Talk:Gay bashing/Archive 1

Archive

Should I archive this page?75.155.214.245 (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC) [edit]Euphemism?

Resolved.

I'm not entirely sure that it's an appropriate term. "Vertically challenged" is a great example for a euphemism. "Gay bashing" strikes me as an honest phrase. - AWF agreed. The Ungovernable Force 07:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC) [edit]McCarthy?

Does all this McCarthy stuff really belong here? Jkelly 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC) I think it needs to include more information on who has prompted gay bashing. If anyone has a list it could be helpful Multivet (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC) I tend to agree. To me it would help to introduce hate crime statistics as well as I believe the incidence for gay bashing is quite common. Benjiboi 06:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC) The McCarhy inclusion is curious. Gay bashing according to the lead is "verbal confrontation with, denigration of, or physical violence." My understanding is that it is generally impromptu, and confrontational. The Lavender Scare edisode was a methodical persecution. And the Interview with Johnson doesn't mention any specific verbal confrontations, denigration, vilence. I think it should be removed. Lionelt (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC) [edit]Deserves own entry?

Surely "gay bashing" is just a tabloidy phrase for "homophobia"? 138.243.195.136 06:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Most people who are homophobic are not violent, so, No. "Gay bashing" means actual violence to someone because they're homosexual.71.63.119.49 02:07, 8 June 2007 ( Indeed. I am " homophobic " but I am not anti-gay. I do believe that gay bashing can be verbal but ....... Moses Weintraub 12:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Is there an acceptable way to disapprove of homosexuality without being fearful, violent, or hateful? If so, is there a nice term for it? A way to answer your own question is to simply reverse the perspective. Is there an acceptable way to disapprove of heterosexuality without being fearful, violent, or hateful? If so, is there a nice term for it? I would guess no. I will also add that just being aware that for whatever reasons you have those thoughts, feelings or prejudices is a big step and sorting out your managing how you deal with them is the secret. I am a bit heterophobic and when I sense uncomfortableness around those behaviors i try to catch myself and take a "to each their own" approach. Benjiboi 02:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry, but are you then saying that Catholics must be fearful, violent, or hateful? We disapprove of homosexuality, just like we disapprove of premarital sex and other things, on moral grounds. If you call us fearful, violent, or hateful, are you not engaging in religious bigotry? Weston "If you call us fearful, violent, or hateful, are you not engaging in religious bigotry?" It would be saying the truth(excluding violent): I have yet to see a Catholic that's "gently" anti-gay (there aren't any, and the way you're using "disapprove" is really just a facade). By the way, aren't all the passages (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, 22:13 and Romans 1:26, among others) that refer to homosexuality qualify it as "an abomination" (for example). Hardly a simple dissaproval. XBadboyX (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC) I'd strengthen the word "disapprove" to "reject", to help settle the dispute. OK? If "homophobic" is too strong, I might stick the label of "heterosexualist" to me instead, to indicate that I reject both homosexuality and antigay violence. But that's probably too bad a word for a 'pedia (neologism and such), although the "...ist" syllable is easily understood. To topic starter: No, homophobia is not necessarily gay bashing. Like pedophilia is not the same as child abuse. BTW, the reversal of "gay bashing" would be "homophobe-bashing", wouldn't it? Go ahead. Bash me. ;-) - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 12:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC) [edit]Notorious

Hello. I made an edit that was reverted. [1]. My intention was to distinguish notoriety. He wasn't notorious until after he did it. He may not have been notorious at the time, just well known for it. Now he is definitely notorious for it. OK gay bashing was common back then, but I think more needs to be turfed up on that character. Just because everyone was doing it doesn't excuse leaders. If it was a direct quote from lit, then its fine to revert. Otherwise, we could discussMultivet (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC) That may be true but we can let the Joseph McCarthy spell that out for readers. Benjiboi 06:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Well I think you can let it do that if you like. I prefer to do some research. Multivet (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean but this article certainly needs some work. Benjiboi 09:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC) [edit]Gospel of Matthew

The argument made in the Gospel of Matthew section seems extremely weak. Should it even be here? Prometheus-X303- 18:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Although the Bible is used against gays too often you find articles on the internet that are "pro" gay rather then just providing facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.23.24.98 (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC) [edit]Worldwide view tag

The worldwide view tag doesn't really seem to have any purpose since the title of the sub-section is "United States". Does anyone object to me removing it? Tony877 (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC) The tag should remain. It applies to the Historical episodes section as a whole and reflects the fact that there is only one subsection, which pertains to the USA. Peter Chastain (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I understand that, but when it says "USA" it should be obvious. We can leave it.. I'm just saying it seems pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony877 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC) [edit]Lacking

This article is really lacking. McCarthy might have a one or two sentence mention, but it shouldn't take up half the article and all of the footnotes, while Matthew Sheppard and other incidents of actual gay bashing remain absent. Mention of physical violence takes up only one phrase. There should also be mention of psychological studies. MishaPan (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Whomever wrote Gay bashing appears to have written it nearly verbatim from [1], Sledge You've got it backwards, that material is republished from Wikipedia--something a lot of sites do in order to attract traffic, and completely legit. That's a relatively well-known wikimirror. There are even book-form republications of Wikipedia content, it can be tough to sort it all out. --j⚛e deckertalk to me 19:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC) [edit]Clarification request

This is in regard to the clarify tag I added to the article: An editor questioned the "26 times a day, or every 14 minutes" on the basis of simple math, but I reverted the edit he or she made (changing the "every 14 minutes" on a few grounds--it's possible that the figures are truly inconsistent, but if so, we don't have anything that says which of the two is more correct, moreover, I suspect that a limiting phrase, such as "every 14 minutes during the school day", might bring the two numbers into a consistent form. Both numbers are reported often on the internet, all of which eventually cite a 9/1998 article in "Counseling Today", which I don't have access to. I've made a request for assistance for that source here: [2]. Perhaps we'll have an answer soon. --j⚛e deckertalk to me 19:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Reverse-engineering the argument, 26 times 14 minutes make 364 minutes, roughly 6 hours. The "26 times a day" wording looks primary, the "every 14 minutes" are probably derived from the silent assumption of a 6-hour school day, including all other interaction with other youth. "14 minutes" may be an unjustifiably high accuracy (compared to the statisctical methods used), too. Maybe "about 4 times per hour during a 6-hour school day" ? - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 12:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC) [edit]4th paragraph is failing

has no citations and is not specific to gay bashing this is simply another vector of attack for any psychological assault and doesn't belong in this article 87.112.198.114 (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Euphemism?

Resolved.

I'm not entirely sure that it's an appropriate term. "Vertically challenged" is a great example for a euphemism. "Gay bashing" strikes me as an honest phrase. - AWF

agreed. The Ungovernable Force 07:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notorious

Hello. I made an edit that was reverted. [1]. My intention was to distinguish notoriety. He wasn't notorious until after he did it. He may not have been notorious at the time, just well known for it. Now he is definitely notorious for it. OK gay bashing was common back then, but I think more needs to be turfed up on that character. Just because everyone was doing it doesn't excuse leaders. If it was a direct quote from lit, then its fine to revert. Otherwise, we could discussMultivet (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true but we can let the Joseph McCarthy spell that out for readers. Benji boi 06:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think you can let it do that if you like. I prefer to do some research. Multivet (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean but this article certainly needs some work. Benji boi 09:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCarthy?

Does all this McCarthy stuff really belong here? Jkelly 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to include more information on who has prompted gay bashing. If anyone has a list it could be helpful Multivet (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. To me it would help to introduce hate crime statistics as well as I believe the incidence for gay bashing is quite common. Benji boi 06:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The McCarhy inclusion is curious. Gay bashing according to the lead is "verbal confrontation with, denigration of, or physical violence." My understanding is that it is generally impromptu, and confrontational. The Lavender Scare edisode was a methodical persecution. And the Interview with Johnson doesn't mention any specific verbal confrontations, denigration, vilence. I think it should be removed. Lionelt (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide view tag

The worldwide view tag doesn't really seem to have any purpose since the title of the sub-section is "United States". Does anyone object to me removing it? Tony877 (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tag should remain. It applies to the Historical episodes section as a whole and reflects the fact that there is only one subsection, which pertains to the USA. Peter Chastain (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but when it says "USA" it should be obvious. We can leave it.. I'm just saying it seems pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony877 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel of Matthew

The argument made in the Gospel of Matthew section seems extremely weak. Should it even be here? Prometheus^-X303- 18:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Bible is used against gays too often you find articles on the internet that are "pro" gay rather then just providing facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.23.24.98 (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking

This article is really lacking. McCarthy might have a one or two sentence mention, but it shouldn't take up half the article and all of the footnotes, while Matthew Sheppard and other incidents of actual gay bashing remain absent. Mention of physical violence takes up only one phrase. There should also be mention of psychological studies. MishaPan (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whomever wrote Gay bashing appears to have written it nearly verbatim from ^[1], Sledge

You've got it backwards, that material is republished from Wikipedia--something a lot of sites do in order to attract traffic, and completely legit. That's a relatively well-known wikimirror. There are even book-form republications of Wikipedia content, it can be tough to sort it all out. --j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 19:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.answers.com/topic/gay-bashing

Deserves own entry?

Surely "gay bashing" is just a tabloidy phrase for "homophobia"?
138.243.195.136 06:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most people who are homophobic are not violent, so, No. "Gay bashing" means actual violence to someone because they're homosexual.71.63.119.49 02:07, 8 June 2007 (

Indeed. I am "homophobic " but I am not anti-gay. I do believe that gay bashing can be verbal but ....... Moses Weintraub 12:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an acceptable way to disapprove of homosexuality without being fearful, violent, or hateful? If so, is there a nice term for it?

A way to answer your own question is to simply reverse the perspective. Is there an acceptable way to disapprove of heterosexuality without being fearful, violent, or hateful? If so, is there a nice term for it? I would guess no. I will also add that just being aware that for whatever reasons you have those thoughts, feelings or prejudices is a big step and sorting out your managing how you deal with them is the secret. I am a bit heterophobic and when I sense uncomfortableness around those behaviors i try to catch myself and take a "to each their own" approach. Benjiboi 02:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but are you then saying that Catholics must be fearful, violent, or hateful? We disapprove of homosexuality, just like we disapprove of premarital sex and other things, on moral grounds. If you call us fearful, violent, or hateful, are you not engaging in religious bigotry? Weston

"If you call us fearful, violent, or hateful, are you not engaging in religious bigotry?" It would be saying the truth(excluding violent): I have yet to see a Catholic that's "gently" anti-gay (there aren't any, and the way you're using "disapprove" is really just a facade). By the way, aren't all the passages (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, 22:13 and Romans 1:26, among others) that refer to homosexuality qualify it as "an abomination" (for example). Hardly a simple dissaproval. XBadboyX (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strengthen the word "disapprove" to "reject", to help settle the dispute. OK?

If "homophobic" is too strong, I might stick the label of "heterosexualist" to me instead, to indicate that I reject both homosexuality and antigay violence. But that's probably too bad a word for a 'pedia (neologism and such), although the "...ist" syllable is easily understood.

To topic starter: No, homophobia is not necessarily gay bashing. Like pedophilia is not the same as child abuse.

BTW, the reversal of "gay bashing" would be "homophobe-bashing", wouldn't it?

Go ahead. Bash me. ;-) - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 12:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request

This is in regard to the clarify tag I added to the article:

An editor questioned the "26 times a day, or every 14 minutes" on the basis of simple math, but I reverted the edit he or she made (changing the "every 14 minutes" on a few grounds--it's possible that the figures are truly inconsistent, but if so, we don't have anything that says which of the two is more correct, moreover, I suspect that a limiting phrase, such as "every 14 minutes during the school day", might bring the two numbers into a consistent form. Both numbers are reported often on the internet, all of which eventually cite a 9/1998 article in "Counseling Today", which I don't have access to. I've made a request for assistance for that source here: [2]. Perhaps we'll have an answer soon. --j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 19:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse-engineering the argument, 26 times 14 minutes make 364 minutes, roughly 6 hours. The "26 times a day" wording looks primary, the "every 14 minutes" are probably derived from the silent assumption of a 6-hour school day, including all other interaction with other youth. "14 minutes" may be an unjustifiably high accuracy (compared to the statisctical methods used), too. Maybe "about 4 times per hour during a 6-hour school day" ? - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 12:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4th paragraph is failing

has no citations and is not specific to gay bashing this is simply another vector of attack for any psychological assault and doesn't belong in this article 87.112.198.114 (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to similar article

Please see question raised at here re two similar articles gay bashing and Violence against LGBT people --Noleander (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

Are there any statistics that show how much more likely a gay person is to being bullied compared to a straight person? For An Angel (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further Differentiation and Relabelling Needed

This entry requires substantial re-editing. It specifically may need to be split into two differentiated articles. One would focus specifically on physical acts of homophobic or transphobic violence, or gay bashing proper, while another should focus on anti-LGBT bullying practises. That entry should provide a wider international focus than US state and federal antibullying policies. Calibanu (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)User Calibanu[reply]

I agree with your point about differentiation and relabelling. I've just added some content recently and I think there should be a separate gay/LGBTTIQQ2S/queer bullying page.Sfdrye (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same breath

Is it not the case that people who gay-bash are often thought to be closeted homosexuals themselves? The secondary sources must be rife with such speculation, after nearly every incident, and this article needs to address that. Are there not cases in which people convicted of gay-bashing later express remorse and say that they did it because they were gay and couldn't deal with it? Abductive (reasoning) 15:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gay bashing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120414144851/http://www.nmha.org:80/go/information/get-info/children-s-mental-health/bullying-and-gay-youth to http://www.nmha.org/go/information/get-info/children-s-mental-health/bullying-and-gay-youth

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.answers.com/topic/gay-bashing

[1]