home so I can be part of the discussion.

    This comment was originally posted when this post was just an announcement of the topic, before the show was recorded. – Arthur (AmeriNZ)

  2. First, I have difficulty with the notion that the black equality drive is finished. The conversation early on suggesting that it is merely a historical event, rather than an ongoing issue, I find problematic.

    Also, there IS a black agenda, or more than one. One is defined by blacks, e.g.
    The other is defined by the right, that blacks want all of the goodies of the “liberal agenda” such as health care, etc.

    I do agree that there is antigay bigotry by some blacks, though to suggest that is of the “black community”, whatever that means, makes me a bit uneasy. I agree that bigotry by one who’s from a discriminated group against another from a discrimated group has never made sense to me.

  3. Not surprisingly, I completely agree with you, Roger, and tried to make a few of the points you raised (as I have before). Oddly, I have a tendency to dominate the conversation on my own show (imagine that!), so sometimes I just keep quiet.

    Be that as it may, I agree that the struggle for African Americans is far from over—it’s far from over for any minority in the US, for that matter, which is why I keep trying to get people to stop pitting minorities against each other. I know that in my case, I was just tyring to remember if in the 1960s African Americans were exposed to the same sort irrational talk of their “agenda”, but I was probably too young to notice.

    Of course there’s homophobia in the black community—just as there’s racism in the white gay male community. Personally, I’m less troubled that prejudice exists than that some people seem hell-bent on acting on it, as if it was a legitimate and sensible thing to do. Larken was talking about examining our beliefs and attitudes on issues, which is certainly good, but I’d add that people should examine their prejudices to try and rise above them. But I still maintain that the problem with homophobia among blacks and Hispanics has less to do with race or ethnicity than it does with conservative religion, which is also the source of the vile anti-gay hatred we see in attacks on the mythical “gay agenda” as a way to stop the real one. After all, no one tries to suggest that far right white religious folks are against gay people because of our race.

  4. I really wish I could have been part of this discussion – that damn job/career of mine getting in the way again; however I really did enjoy listening to the show! A lot!

    The solution to the marriage issue is super simple. It is almost staring us right in the face, so blatant that one could almost go as far as to say, “We can’t see the forest through the trees.”

    The Solution:

    From this day forward every couple that wishes to join together in a union, as it were, albeit man and woman, woman and woman or man and man MUST be done by a government official as in a Justice of the Peace.

    Said Justice of the Peace does not have the right to discriminate against anyone that wishes to enter in to such a union.

    Should any couple be religious they could then go forward and have a ceremony that would satisfy their religious needs, wants and desires but not without first proceeding with the procedure above.

    A religious ceremony would not be legally binding as a union whereas the proceedings with a government representative would be.

    This then doesn’t take marriage away from those heterosexual couples that fear so much that I had sex with a man last night and destroyed their marriage.

    It puts EVERYONE on a level playing field and then allows anyone their personal religious freedoms to commit their vows as they see fit.

    Of course, all marriages that have been performed in the past would be honoured as such this would just be the turning point to moving forward.

    Sounds simple enough doesn’t it?

    OH and one other question — for those in the discussion last night, and I do know you do speak for others when you said….

    “willing to wait another 20 years for things to happen….”


  5. I’ve always thought that the solution was for the state to take back marriage from religion. As for waiting 20 years, it’s a healthy dose of realism—a de-scription, not a pre-scription. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t want it all right now. However, we’re also all aware that the American political system is set up to move at a glacial pace. So, “progress”, such as it is, takes decades rather than years, and certainly not months or weeks. That’s the reality. The challenge is to find ways to speed up that process without creating a backlash that slows down progress even more. The ones who succeed are the ones who have their eyes on the prize, taking victories or even small gains where possible as stopping stones to the larger goals.

    So, speaking for myself, I’m sick of waiting for politicians to do the right thing, but I’m keenly aware that that’s the way the American system works.

  6. This episode was incredible in so many ways – it is shows like this that has me more active in politics and to hold my representatives accountable! Thank you for doing your part to help me with that!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.