Im in ur skool, after ur childruns.

Personally, whenever I hear "the homosexual agenda" I think "Profit!". But, I guess that's just a privilege one has when you are not an editor at Conservapedia. So, let's just take a short stroll into crazytown, shall we? (Side note: feel free to read these three articles, and decide which one is the most hilarious. I actually find the wikipedia article the funniest, because it has that "funny because it is true" quality to it).

A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in public schools. This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergarteners, as recounted by the decision of Parker v. Hurley.

That is the primary goal? That is more like a tertiary goal: trying to foster understanding of the existence of homosexual relationships in kids, at least superficially, so that they aren't caught off guard when they meet such a couple in real life. It's not meant so much as an indoctrination program as a method to acclimate the poor, defenseless children to the reality of other kinds of families, as shown in your quotation pertinent to the cited case:

"In January 2005, when Jacob Parker ("Jacob") was in kindergarten, he brought home a 'Diversity Book Bag.' This included a picture book, Who's in a Family?, which depicted different families, including single-parent families, an extended family, interracial families, animal families, a family without children, and -- to the concern of the Parkers -- a family with two dads and a family with two moms. The book concludes by answering the question, 'Who's in a family?': 'The people who love you the most!' The book says nothing about marriage."

Being inclusive....sinister.

Focus on the Family quotes below from a leading book in the homosexual movement which outlines the points of the homosexual agenda:

1. "Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible."

Apparently the major supporters of that portion of the gay agenda are the ones who oppose homosexuality in all of its forms. Because they are the ones talking about it "loudly and as often as possible" from what I have seen. Whatever talk you see from the other side seems to be a reaction against the screaming on your own. But, I really don't know which one is the response. Everybody likes to claim "he started it!", after all.

"Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."

Isn't it possible to be both? I mean, you could say that civil rights protestors "aggressively challenged" their mistreatment in society, while still not detracting from the fact that they were actually mistreated.

"Give homosexual protectors a just cause."

Don't worry. The homosexual detractors are the one who make it so clear what the "just cause" should be. (Actually...I have no idea what they are talking about here. It's just an insinuation that any support of homosexuals needs to be deliberately propagandized in order to seem "just". To which I must respond: "project much?").

"Make gays look good."
"Make the victimizers look bad."

Because they so obviously aren't. Right? (One begins to wonder who the one with the real agenda is here...).

"Get funds from corporate America."

Hey, whaddayaknow, the Uncyclopedia article is in agreement with them on this one...

Vic Eliason of Crosstalk America rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies.

When you can use the same argument to speak out against the evils of impotence, celibacy, prepubescence, and agoraphobia, you know that you have a bad case of the failure. In addition, if everyone in America was a man, there would be no procreation. And if everyone in America was a janitor, our economy would collapse. Clearly, all of these are terrible things that must be thoroughly condemned. (Succinctly: what would happen if everyone has a certain trait or role is hardly relevant when discussing the rights of the select few "someones" that already do).

The goals of the homosexual movement include: censoring biblical condemnations of homosexuality and evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax

Yep. Poor persecuted people, unable to persecute. Oh, and the citations for this claim are hilarious. One is a link to an article about how a T-shirt saying "Homosexuals are Shameful" was banned....from school. I literally facepalmed. Schools really aren't free speech zones. Sad, but true. They regularly ban anything that could possibly offend, alienate, or just plain distract other students. Which this T-Shirt would do, undoubtedly. It is effectively designed to do so. And the second article is talking about protestors. Yeah. That sure is a conspiracy to censor you.

promote homosexuality in schools^[11] in places like Massachusetts and California — where the gay lobby is the strongest — it starts as early as pre-school. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys — "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual."....Well, at that age, all members of the opposite sex "have cooties."

Somehow, I seriously doubt that they go about teaching that homosexuality exists by telling them how they can personally tell if they, individually, are gay. I'm pretty sure that the promotion of homosexuality in schools consists entirely of telling them what homosexuality means, that gay people exist, and that they aren't Satan himself. I know that this must horrify you still, but most sane people aren't bothered by it (even if they might be perturbed by your distortion of what they are probably teaching them).

promote science that legitimizes homosexuality, such as claims of a never-identified gay gene

I quote:

"Since sexual orientation is such a complex trait, we're never going to find any one gene that determines whether someone is gay or not," says Mustanski. "It's going to be a combination of various genes acting together as well as possibly interacting with environmental influences."

Previous studies in male twins have suggested that between 40%-60% of the variability in sexual orientation is due to genes. The rest is thought to be due to environment and possibly other biologic but nongenetic causes.

Sure, they never identified a "gay gene". But that's really of little consequence, considering that there are many biological factors that strongly correlate with homosexuality and suggest that it definitely is something that occurs out of thin air. You can be biologically predisposed towards it, and we can determine that even without being able to say "yep, this gene turns you gay". (Also, their citation article doesn't exist).

getting more rights in prison
Gay and Lesbian Prisoners in California Allowed Conjugal Visits

Yep. Being allowed conjugal visits under the same circumstances as straight inmates. How dare they try to get "more rights", up to the extent that they are treated equally?

Legalization of recreational or "party" drugs

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

Due to what homophobia has been made to denote, that of being a repressed homosexual, or possessing an irrational fear of being approached by such, or of being a bigot persecuting actual victims, the widespread use of the term "homophobic" attaches a powerful stigma to anyone who may even conscientiously oppose the practice of homosexuality, thus silencing many who might otherwise object to it.

they promoted “jamming,” in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the “gay” agenda are publicly smeared. “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable,”

Please note the irony of whining about how unfair the label "homophobe" is while simultaneously calling out the "gay agenda" for using "victim imagery". Playing the victim due to inability to victimize people who you are pissed at, since they are playing the victim. It's especially delicious when bringing "Christians" into the matter; a religion that is so incredibly characterized by the victimization of their savior, and early church leaders, that many still like to pretend that they are victimized due to their religious beliefs to this day. A strange blend. I really want to know whether or not the people responsible for this article really think that portraying gays as victims is really as much of a stretch as they are implying it to be. I'm sure the answer would be fascinating.

Okay, up next is the quoted phrase " 'homo-hatred'", (which itself is quoted from another source). The real knee-slapper is the parenthetical note that quoted quoter uses to describe it: "(i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors)". It is not uncommon for people to try to deny the claim of "homophobia". Almost half of this particular article serves that purpose in fact. But, look at what they've just said. What is there about "homosexual behaviors" to "disagree" with, anyway? It is activity that, in of itself, doesn't harm anyone to any discernible degree. If you have a "disagreement" with it, it should be solely a matter of personal taste, and not one in which you are obliged to adamantly oppose them. Do you "disagree" with certain private, consensual expressions of sexuality to the same degree that you "disagree" with homosexuality, and similarly seek to have legal limitation set according to those disagreements? Call it what you like, and put as friendly of a face as you can on it, but it still looks like "hatred" to me.

What is seen by some as Kirk and Madsen’s most revealing admission is their statement, “[O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.”

So says Conservapedia....

Marshall Kirk died in 2005 at the age of 48. The cause of death has not been publicly revealed.

But we all know what you are presuming it to be (otherwise you wouldn't bother bringing it up).

It may be speculated that if the liberal use of the term homophobia is not primarily a psychological tactic, then it indicates a psychological condition on the part of those who use it, in which they actually imagine that those who oppose them are fearful of them, or are secretly attracted to them.

The content too good for that goddamn wikipedia. They would just dismiss a sentence that begins "it may be speculated", followed by armchair psychology and no citation, out of hand. Damn liberals. (Homophobia is a term describing hatred. Fear can manifest as hatred, so fear may be a part of it, but it is mostly a description of generalized contempt and resulting aversion. And, from what I've seen, it is a fairly good description...)

That's pretty much the end, sadly. But, at least they also had enough wingnuttery in them to link to an article named "homosexual belief system". Apparently it only has characteristics, instead, of you know, systemized beliefs. Oh, and "further reading": TEH GHEYS R IN UR mCdONALD'SSSS!1!!" Really, brings back memories of hearing the inane cries of outrage and calls for protest due to a relatively small level of support for LGBT programs given by McDonald's. Conservapedia is good for that kind of nostalgia. They have some kind of affinity for hysteria it seems...