Jump to content

Talk:Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Stance of Wikipedia on this issue

As I've said repeatedly, Wikipedia should not take a stance on any of the following issues:

  • whether homosexality is "good" or "bad"
  • whether some (or all) opposition to homosexuality is:
    1. "anti-gay"
    2. unethical (or even, with a deliciously ironic twist "immoral" in itself)
    3. more against homosexuals themselves than the practice

Let's just report what the two main sides say. And if there are some interesting third or 4th sides, mention those too.

I think it's fairly clear that there is a huge groundswell of opinion asserting that criticism of homosexuality itself, or of individuals (for "being homosexual" or for "having sex with the same gender"), is BAD. Some even label it all as homophobia.

Now you all may wish to simply discount my input here, and I won't make a fuss if you do. My opinion (not that it should matter, but perhaps it does) is that homosexuality is morally wrong, and that homosexuals have a choice about (1) whether to have sex at all, and (2) the gender of those they choose to have sex with. That is, the behavior is under conscious control. Whether same-sex attraction is inherent or learned or whatever, is hard to say, but I don't think Wikipedia should assert that all opposition to homosexuality is unprincipled.

This is one of the most difficult issues to approach neutrally. Abortion and genocide are actually "neater" issues, if I can use that word without throwing up all over my keyboard. Let's try to work it out together. Uncle Ed 20:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, your opinion always matters in my opinion, Ed. I agree with your points. I suggest that defining what constitutes "bigotry" and "homophobia" early on in the article would eliminate much confusion. FeloniousMonk 20:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I join Uncle Ed and FeloniousMonk. Larvatus 06:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Although I obviously have different views on homosexuality itself, I generally agree with Ed about what belongs in Wikipedia articles. (Generally rather than completely because I think there are cases where 1 and 3 above are clearly one way or the other - Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell come to mind as examples of people who clearly are anti-gay, not just against certain acts, and who are against the persons, not the practices.) Maybe it would be helpful to go through articles and list points where each of us thinks the article goes to far? -Smahoney 18:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: recent reverts

Sam is once again trying to add things that are clearly biased. I've removed them. The Family Research Council and Fathers for whatever are not encyclopaedic sources. They are inherently biased and unreliable. They do not belong in any article, especially when they are being presented as evidence in support of spurious claims. Exploding Boy 22:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

They obviously do belong in this article, being on topic, verifiable sources of information. Your failure to even be aware of the names of the organisations you are placing such blanket disdain upon clarifies the quality of your argument. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
No they aren't: see my remarks above. The sources you cite do not add up to your conclusion, are not all verifiable and those citing Paul Cameron have been widely discredited and are based on studies notorious for being flawed (e.g. FRC and FFL). The Kramer quote is clearly not evidence of anything other than the opinion of a single person and I'm not sure what it is doing in an article or what it actually demonstrates. You have yet to provide any real evidence to back them up or deal with the concerns raised about them. Axon 08:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. I'd personally like some clarification on why you choose to edit articles related to homosexuality, a topic you clearly know very little about. Exploding Boy 22:19, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a cross between an ad hominem and a red herring. The subject at hand is the value of these links in this article. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Since Sam's RFC failed to support this claptrap being inserted into the article he's resorting to brute force now. As has been pointed out to you many, many times before Sam, cited references used to justify contentious material need to be significant and scholarly. Fathersforlife and The Family Research Council are neither. One last time I'll connect the dots for you:
  • Primary writings = objective, scholarly, credible, peer reviewed.
  • Fathersforlife & The Family Research Council = agenda-driven, unprofessional, biased.
Sam tried this stunt at the Buju Banton article a few months ago, insisting that "homophobia" was a "gay" term and that there was no proof that Mr. Banton had a history of abusive behavior. He failed on both points, and in the end resulted in the history of Banton's abuse of homosexuals being expanded. I'm seeing a pattern here. FeloniousMonk 23:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello? Can we talk about the article for a few minutes, please? Thank you!

The thing I can't understand is the relevance of FFL and FRC to an article about anti-gay slogans. Is someone saying that those organizations (which sound kind of "Christian" to me) have an "anti-gay" agenda? More specifically, have they issued any phrases or slogans which somebody (anybody!) has labelled "anti-gay"?

If not, why are we even talking about this - it would be irrelevant.

If so, all we need to do is:

  1. cite the particular utterances or phrases; and
  2. say who has labelled these "anti-gay"; and,
  3. optionally, but very valuably, explain what reasons the labellers have given for calling these things anti-gay

Or is there something going on here, which I'm missing? Uncle Ed 01:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

yes. Have you seen my edit? I am citing these sources, much as you did above, as a verification of why some see a correlation between homosexuality and sexual child abuse. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they're well-known for having an anti-gay agenda. Exploding Boy 03:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

What the hell else is this article about? Go edit queer studies if critcism is too much for you. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You made your point. No need to hammer it home. Please review Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks, Jack. (Er, I mean, Sam. :-) Uncle Ed 04:33, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you ed, I had never seen that article before. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 14:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I still would like to know why you insist on editing articles related to homosexuality. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the subject, and have strong anti-gay feelings. Why not leave the editing to those who know what they're doing and don't get upset about it? Exploding Boy 05:09, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and scientists should stay off the creationist articles, men should stay off feminism articles, whites should stay off african articles, and contributors who can't take the heat should stay off InTheKichen articles. 4.250.33.21 07:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Touché. Can we find some middle ground here? The fact that a slur is occasionally confirmed to be true does not change its nature as a slur. Jews can be greedy, blacks can be lazy, etc. But those are still slurs. What if we add Sam's links and include material showing that they are examples of exactly the slurs we are discussing here (which seems easily provable by people here who know more about their authors than I do)? And the Kramer quote could find a comfortable home in the Modern developments section of Pederasty. Haiduc 11:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
A very good point, Haiduc. The trouble is that alot of people (perhaps the overwhemlming majority) think that people shouldn't be homosexual. Therefore criticism is more than just a slur, it is a critique of the entire way of being. Such things understandably disturb those they are directed towards, but... thats kind of the point. I will appreciate any efforts you make in producing a compromise that improves the article. Having a more informative article should be our goal here after all, not personality politics. Thank you for your efforts, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 14:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I have carried out that part of my suggestion which I was able to, placing the Kramer quote in Pederasty. I still think the two links should be included and exposed for what they are, but I am not familiar enough with the science to refute them properly. Sam, I am happy that we are both seeking compromise (a realistic goal) but if your intent was to substantiate a connection between same-sex love and the violation of the young I don't think these links will do the job, on the contrary. As for the "shoulds" of sexuality, I would have thought that all your work here would have persuaded you of the relativity of sexual morality. Cheers, Haiduc 03:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
A fine justification for not just tolerating, but encouraging bigotry. Bravo. Ed and Haiduc's comments make the most sense here. FeloniousMonk 17:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm.... a slur is not criticism when it is incorrect and not backed up with evidence which is the real issue here, one that is constantly side-stepped in favor of rhetoric and logical fallacies such as arguments from popularity. Once upon a time a "most" people (such as these things can be judged, of course) thought Jewish people where naturally greedy and untrustworthy. Should we treat such views with similar credence? Axon 19:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Good grief. Talk about weasel words. You have absolutely no proof or justification for your claims. The issue here isn't that you want to mention those two groups, it's that you want to use them as references. Unless they have come up with some anti-gay slogans, then they don't belong in this article. And the problem with Sam's edits to sexuality-related articles, anonymous editor, is not about his beliefs per se, but rather about a combination of a lack of knowledge and the inability to edit neutrally. Exploding Boy 19:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a personal remark. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh get off it Sam. It's not as if you haven't said far worse to ExplodingBoy yourself recently [1][2] [3] [4] [5]. Your hypocrisy never ceases to amaze. FeloniousMonk 21:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

From the personal remarks page: The purpose of talk pages is to discuss how to improve articles. If you have opinions about the contributions others have made, feel free to discuss those contributions on any relevant talk page. I'm talking about your contributions, Sam. You clearly have a lack of knowledge on homosexuality, and have demonstrated a repeated inability to edit such articles neutrally. I've pointed this out to you time and time again. Exploding Boy 23:06, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sam, you are right - but not completely. lack of knowledge and the inability to edit neutrally was, indeed, a personal remark. But it hardly constitutes an "attack" - I think he's trying to say something about the way you're editing this article / discussing it.
My observation of your editing / commenting patterns over many months is that you can be awfully stubborn about insisting on a particular idea. Remember when you got all ticked off at me for calling your SS identity a "sock puppet" of your Jack identity? The term seemed to bother you so much that you would never let me explain what I meant by it - which, for the record, was merely that you had adopted a new user name.
And, yes, I suppose you could take that personally, but I don't have any hostile intent here. I'm trying to clear the air. If it works, good. If I've just stirred up more resentment or something, then I shall have failed once again. Which is something i really hate: failing, that is. And I also hate getting people upset. I'd rather soothe them or make them happy or proud or excited or motivated or relieved.
Now about the article: this may be a candidate for a Wikipedia:sidebar. (And if that link is red, then I'll have to go and write it.) It has worked many times before, when co-authors got hung up on a particular section of a lengthy article. You simply extract the disputed passage (whether tiny or huge) into a separate article - leaving behind only a link. Then you and others work on that new "sidebar" article.
This worked great at Augusto Pinochet - which was hung up on POVs about the American CIA's support for the coup of 1973. It might work here, too. Uncle Ed 11:22, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Well, firstly, there are alot of things that can be said about the people discussing things here, and I am willing to discuss each and every one of us to one extent or another, but this really isn't the place.

Secondly, my concerns about this article actually don't revolve around the correlation w child abuse alone, so even if we spun that off, there would still be issues w the article in general. The narrative reads as an attempt to debunk these concepts, rather than one of expressing the views of all sides in a balanced manner. The treatment of research not enabling this lack of neutrality is an excellent example of this.

Sadly there is a meta-issue here. POV special interest groups have an ability to dominate contentious pages, if only because neutral or emotionally detached editors are either disinterested, or actively driven off by disruptive and offensive rhetorical tactics. Again, that is likely an issue best discussed elsewhere. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 16:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

What's sadder is that you simulataneously acknowledge your point of view and refuse to acknowledge your inability to remain neutral when it comes to articles relating to homosexuality. This has been demonstrated time and time again, yet you persist in repeating the same problematic behaviours. There can be no explanation for this other than an attempt to push your own point of view. I would be very interested in discussing this further. Exploding Boy 17:45, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Blaming the system for the fact that your arguments are getting so little traction here? Stop wasting your time and ours. How many "neutral or emotionally detached editors" have been driven off pages by your "disruptive and offensive rhetorical tactics"? The list is long; as many will attest. Ultimately, your complaint here is just so many sour grapes over the fact that you've failed to make the case for your claims. In other words your "POV special interest" failed to "dominate" a "contentious page." Your rhetoric betrayed you there, Sam.
Sam, you talk a great game about neutrality, learnedness and civility, but it's clear to anyone familiar with your contribution history that you come up far short of your claims and posturing. From my experience with you, your most impressive accomplishment is that in constantly portraying yourself as a victim, you've managed to hoodwink a few editors into actually believing you. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Sam, you've clearly worn out your welcome on this topic. Either break off the side matter into a separate article, or give the whole subject a rest. Uncle Ed 04:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Plato?

The article contains the following statement about Plato, a writer well known for his positive opinion of homosexuality:

"Declaration that same-sex love is unnatural
This particular charge dates back to Plato, who claimed that male love was "against nature" (para-physein)."

Are you sure Plato says this? It sounds more like passages in St Paul's writings than Plato's. I can't find an 'unnatural' argument in Plato, but maybe I missed it. Plato says that "barbarians" are opposed to homosexuality, so even if he said somewhere that it is contrary to "nature" that is unlikely to be a "charge", in the sense of an accusation, but more a claim that it helps to transcend materiaity – that it is more "philosophical" than heterosexuality.

Overall, I trhink this article suffers from over-simplified equations of ancient and modern arguments and from the assumption that these views are always part of attacks on homosexual behaviour, which have remained the same throughout history. Paul B 16:43, 24 July, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your general assessment of this article - it is, generally, oversimplistic, and could definately benefit from detailed examinations of the statements expressed within it. I have also (though I don't have references offhand) read arguments suggesting that Plato changed his view on homosexuality over time, and may have been influenced in his later days by Aristotle, eventually coming to accept, or at least approach, a more negative view wherein heterosexuality was privileged. -Seth Mahoney 22:30, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I have created a page of documented notes on the classical Greek and Roman attitudes towards same-sex intercourse. Look here. Larvatus 06:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)larvatus

You mean like sparta? horseboy 14:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you be slightly less gnomic? Who are you reponding to, and what point? Paul B 14:44, 13 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV/Accuracy concern

This article makes strong statements. Very strong statements, and it doesn't seem to have the refrences to back it up. A little to much like an essay/rant for my tastes. Which is not to say I disagree with the general idea, I think this could use a great deal of vetting, starting from the title on down.--Tznkai 17:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. I think a good way to go about things might be to list the statements made along with any specific problems currently in the article, decide whether or not to include them at all, decide the best ways to phrase the ones that should be included, and then do a complete rewrite. I'd be more than happy to participate if there are any other takers. -Seth Mahoney 01:06, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Good to see that you are willing to help this article as well, Tznkai. Why don't you specify exactly what you are in disagreement with so that we may approach this matter in a constructive manner. Haiduc 02:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. Well... Yes, I agree, it is a trifle strong - I don't think there's anything inherently incorrect about it, but I agree it isn't really up to much; there doesn't seem to be much in the way of proper referencing nor of any sort of objective narrative in the article. It has more of the appearance of an exposé of "gay bashing" statements than an encyclopaedic article on the subject; that said, there aren't any factual errors as such, and all of what it does cover is valid to some extent albeit unreferenced. I feel the crux of the matter is that it is difficult to consider what serious viewpoint could also be included that anti-gay slogans are acceptable, since after all I hardly feel there could be any kind of serious defense of making such statements, and that is presumably why it has ended up with its pro-gay POV slant. Incidentally, it wanders over from "anti-gay slogans" to "anti-gay statements" a number of times in the course of the article. I honestly don't quite know how to fix it, though; perhaps I'll give it some serious thought eventually. (Full disclosure, in the interests of openness as per Wikipedia:Autobiography - I'm gay.) --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 00:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree. This article is not an encyclopedia entry but in fact an apology. In my opinion Anti-Gay-Slogan is no lemma at all and should be deleted. This is not the kind of stuff one expects in a dictionary. --Benedikt
This article documents historical condemnations of sodomy and same sex relations. There is nothing inherently apologetic about the topic, if there are inappropriate formulations they can be addressed individually and specifically. I see no valid argument for tossing out the whole thing, on the contrary. Haiduc 11:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Haiduc, every paragraph goes like this: The anti-gayists say this but this is rejected because of these facts.
This is not the kind of stuff one would expect in an encyclopedia but in an pro-gay apologies book. This article doesn't portray facts but it lists arguments of the gay rights movements.
Maybe Wikipedia has changed that much and this is ok now. But if this is the case I will start writing articles like "Pro-gay-slogans and their counter-arguments", "20 reasons why the evangelical belief is untrue", "the five main errors of communism", etc. immediately. --Benedikt 08:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I think I see what you mean, a lot of the writing sounds like a pro se argument. The solution seems to be to document the facts from a remove, so an editing job is called for. I do not see an argument for deletion, nor do I see why articles on critiques of, say, communism and capitalism could not be written as long as the writer does not take a position. Am I missing something? Haiduc 14:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

picture

'''Why was the picture edited out?'''

Because it's not at all clear to me what it's supposed to be and therefore how it adds to the article. I don't see the point of your picture of a guy doing a "wheelie" on the Indian American article either, but I don't have any involvement in that one so if the usal editors want it, that's up to them. Please explain. Paul B 21:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry,im new here. I put up a picture of an anti gay slogan like the aids one. I think it goes with the topic. And the indian one was a picture i thought exemplified an indianamerican. He is clearly indian yet appears to be wearing american clothes riding a specialized bike probably in some decidious part of the US. It shows the blending of cultures well, don't you think?

Well this is not the page to discuss the Indian American wheelie image. Of course I recognise that "NO FLAMING" phrase has a significance within modern gay culture, because of the relation between the web-culture meaning and the gay meaning of Flaming. But I've never seen this sign, so have you made it up or is it pre-existant? Paul B 23:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, the picture is an actual slogan. I have seen that used on many signs and at rallies. I created the actual image, if thats what you are wondering, but it is based on ones i have seen.

What rallies? It needs more explanation. As a slogan it seems more like a joke than anything.Paul B 10:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

why is this...

so biased? it is written in a very anti - antigay perspective. thought it was meant to be unbiased? so why is it biased against antigay things?

How is the article biased against antigay things? Hyacinth 11:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Yeah, this one was pretty hard for me to complain about with my natural hate for rednecks and homophobia, but this article fails NPOV, and bulding an encyclopedia is our number one goal, not spreading inclusive morals. The page, instead of presenting the slogans, commenting on why they're there and what they mean, instead ends every section explaining why the gay viewpoint is the correct one. Correct it is in most cases, but we can not say that. There is also a substantial lack of sources here. I'm adding a NPOV and cleanup template to this page to attract some more editors to help with this. -Mask 18:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the cleanup notice, as the NPOV notice is enough. However, I don't see the NPOV issue. The slogan asserts a position and then the contrary position is asserted. Hyacinth 21:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It mostly dismisses them out of hand is the issue, or talks about how so and so has disproved them. Remember, unless you're in a field like mathematics, proof is simply opinion, and the article endorses one opinion more then the other. Not nessarily a bad thing, but an unencyclopedic thing. -Mask 01:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
While the article should not be dismissive or political, there is no need to give undue weight to particularly bad arguments. For example, in the child molestation section, there are plenty of studies on the alleged link between male homosexuality and pedophilia (many available online, without internet access to academic institutions). A better approach would be to discuss the allegations, include a discussion about Paul Cameron, peer-reviewed articles, etc. With appropriate links. However, removing the article or giving the anti-gay perspective on each issue equal space is not a NPOV, it is false weight. We do not consult members of Stormfront to provide balance to the article on the biological significance of race, or invite members of the Nazi Party to balance out the article on Anti-Semitism.Gibbsale 04:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


President Reagan?

What about Ronald Reagan? As far as I know, he predated the "AIDS kills fags dead" slogan during the early 1980s by declaring publicly, "AIDS is God's gift to homosexuals". --TlatoSMD 06:44, 23. Jun 2006 (CEST)

I can find no evidence that he ever said this,in public or otherwise. Paul B 10:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've googled the issue. Looks like as for early to mid-80s it's Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan, the New Right closely around Reagan in general (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/08/EDG777163F1.DTL), and on the other hand a 2003 TV movie called The Reagans who are to blame for coinage (http://newsaic.com/ftvreagansindex.html). --TlatoSMD 00:27, 24. Jun 2006 (CEST)

Unnatural / natural

"However, those opposed to homosexual behavior point to behaviors exhibited by many animals that most would consider unnatural in humans, such as cannibalism. Many who use the term "unnatural" are referring to the natural law, rather than any sort of normativity. Therefore, they state that whether or not something is classified as a psychological disorder by a certain organization does not affect its moral standing."

I added this to the "Homosexuality is unnatural" subsection of the page. This represents the view of a great number of those opposed to homosexual behavior (e.g. Catholics, who see it as contradictory to their conception of the natural law) and is hardly a "fringe" ideology. I also added a reference to the natural law to prevent confusion.

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.
Who is making these arguments? If they can be attributed to a person or group, then they should be cited to some source. If they can't, then they're borderine original research. Otherwise, thanks for the contribution. -Smahoney 19:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. An example can be found here: [6] (PDF) on page 89. I seriously doubt this publication is alone. --Jakes18 22:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The cite offered is hardly definitive; The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP)[7] is just one ideological group making an ideological argument, it's not an academic study or something similar that can support such sweeping claims. If that cite is what your staking your recent edit warring on, then the passage is more accurately rewritten to read "However, some who are ideologically opposed to homosexual behavior point to..." And "Many who use the term "unnatural" are referring to the natural law..." uses weasel words. Many who? The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property? If that all you have then that's what it needs to state. FeloniousMonk 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hell, I was wondering if Jakes could find a more biased, less legitimate site for a cite. That site/cite/sightless drivel is like going on the RNC website to learn that Democrats are evil. ROFL. •Jim62sch• 23:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd suggest looking to scholarly resources. Or, failing that, if you want to talk specifically about Catholics, say "Some Catholics believe..." and then cite a catholic resource making that argument. If in doubt about what citations will work for what sorts of claims, check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -Smahoney 23:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I was stating the opposition's opinion, or at least that of part of the opposition. Nothing was stated as absolute truth, thence not violating the POV. This isn't a gay wiki, friends - I'm sure there are others out there for you to post on. I'll restore what I wrote, but add in "social conservatives" if that will placate you. --Jakes18 00:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't be snotty. The issue isn't with what you wrote so much as with the fact that you wrote something about an undefined group of people which isn't true of all those people. If you just said something along the lines of, "According to so-and-so, such-and-such" and then cited that statement to the specific person or group you attributed it to, you would be fine. If you don't, it is original research and doesn't belong here. Basically, if you would be willing to do the tiny bit of extra work to properly research and attribute your contribution, no one would have a problem with it. -Smahoney 06:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I don't fully trust myself to work on this, as I get caught up in controversies to the point that I become blind to much else, but I'd be fine with the tag coming off if the article were written to be less dismissive. Thats the only issue I see with it, as I pointed out a month ago and it hasn't changed since. -Mask 23:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You're more likely to get results if you quote specific sections and then state your reasons for disagreeing with them on this talk page than if you just say "the article is too dismissive". -Smahoney 23:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Smahoney is right. In light of your unwillingness to actually participate in improving the article by discussion specifically what you believe is wrong with it, you have no expectation to have your template remain. FeloniousMonk 23:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sentence moved from article

I'm completely unsure what the point of this sentence is. Has this happened to Gerald Hannon? If so, explain, and cite. If not, it doesn't make any sense to include it.

Writers who deconstruct the notion of a linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia, such as Gerald Hannon, may even themselves find their work misrepresented as endorsing pedophilia and child abuse.

-Smahoney 18:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Another sentence moved from article

Many of those who debate the issue and use the term "unnatural" may be referring to a conception of natural law, rather than any sort of normativity. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] Therefore, they may believe that whether or not something is classified as a psychological disorder by a given organization does not affect its moral standing.

Here are the problems with this sentence:

1. Who are these "many"? As always, cite the claim to a specific person or group.
2. I'm not at all sure that "natural law" and "normativity" represent entirely different concepts - that is, natural law looks to me like a specific sort of normative. Also, if this specific claim is being made in relation to the claim in the sentence preceding it, it needs to be referenced, too (or they can share the same reference).

-Smahoney 19:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Missing references

From Wikipedia:Citing sources:

Hope that helps. CovenantD 19:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! They've been updated. -Smahoney 19:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed from article

The sentence

However, Ezekiel 16:49 disputes this notion.

was removed from the section titled "Blame for Biblical plagues and natural disasters" by 12.165.116.126. I completely agree with this deletion as it stands, unless it can be sourced to some biblical scholar. So if whoever adds it has a citation for that addition, go ahead and add it back, with that citation. -Smahoney 20:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV request

I have begun to excise value-laden epithets. PLEASE ABSTAIN FROM REINSTATING expressions that either favor or disparage homosexual relations. Larvatus 09:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)larvatus

Censorship vs. discussion?

Certain people keep deleting a voice in this discussion, which happens to be mine. Well, it is neither civil nor accepted to do so, especially in a way user Larvatus does, playing a strict censor and deleting my posts from history files. The point is, we are not supposed to silence other viewpoints here. You may personally not like this kind of views - but this is no excuse to exclude others from discussion on the article. To cut it short, I will just restate the main point from the deleted posts: the slogan on homosexuality being unatural is simply right, as in the animal world homosexual behaviours are extremely rare and found only in some sort of atypical situations (e.g. weak elephants unable to find a partner of opposite sex, dogs in animal shelters). This is a fact, not propaganda, so please simply let this post stay. --Breeze59 17:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Zoologist Bruce Bagemihl, in his Natural Exuberance presents examples of hundreds of species which exhibit affection and sexuality between members of the same sex. His work refutes arguments such as yours. Haiduc 21:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The simple fact is that you don't get a voice - none of us do. See Wikipedia:Original research. -Smahoney 21:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Wearing clothes and cooking food are unnatural, but that's not an argument against them is it? It's rather more difficult to say whether homosexuality is unnatural, since, as Haiduc notes homosexual activities can be observed in some other species. In some - Bonobos for example - it's very common. But natural or not, it's illogical to equate "natural" with "good" - or do you go out naked and defecate in public? Paul B 23:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for interest in the subject, I’ll respond to all three comments in one post. Haiduc, the work you mentioned does not refute the above argument – I said, as you could read, that “in the animal world homosexual behaviours are extremely rare and found only in some sort of atypical situations”. I admitted it does happen, but is rare, and there is always an underlying reason causing this kind of abnormal behaviour (as we know, in humans these usually stem from lack of proper relationships with one of the parents, different dysfunctions of the environment or the first sexual experience). As you see, the work you mentioned, credible or not, does not contradict my view, but is parallel to it, or even complementary, unless you prove that homosexuality in animals is a daily practice involving a large percentage of individuals. (By the way Haiduc, I typically do not answer paedophiles, people who propagate pedophilia/pederasty or present it in good light, but made an exception this time, just because you seem to have misunderstood what I said. Anyway, take my good advice and seek help – now, in this condition time is acting against you.)
To user Mahoney – please, be so kind and see, that I included no original research here, I simply supported a certain view, dismissed by the atricle as a “slogan” with general knowledge you can get from animal books or TV channels.
Have you ever read Wikipedia:Original research? What about Wikipedia:Cite your sources, Wikipedia:Common knowledge, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Your response, which uses 'original research' in a way that looks like you don't really know what it means, suggests not. -Smahoney 19:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Come on, do you really want me to cite Discovery Channel? Does this argument sound like a "personal theory" they talk about in the pages you gave links to? I don't think so. With arguments like this you could discredit half of Wikipedia :)--Breeze59 19:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Have you still not read those pages? From WP:NOR:
"An edit counts as original research ... if it ... introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position" or "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" -Smahoney 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Good, so have it - a book which was not written in your language, but the translated title is "Still less animals in the wild" (cannot recall the author now, I'll add her when I find the book) plus some Discovery Channel programme (if you expect me to give the date and time, just skip it). Hope this satisfies you;) --Breeze59 20:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, you haven't read Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Giving them (and in vague form at that) to me doesn't suffice. If you want to add content to an article, you must explicitely cite where it came from. Further, I highly doubt that the "some Discovery Channel programme" explicitely said, "homosexuality is unnatural". Therefore, pulling in that as a source would count as introducing "an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". Finally, I'm not going to bother to respond if you continue to refuse to read the relevant policies, or if you continue to dismiss them as irrelevant ("if you expect me to give the date and time, just skip it") when they don't favor your additions. -Smahoney 20:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Paul B. – your argument is an interesting one. Of course humans learned to do many things they did not do, say, 200’000 years ago, which, some may argue, are “unnatural”. The point is that humans, have a large adaptation potential which allows us, for example, to eat cooked food. Of course raw friuts and vegetables are still more healthy than cooked ones, but the adaptation is a fact – we can it cooked stuff and be more or less OK. The problem with homosexualty, and specifically with anal sex, is that nature simply did not provide for that. The anus was developed for totally different purposes, and those who ignore this fact are in danger of serious health problems. Therefore “natural” should be defined not as “good”, but as “doing no harm” or “allowing faultless functioning in a certain area”.
Also, please don’t mix here naturality with moral/social norms (your idea of defecating in public). These notions are absolutely separate and redundant while discussing this specific aspect of homosexuality. --Breeze59 19:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Now you are confusing your arguments. Nature "provided for" whatever we can use it for. That includes anal sex. Whether it is healthy or not is a wholly different question. Anal sex is not homosexuality. Historically it has been widely practiced by heterosexuals. Lesbians obviously do not typically engage in it. And male homosexuals often do not either. You are creating a red herring. The fact that the anus was not "designed" for it not more relevant than the fact that the hand was not "designed" for masturbating, nor the mouth "designed" for oral sex. We can adapt them for those purposes - which are now generally considered to be quite normal in western culture. Not only that we see similar activities in our closest relatives, Bonobos and Chimps, which also masturbate (to the delight of zoo visitors). Yes, many other animals do not show sexuality of this kind. Many species have rigid mating behaviours. They "switch on" sexual behaviour during mating seasons, but show no interest at other times. Humans are like other primates. Sexuality is never switched off, but becomes a part of social interactions and can expand to a variety of stimulation-activities. By the way, it's you who are "mixing naturality with moral/social norms." Paul B 00:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Breeze, regarding animals, Bagemihl refers to a "broad panoply of behaviors, sexualities and genders" which totally explode any rigid notions of the "normality" of heterosexuality or even some dichotomy of homo- and heterosexuality. Your notion of alternative animal sexuality as an aberration may be appealing but is not tenable.
Regarding identifying with a particular nationality, sexuality, religion, or any other sort of parochialism, perhaps by spending time in this community you will come to consider the alternative: that of adopting a neutral point of view not only towards the subject you happen to be discussing but also as an identity . . devoid of identity. Regards, Haiduc 01:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Breeze... I don't think you 'get' wikipedia. I think you saw a newspaper article that disparaged the process of how wikipedia is written so you think you can come on to this article and insert your opinion by quoting "some discovery channel program I saw one time." I just want youto know that that's not the way it works around here. If you have a source, like Hitler or the APA who say "homosexuality is unnatural" then we put that claim in the article as attributeed to hitler or the APA or whoever said it. What we don't do, and what Britannica doesn't do, is say write an article that says "some scientist somewhere said something to the effect of 'homosexual is unnatural' but I can't tell you what context." Clearly if there is scientific or even pseudoscientific evidence to support the proposition that homosexuality is unnatural, then we will find a way to neutrally insert this claim alongside other claims. But what does not fly is somone coming on here without any sources whatsoever to discuss his opinion of the unnaturalness of anal sex. This isn't a disucssion board, it is an encyclopedia. I you have a reference or source for your claims, put it on the table now. If you don't, this conversation is over. See Also: wikipedia: POV warrior MPS 15:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Declaration that same-sex desire is unnatural

Hi. I noted in the section "Declaration that same-sex desire is unnatural" that the sentence "Though the psychiatric establishment did medicalize same-sex desire, that position has been revised and homosexuality was later removed as a medical disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)" was marked as needing a citation. Here's a citation for it from the APA website: http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#mentalillness I'd put it in myself, but I'm not absolutely sure how to do this.

I do think think, however, that it is problematical to headline a section with the word "unnatural" and to discuss a phenomenon (homosexuality) in terms of natural/unnatural without any references to the difficulties of these constructions. The RC view of "Natural Law" has nothing whatsoever to do with the incidence of cannibalism amongst other species.

One further note, as regards Plato's "Laws" -- there is a misapprehension, shown in many talk-page commentaries, that this tract was not an idiosyncratic philosophical treatise, but was in some way a "law of the Greeks". It might be worthwhile pointing out this fallacy.

And, lastly, honestly, has anyone looked at Queer Studies recently? It's not the article I'd wish to go to if I hoped to find out about the "Declaration that same-sex desire is unnatural" MacMurrough 22:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You make many sensible points, which I have tried to address, though a meaningful discussion of the uses of the term "natural" is far from easy. Paul B 11:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Change name anti-gay slogans --> anti-gay ideology

I was reading the definition of slogan and I am not sure we have named this article right. Perhaps we should consider Anti-gay ideology since ideology is the set of ideas and a slogan is a short pithy phrase. "Rhetoric" would also work better for me. I am trying to be NPOV here. The question to ask is who calls them slogans? I mean besides wikipedia? That's just a wierd way of talking MPS 15:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've long thought that the title is rather odd. I think the article originated as a discussion of the "AIDS kills fags dead" slogan, and then expanded into a list of stereotyped or "cliched" arguments against homosexuality, along with discussions, rebuttals and defences of the arguments. I agree that your title is better since the "slogans" are really a series of arguments or attitudes that work together to create an ideology. Paul B 15:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if the themes were labelled more like this, it might work: Category -- example. So ...

Religion -- "It's against the Scriptures."
Nature -- "It just ain't natural."
Catastrophe -- "They cause thunderstorms, don't they?"
Health -- "They spread disease."
Gender -- "They're too girly / too masculine."
Children -- "Save our kiddies."
Non-procreation -- "It's such a waste."

That way the slogan would have some direct reference, and would make the following exploration of the theme easier to get into. (I like the word slogan -- if only because it's one of the few words in English derived from the Irish language.) MacMurrough 18:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Another option would be to merge this article with societal attitudes towards homosexuality. -Smahoney 19:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you're probably right. But societal attitudes towards homosexuality already is a long page. Maybe we need to work out how many anti-gay themes there are (to the list I gave above, I would add Choice and Disgust). Use these as headings in the societal attitudes page, and include some information that most slogans derive from more than one theme (eg Catastrophe in large part relies on Religion / Non-procreation and Genderism rely on Nature, which itself (in part) derives from Religion). Then hive off to a discussion of each particular theme. A rough template might be this:
theme -- examples of slogans -- history/derivations -- arguments in favour of slogan -- arguments against -- latest research.
A problem would be that the theme Religion should really hive off to Homosexuality and religion. There would have to be some agreement on all such pages that a discussion of anti-gay slogans was appropriate. So the Theme "Choice" would lead to a page Homosexuality and choice which would cover the arguments of choice in homosexual orientation/preference and from there lead on to Ex-Gay and whatever the name of that therapy is -- forgive me, we don't have it where I live, so I forget. MacMurrough 20:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
We can certianly merge to multiple articles. What I had in mind when I suggested merging to societal attitudes towards homosexuality was that that would lead to splitting out much of the US-centric content (since much of what is here has to do exclusively with the US and UK) into its own article, and would leave societal attitudes towards homosexuality much more evenly global in scope. -Smahoney 20:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The societal attitudes article is already over-length, so it would be difficult to merge to it. Paul B 21:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm certainly not opposed to other solutions, but as I suggested above, the merge would:
1. Make sense. These "slogans" are really societal attitudes.
2. Probably lead to splitting out the US section on societal attitudes towards homosexuality, which would:
a. Make that article more evenly global in scope (as it is now, its fairly US-centric, or at least US-heavy).
b. Lead to more development on the new "US attitudes" article.
-Smahoney 21:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: MacMurrough's comments above, I think there already is an article that covers the "homosexuality and choice" debate. The title of that "therapy", by the way, is reparative therapy. -Smahoney 21:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article is Choice and sexual orientation. I don't want to disagree with people unnecessarily here, but actually that article does not at all cover Choice in the sense of "choosing". There's little there about, if choice exists, the philosphical notions of that choice: why is a choice made, to what end? And the dynamics of any choice: when is such choice made, upon what circumstance; is choice repeatable: if so, at what rate, upon which circumstances, at which frequency? The further article reparative therapy solely deals with the question, Does it work? It says absolutely nothing about the dynamics of choice, or more correctly of "choosing". If we're going to be condemned on the basis that we have chosen to be condemned, it should certainly be in our interest to investigate what is meant by choice. Or, to put it in Wikipedia terms, to have an article Homosexuality and choice which will investigate these dilemmas. MacMurrough 22:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely. Judith Butler might be a good place to look for a starting place on choice, along with rational choice theory. As for reparative therapy, last time I was there it also didn't address the fact that these people are saying that they're all about enabling people to choose a sexuality which enables them to live a more fulfilling life, but don't offer similar "conversion therapies" to straight people... -Smahoney 03:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Since this discussion seems to have pretered out, I've taken the liberty of changing the name to "Slogans of anti-gay ideology" as a compromise name and provisional solution. Paul B 09:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 66.19.235.19

Most of the edits by this individual seem to be sheer anti-gay propaganda, but the statistic added needs to be addressed. It is stated that "Most recent studies from the CDC (Center for Disease Control) show that about 75% of people in the United States with AIDS are gay, only 7% are even thought to be heterosexual". This appears to derive from the 2003 statistics of AIDS sufferers, which state that 75% of white males with the condition in the US are most likely to have contracted it via homosexual sex. Statistics for other ethnic groups and for women are different. I am therefore removing this statistic. Accurate statistics should be included, and it is certainly true that in the US the proportion of male sufferers who have engaged in gay sex greatly exceeds the proportion of gay men in the population, a fact which it is fair to add. Here is a summary of the 2003 statistics. [9] Also, this has nowt to do with biblical plagues, so should be in the AIDS section. Paul B 00:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed a similar section which was :

Recent studies from the Center for Disease Control show that among males in the United States a high proportion are likely to have contracted the condition through homosexual sex.[1] Worldwide, the epidemic has hit both homosexuals and heterosexuals drastically, although the disease of thought to have originated in gays and later spread to heterosexuals, as the disease is far more common is gays. The CDC has found that only 2.4% of the AIDS victims in the world have gotten it only from heterosexual contact.

According to the source he quotes, 56% of men getting AIDS did get it on a man to man relationship. How can there be only 2.4 % of heterosexuals getting it? Either you get it with a man or with a woman. Do I get something wrong or is it bad propaganda? -- lucasbfr talk 02:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I won't edit the article again, I don't want to do my first 3RR offense here :x -- lucasbfr talk 02:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
You get it from intravenous drug use and, in rare cases, transfer of blood through cuts, fights, medical error, etc. Running sores and other similar means of transmission are much more common in nonwestern countries. Also note that the pie chart here [10] indicates that new adolescent contraction rates suggest 31% of such cases are now caused by heterosexual contact. Paul B 10:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a slogan

It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Whirling Sands 06:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Already there. Paul B 10:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Rebuttals bad for NPOV

This article contains a rebuttal for several of the examples. In the interests of neutrality, this article should not state who is right so directly.

Should Wikipedia really catalog hate speech at all? Such listings are extremely difficult to make without inserting any bias, and they aren't particularly valuable. --66.185.71.156 02:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"The Irony in this image is clear. (A guy wearing sleeveless shirts and shorts as a gay-hater)" Clear to who? who says so? POV? POV. 65.127.223.98 (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Title

This article does more than catalogue anti-LGBT slogans; it explores the rationale behind homophobia and other arguments against homosexual behavior. As such, I believe the article should be "Anti-LGBT Arguments" or "Anti-LGBT campaigns," or should be merged with an article relating to homophobia or something more general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VelaenOscuridad (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"

This was used by "mainstream" evangelicals long before anybody outside of Kansas had ever heard of Westboro Baptist (since the late 1970's, at least), and is not mainly associated with Westboro Baptist. There are many conservative Christians who would accept "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", while simultaneously rejecting "God hates fags"... AnonMoos 07:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but didn't God make Adam & Steve too? Knitting them together in their mothers' wombs. -James comment added by 65.28.6.199 (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
More importantly, if you can find something to verify that, then edit the article accordingly. Until then, Youmight at least edit the section to what you thin kit should say, then put a needs citation tag on it. Kairos (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Gays may not perceive it that way, but from the Evangelical point of view "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is actually kind of a light-hearted and non-intentionally-hateful way of expressing their basic beliefs. It has no particular association with Westboro Baptist -- and it actually belongs in the "Declaration that same-sex desire is unnatural" section anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Plato?

I have looked up the passage in Laws and it seems to be correct... but I am not a Platonic scholar, and this seems a slightly strange passage. I think in Symposium there is a creation myth for homosexuality which is somewhat approving, and I have seen in various Platonic dialogues Socrates making genial remarks about his friends' boyfriends. Is it a change in policy for Plato to say such a thing? Matthew Platts (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Irrationale Source

From the article: Homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia are not synonymous. In fact, it may be that these two orientations are mutually exclusive, the reason being that the homosexual male is sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the sexually immature child’s qualities are more feminine than masculine....The child offender who is attracted to and engaged in adult sexual relationships is heterosexual. It appears, therefore, that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male.

The writer starts by arbitrarily segregating homosexual pedophiles into a separate group from other homosexuals, and putting all those pedophiles into the heterosexual category based on the idea that it "may be" that they are attracted to children because children allegedly have feminine characteristics. Then he draws draws the firm conclusion that heterosexuals are more likely to be a greater risk to children. I've seen some wacky logic by modern "thinkers", but this one is up there. 71.83.198.208 (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Claim that AIDS as a gay disease

I'm confused by the latter 2 paragraphs in this section. Are we trying to explain why AIDS as a gay disease is an anti-LGBT slogan? Or are we describing "fairly" the debate over whether it is (was) an accurate medical statement? If it's the latter, then we're going to need an article called something like gay disease or Gay disease controversy where both sides can be presented. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There was some degree of observed correlation among middle class people in the United States in the 1980s, but there is no such correlation in most of Africa, etc. It's one of those things which seemed plausible to some in the early days, but became much less of a real issue as we learned more about AIDS... AnonMoos (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"God Hates Fags"

Oh yes and please do not forget the simply laughable "God hates fags" saying. It is printed on t-shirts, signs, websites, children's clothing and simply everything against LGBT. I call it laughable because there is no proof that God hates fags.--Anarchistscookbook (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It's already been on the article for years, but it's associated with the extreme fringe Westboro Baptist group -- whereas the more traditional mainstream Christian position was "hate the sin, but love the sinner" -- which is why it's not given great prominence in the article. The mainstream evangelicals find Westboro Baptist even more distasteful and repugnant than gay activists do (though not for the same reasons)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's Not Discrimination

This shouldn't be part of discrimination. Would you say a child molestor is being discriminated against? The recent rejection of pro-gay agendas by Latinos and African Americans clearly show true minorities do not consider gays to be a minority but rather an illness. If you want to put it in a category it should be with other mentally ill diseases like Bi-polar depression 63.26.91.175 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Barack Obama

Except it clearly is discrimination. If I went to a synagogue and held up signs with things like "How do you bake cookies without being reminded of the ovens?" I'm obviously being a cunt. So are these people, and quite frankly, your POV is just as obvious as my own, and just as offensive.
And it is quite irrelevant what "true minorities" consider it. (Never mind that any such minorities include gays as well.) As the APA pointed out when delisting homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder, "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities". It simply isn't a matter of opinion.--DVD-junkie | talk | 02:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Declaration that same-sex desire is unnatural

The paragraph states: "Though the psychiatric establishment once medicalized same-sex desire, homosexuality was later removed in 1974 as a mental disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) because the diagnosis of homosexuality as mental illness stigmatized homosexuals." This is incorrect. Homosexuality was declassified because its former classification was based in bad science and prejudice.

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:

[4]

I will therefore change the sentence to: "Though the psychiatric establishment once medicalized same-sex desire, homosexuality was later removed in 1974 as a mental disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) because it wasn't supported by sound scientific evidence and didn't meet the criteria for a mental disorder."--DVD-junkie | talk | 16:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ HRSA fact sheets: Men Who Have Sex With Men and HIV/AIDS.The proportions vary between ethnicities: HRSA fact sheets: Hispanics and HIV/AIDS
  2. ^ JAMA: Gay Is Okay With APA (American Psychiatric Association); available online: http://www.soulforce.org/article/642
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference amici was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Royal College of Psychiatrists: Submission to the Church of England's Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-LGBTQ_rhetoric/Archive_2&oldid=1244753498"