Talk:LGBTQ rights opposition/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Boy scouts

How about:

The Boy Scouts of America exclude homosexuals and bisexuals from its organizations, both as Scouts and Scoutmasters. They say that they have certain moral standards and values, and that homosexuality is incompatible with the Scout Oath and Law, which requires boys to be "morally straight." They say that this is not discriminatory. As they say on their website, "Tolerance for diversity of values does not require abdication of one's own values" [1].

In 2000 the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case Boy Scouts of America v. Dale [2] that the organization can decide its own membership rules, but there is still a movement to try and persuade the organization to change its policy or allow local chapters to decide for themselves.

In 2005, the US Congress passed the "Support Our Scouts Act of 2005" to exempt the BSA from anti-discrimination laws, to require the Department of Defense to support scouting Jamborees (thus overturning a Federal Court injunction prohibiting this as an unconstitutional establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment) and to require state or local governments that receive Community Development Block Grant money from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to allow BSA to have meetings in their facilities or on their property.

Critics claim that homosexuals are not incompatible with scout values and are allowed to be members in most countries in the world [3], including the United Kingdom, where scouting was founded. They say that the ban hurts youth [4] and is discriminatory, and that taxes (e.g the Learning for Life program) and taxpayer-funded facilities should not be used to support an organization that discriminates against certain taxpayers. Some United Ways, municipalities, school districts and businesses have stopped supporting scouting for those reasons. [5]

Wuzzy 11:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. You might want a reference for "Support Our Scouts Act of 2005". DavidBailey 18:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved these paragraphs into the article, minus the following:

They say that the ban hurts youth [6] and is discriminatory, and that taxes (e.g the Learning for Life program) and taxpayer-funded facilities should not be used to support an organization that discriminates against certain taxpayers.

This is because it is not supported, except with a non-encyclopedic quality forum page link. DavidBailey 00:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Can they go back in with a {{citation needed}} tag for a few days? It allows people to see that something is about to be pulled. I realize you feel entitled to pull it immediately, but since not including those paragraphs wasn't discussed it would be a show of good faith. If the tag is still there in 3 or 4 days, I'll be the first to say the passage should go away. CovenantD 00:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it didn't exactly vanish, because I posted it here. If someone can cite an acceptable reference, I have no problems with it being moved into the article. Sound okay? I believe I'm following the suggestions in Wikipedia:How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_version#Alternative_to_reverting:_move_to_talk. DavidBailey 20:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence sounds like it could use a rewording. The tone seems to infer that religous groups oppose gay rights. Some do and some do not. The article the line references even states religous support for and against BSA policy. Does this sound ok?

Perhaps from:

The BSA, however, receives a high level of support from religious groups which are noted for their opposition to gay rights. [7]

To:

The BSA, however, receives a high level of support from religious groups that tend to support the scout's policy banning gays.[8] Abernaki 11:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your version is better Abernaki. DavidBailey 16:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like Abernaki's proposal because it verges on circularity ("X is supported by groups who support X's policies"; well, that's not surprising) and doesn't really provide any information. Fireplace 17:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

BSA and LDS and Catholic support as primary reason for not allowing homosexual leaders

Alienus, this is another "common knowledge" truism that I often hear quoted, but have never seen factual information on. You cannot quote an anti-LDS article which quotes a "newsgroup" or forum as an authoritative source. Most of the many [9] organizations which support BSA, not just the LDS or Catholic churches, agree with the current policies of BSA, or they would support a program such as Camp Fire USA. Trying to isolate the views to a couple groups is POV and not accurate. DavidBailey 14:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That site is not being quoted on its own merits, but rather the merits of the links it offers to news sites. As these point out, while many organizations contribute, a few are the largest contributors, and the LDS church is one of them. Thank you for understanding. Al 18:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

All that the sources you cite say is that LDS members are a disproportionately high percentage of BSA members and leadership and that they threatened to pull out. There is nothing there to support the claim that it's a direct reason for the BSA's policies on gay scouts or scoutmasters. That seems to be something you infer. Can you connect those dots for us with references? CovenantD 18:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No need. Rather than making any inference, I changed it to simply state the facts and allow the reader to decide if there's any connection. Speaking of the facts, Chooserr's latest round of edits includes adding the phrase "gay agenda", which is the homosexual equivalent of "nigger". It's a deeply offensive term and I will not allow it in this article. Al 03:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is in no way an equivalent of the N-word. It isn't applied to a person such as the word "faggot" may be but to their...what's the word again? Oh yeah, Agenda. Also you aren't solely in charge of wikipedia. Chooserr 03:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. It is, as always, a pleasure to work with you towards the harmonious editing of articles. Al 03:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how I proved your point, but sure...Chooserr 03:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And anyone feel free to view wikipedia's article on the subject here (that is if Alienus doesn't decide to tear the article to shreads because he "won't stand for it"). Chooserr 03:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Concentration camps

"When the German Nazi party came to power in 1933, one of their first acts was to burn down the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, and begin a process to send homosexuals to concentration camps."

What does "begin a process to send homosexuals to concentration camps" mean? Were gay people actually sent to concentration camps in the early 1930's? Were there anti-gay laws enacted? Was there anti-gay propaganda? Could use some clarification, IMHO. Martin 18:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This page can only be NPOV with a new neutral title and a major rewrite

As the page is now, including the title, it is expresses a strongly pro-homosexual POV; and creates straw men of the "opposition," including the pejorative and innacurate use of the term fundamentalist. Many of those listed would say that homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else, and that they are in opposition to "special rights"

So to speak of "gay rights" instantly takes the position of advocating the homosexual POV. The article needs a new name and a major cleanup. Pollinator 04:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You're simply mistaken. There are countless citations from reliable sources that speak of gay rights and the opposition against them. Just because you don't like the term doesn't mean you get to remove it. Al 04:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, please don't make accusation against another user, especially when you don't know them.

And Pollinator be bold. Chooserr 05:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's ok, I'll just as boldly revert any POV insertion. Al 12:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, why don't you start with the present POV? Right now the page a polemic against that tiny minority of "fundies" whose motivation is to raise money (assume good faith?). Admitedly there are two points of view. America is about divided in half. But your version states only one side of the POV, while trying to knock out the other side every time it is expressed. Note the nearly 50/50 vote in the Senate to see if the "gay rights" opposition is only the "fundies." The opposition to "gay rights" is mainstream. In states where there has been a referendum on same-sex marriage, it fails by wide margins. Bring the article into the reality of the day, not the wishful thinking of a few. Pollinator 13:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Right now the page a polemic against that tiny minority of "fundies" whose motivation is to raise money" - The content of the article appears to be verifiable, and I see no mention whatsoever of fund raising. The term "fundies" is not used at all, and fundamentalists are in fact a large force against equal rights for gays. George100 17:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The article presently states: From the late 1970s onwards, Christian fundamentalist organizations such as the 700 Club, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women For America, and the Christian Coalition found that opposition to gay rights based on Biblical teachings, and various anti-gay sterotypes was an effective tool to raise revenue for their organizations.

This is a pretty blatant POV remark, impugning motives, and applying the fundamentalist label to groups that aren't fundamentalist. How much farther off from NPOV can you get? Pollinator 18:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you're asking for further citations. Al 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to argue that there are non-fundie bigots in America, I won't disagree. Al 16:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

So it's not about making a better, more NPOV version? - it's about name calling. Alienus, why don't you recuse yourself from editing on these topics; you have identified your obvious agenda; and you can't see any grays, only black and white. It's really an ultra-fundamentalist mentality; just that the good guys and the bad guys are interchanged. It's time to take this and other similar articles from being propaganda tools to actually expressing BOTH the homosexual viewpoint and the anti-homosexual viewpoint, which, according to the Senate vote are about equally represented. If you take the house vote, the pro-homosexual viewpoint is decidedly in the minority. Pollinator

I don't think you quite understood me. If you think the focus on fundamentalists is excessive and want to show that there are non-fundamentalists in the gay rights opposition movement, feel free. I'm all for a comprehensive, neutral article, so I oppose unfairly singling out one particular group of bigots from among the rest. Let's include them all. Al 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Pollinator. We meet again. Exploding Boy 01:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Completely rewrite public opinion section?

The public opinion section currently deals only with the question of whether gays and lesbians are viewed as child molesters or should be allowed to teach in elementary schools. While the elementary school debate was and is important, it's a narrow issue and the molestation information is only indirectly relevant. The section would be more informative if it focused on current and historical public opinion on a package of gay rights issues (hate crime laws, gay marriage, civil unions, sodomy laws, job and housing discrimination laws, military policy, etc.). I'll rewrite this section if there're no serious objections and no one else jumps first. Fireplace 00:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Gay rights is a controversial term, hence the italics

I'd appreciate the continued vandalism of the removal of the italics on the term "gay rights" to cease. These are not "scare quotes" (or as Alienus calls them "scare italics"). Using italics to emphasize terms which may be unfamiliar and so the term is being introduced, or in cases where a term is controversial and may be defined differently by different groups, is a clearly accepted way to highlight this. See italic type, sections 1 & 2 in this article, or this article, or this one, or this article which states "Technical terms that may be unfamiliar to readers can be set in double quotation marks or italics the first time that they are used in the document. If a term is being used in an unusual way, double quotation marks should be used." In this case, gay rights is a political "technical" term because it is a contested term. If we are defining the term farther up in the article, I am fine with not having them here, but I did not see it earlier in the article either. DavidBailey 16:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hm. "Technical term" encompasses "contested term"? I'm not at all sure that's the case. As far as manuals of style is concerned, those aren't Wikipedia's; at best we have Wikipedia:Manual of Style (italics), which doesn't prescribe that usage. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't see "gay rights" as being a technical term that readers will be unfamiliar with, therefore I must continue to enforce NPOV by removing the italics. Please understand that anything doen to enforce NPOV is, by definition, never vandalism, so your accusations are as uncivil as they are false. Al 16:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a term used in political discussion. Technical doesn't just mean technology. It means uncommonly used in wider circles. Political jargon, such as terms used by political activists, fits this definition. Also, Wikipedia's style guide is made up of best-practices of style usage in general, of which this is one. You'll also see that it does include introduction of a term. I have added a reference in the style guide to illustrate this. DavidBailey 16:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, so "gay rights" is somehow not used in wider circles? There are over ten million instances of the phrase on Google; how much wider use does it need to qualify as vernacular rather than "technical"? Thing is, we use wikilinks here in places where italics for unfamiliarity might be used in print; if a word is unfamiliar to the reader, they click on it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And everyone -- please hold off on edit warring while we're discussing the issue, OK? It doesn't hurt anything if the italics are there or not there for a while; it doesn't change the reader's comprehension. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees what gay rights means, so it's appropriate to introduce the term in the article. DavidBailey 17:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and we do that on Wikipedia with wikilinks, not with italics. Look around. Why should this article be different from the rest? Is there an alternate term which would need less introduction? Are people reading "gay rights opposition" going to be confused by the term "gay rights"? Now, if the term itself is sufficiently controversial, this might be a good place to put a sentence or a paragraph with, say, "Mr. Reliable Source considers the term gay rights itself to be a misnomer because the term 'gay' is questionable and what they want isn't rights." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The term should not be in quotes/italics. (1) Wikilinks are sufficient to introduce technical or potentially-unfamiliar words. (2) The term "gay rights" is frequently used without scare quotes/italics in the mainstream media, by politicians of both parties, and by everyday people. (3) It is listed in dictionaries (e.g., Webster's). (4) The existence of viewpoints denying the existence of a thing doesn't warrant scare quotes/italics: if so, then God, the homosexual agenda, special rights, the external world, the soul, etc., should all be put in quotes/italics. Fireplace 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that no term requires quotes, italics, or phrases such as "what they refer to", "what they see as", "what they believe is" when they are controversial? DavidBailey 17:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Scare quotes might be warranted for a host of reasons, but controversy isn't sufficient to establish warrant (see examples above). Fireplace 17:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe he is saying that none of these listed terms need italics, and I agree. Stop italicizing the things you dislike. It is a violation of, among other things, WP:NPOV. Al 17:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So then you also agree to quit putting phrases similar to "what they refer to", "what they see as", and "what they believe is" in front of phrases you object to? Frankly, I think italics is much less biased that this technique which you often employ. DavidBailey 17:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

When one is discussing other's opinions, phrases such as "what they refer to" are appropriate for expressions that (unlike "gay rights") are not in common usage. For example, when the whole issue started making news a few years ago, one might very well have written "blah blah have introduced a bill to restrict what they call 'partial birth abortion'" -- at the time, the expression was not at all common, and it's never been medically used -- it's a political term, as you put it. But in the intervening time, the term has become sufficiently common that in general it need not be called out. Likewise, if this were 1962, the nomenclature "pro-life" and "pro-choice" would need to be called out; we certainly don't call them out when we use them now (whether they should be used in Wikipedia articles is a different matter.) The expression "gay rights" is a done deal, especially in an article entitled "Gay rights opposition". Now, if this were the Civil rights article, there might be more need for italics on first introduction, since as is being discussed elsewhere by some of us, there is a non-fringe-element dispute as to whether "gay rights" are a subset of "civil rights".

As far as the use of italics is concerned, it's really just an aesthetic, stylistic thing. Practice here is not to use them to qualify or NPOV-ize expressions that otherwise might convey POV, but instead to use the weaseling phrases you object to. I think I agree with the practice here, as annoying as I find the weasels; italics are imprecise -- they could indeed be the equivalent sneer or scare quotes; they could be attempting to highlight for emphasis; they could be to introduce concepts; they could be to indicate foreign phrases. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In particular, phrases such as "what they refer to as X" might be needed when the people doing the referring are, how shall I put it, making up their own definitions, using wildly different definitions, and so on. Exploding Boy 01:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

EB, and from a different perspect, "Gay rights opposition" wouldn't even exist, it would be, "Moral traditionalism proponents". The problem is that you seem to think that all terms the agree with the gay rights activists are neutral and all terms which disagree are not neutral. That in itself is a form of bias. Whether you disagree or not, the article must treat both sides with equal weight and neutrality. DavidBailey 10:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to write that article, go for it. I'll make sure it's linked to gay rights opposition, civil rights opposition, feminism opposition and so on, as is appropriate. After all, we'll still need articles for each type of right that "moral traditionalism proponent" oppose. Al 14:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this isn't true at all. You're just being coy here. "Moral traditionalism proponents" is a phrase totally devoid of meaning. The reality is that such "propononents" are in fact "opponents" of the extension of certain (in some cases, any) rights to GLBT people. "Moral traditionalism proponents" is not more neutral; it's more unclear. Let be put it to you another way: I might believe that certain opposers of gay rights are fascists; I would not support calling them that in an article. "Fascist" is a non-neutral term except in certain narrowly defined contexts. "Gay," on the other hand, is a neutral term. "Gay rights" is a specific term. And what are certain people doing? Opposing gay rights. It's simple, really. Exploding Boy 14:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So, EB, italics or no italics? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Very simple, and very POV. DavidBailey 16:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, those who oppose gay rights do not always do it on the basis of being self-identified proponents for "moral traditionalism". There are many paths to bigotry, and this is but one. Al 14:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Gay rights" is not a confusing term. There's no reason to assume that the term will be unfamiliar to the majority of readers. Singling it out by placing it in italics or quotes (unless it's being discussed specifically as a term, which is unlikely in this article) suggests sarcasm or personal commentary. Exploding Boy 15:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

While that may be the case, some dispute that there are such a thing as "gay rights" and so, it should be defined in the context of this article. DavidBailey 16:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that gays should have no rights or just that they should lack any protections from discrimination? If the former, please turn yourself in at the closest police station. If the latter, please keep in mind that bigotry is generally considered a vice, not a virtue. Al 16:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, try to understand that I arguing a perspective, some or all of which may not follow my personal beliefs. Try to detach yourself from it, it's what people do who are trying to be NPOV. Secondly, some would argue that the current rights protected in the constitution already protect gays, as well as french-italians, and eskimos. You don't need to create new groups of people related to rights to get them. All people have them. Would you please explain what rights you feel that gays have that they are not being allowed to exercise, or what rights they don't have which they should? DavidBailey 17:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's productive to be playing devil's advocate. I also don't think it's necessary to rehash here what is covered elsewhere: if you'd like to know more about gay rights, then follow the link. Exploding Boy 17:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've read it. It's more a history than anything. I think a lot of content was lost in the rush to article consolidation. I guess my perspective is US-centric, but my questions are in the context of gays in a modern democracy, not in a fascist state where they had to be concerned about being killed for their actions. DavidBailey 18:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Two words: Matthew Shepard. I rest my case. Al 18:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hate crimes legislation is wrong. The fact that Matthew Shepard was killed was already illegal. Valuing one life more than another, or punishing one murderer more than another is unethical. Those who killed Matthew Shepard would already have been sentenced to life in prison or death. How does this impact a discussion of gay rights in a modern democratic-republic state? DavidBailey 18:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What rights don't Homosexuals have??

This whole article is predicated on the idea the homosexuals are in some sense deprived of rights. In order to establish this as an NPOV article, that statement needs to be verified, explained and substantiated. This is an extraordinary manipulation of the language and an NPOV framing of the entire debate. Ros Power 23:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ros, it sounds like you're very unfamiliar with this issue. Perhaps you should do some research on it before doing further edits. For example, it might help if you understood about such things as the right to be protected from discrimination in the workplace and housing market, the right to marry and the right to adopt. Once you are, you may well be able to contribute usefully. Al 21:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuals have always had the right to marry, adoption is not a right anyway, and how are homosexuals discriminated against in the housing market and workplace? Ros Power 23:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is nothing new - try reading Ros Power's contributions. Usually her approach is 1) claim the English language is being twisted, 2) Wikipedia is run by a gay cabal 3) If a non-heterosexual person engages her attention she'll claim that their "practising homosexual lifestyle" (a stock phrase) renders them incapable of offering a NPOV view. That said, she confuses POV and NPOV fairly often (witness the misuse of NPOV her final sentence.) A number of us have seen it all before on various articles, so we keep an eye, friendly of course, on her progress. ReformedCharacter 22:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

All participants in this discussion should be aware that Ros has lately edited several gay-related articles and talk pages with similar content and questions. Unfortunately, as many of her edits demonstrate, she's not very familiar with some of the issues she's discussing. Exploding Boy 01:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• I do love Homosexuals have always had the right to marry. Sure they have. They've always had the right to marry people of the opposite sex. Which kinda misses the whole point, probably deliberately. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the language is being twisted by homosexual activists, ExplodingBoy. For example, you argued that all opposition to homosexuality and resistance to the gay agenda, irrespective of its groundings, is "homophobia". Is objection to paedophilia "paedophobia"? Is objection to crime "crimeophobia"? Then you said that "homosexual" was a pejorative term - er, it's actually the only term that belongs in an encyclopaedia, certainly the terms "gay, "lesbian" and "BGTL" are euphemistic terms that have no place in an allegedly NPOV publication. Yet for some reason these terms are plastered all over WikiPedia like they had any currency outside a handful of militant homosexual activists and their sympathisers.

Now you say that homosexuals have been denied the right to marry, when what you REALLY mean is that marriage IS the union of a man and a woman and that doesn't suit your agenda. You can no more redefine marriage than redefine the colour blue or a cat. I really find being called biased on the subject of homosexuality by a militant practising homosexual, whose contributions include "Prince Albert Piercing", "Anal Sex", "Fisting", "Handjob", "Gay Porn Stars", "Anal sex positions" and "Gay bathhouses" so mindblowingly hypocritical that I can't help wondering if you are in some profound state of denial, and if your lifestyle is any reflection of your contributions, I'm not surprised. Ros Power 15:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The above post by Ros Power is at least uncivil, and at worst a personal attack. Once again, I direct you to educate yourself about our policies and procedures on Wikipedia. You may not like them; that's your perogative. However, you must abide by them if you're going to contribute here. Exploding Boy 15:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for expressing the typical gay rights opposition view. If it weren't OR, I'd quote your ramblings in the article. Al 15:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, they have a right to marry according to the laws and traditions of marriage. They also have a right to associate, they can set up power of attorney, can include each other in each other's wills, set up joint checking accounts, etc, etc, etc. Marriage has a history of being supported by society as the best method to create stable households and raise children[10]. Therefore, it has been the tendency of government to promote those families. However, if, as many gay righs activists portend, marriage is a meaingless tradition, why aren't civil unions enough? I think it is because it is not an interest in equality that drives them, but rather a desire to remake marriage in the way they see fit. Marriage is primarily based on moral tradition and religious doctrine, which is why opponents feel so strongly on this issue. DavidBailey 10:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Without intending this to be a personal comment, you are apparently ignorant of several realities concerning marriage and its social and religious history and legal status, same-sex marriage, legal issues, adoption issues, and the gay rights movement. Exploding Boy 14:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

EB, do you always insult those who are attempting to collaborate with, or are you not attempting to collaborate? DavidBailey 16:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if youtook my remark as insulting. It wasn't intended that way at all. I'm simply observing that you seem to be unaware of some realities concerning the topic under discussion. Exploding Boy 17:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat what I put above regarding your comment about the fact I should read gay rights: Actually, I've read it. It's more a history than anything. I think a lot of content was lost in the rush to article consolidation. I guess my perspective is US-centric, but my questions are in the context of gays in a modern democracy, not in a fascist state where they had to be concerned about being killed for their actions. DavidBailey 18:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The best solution is for the State to get completely out of the marriage business, then. Let the law deal with civil unions, let contract and family law deal with the results of those civil unions, and make marriage solely an issue for the religious bodies to deal with. Anyway, this has nothing to do with improving this article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not the best solution or even a good one. Rather, it's the libertarian solution, and it's a failure because it ignores the fact that marriage is not a private matter between two people but a societally endorsed relationship with vast legal ramifications. There are literally thousands of laws that make reference to marriage and grant different treatment on that basis, and these differences include positives, negatives and unclassifiables. Some of these things can be granted contractually, through such things as power of attourney, but others come from society, not the spouse, and therefore cannot be obtained this way. The best solution is to allow those who do not support gay marrage to avoid entering into or performing them. Al 14:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"The best solution is for those who object to crimes of violence is to avoid committing them". Ros Power 19:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• "There are literally thousands of laws that make reference to marriage" -- right. The government shouldn't be in the marriage business, any more than it should be in the religion business. Laws granting special rights to people who have gone through some or another religious ritual are the problem. But I was being idealistic, not practical; the amount of legal change to remove religion from the lawbooks is something that won't happen in the US. The easier solution is for the state to remove gender discrimination from the lawbooks except where biologically necessary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, your argument depends on marriage being a religious ritual. This is factually and legally not the case.

What makes you married is not the ceremony or the priest, but the duly signed and witnessed marriage contract (which doesn't require a priest at all) that you recieve from the state. To hammer in the fact that marriage is not innately religious, I'd like to remind you that atheists get married, too.

In short, this is about the role of government in social institutions, not religion. Libertarians and anarchists want to limit government for ideological reasons, not religiousones.

Of course, what complicates things is that religions still seem to think that they own marriage, which is why they act as if their opinions about marriage are relevant. They're not, unless you choose to get married by someone from that religion. If you get married by a cleric of a more liberal religion, or by a judge or notary public or captain, then you don't have to care what these old-style religions think.

Oh, and by the way, I'm an atheist yet I'm capable of performing legally binding weddings all over America. Al 15:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, marriage has nothing to do with religion. Even atheist societies such as the former Soviet Union, North Korea and China recognise marriage as the union of a man and a woman for the common good and as a reflection of the inherent complementarity of the sexes, and accord special rights accordingly. Ros Power 15:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Marriage rights are not special rights, nor are they inherently limited to heterosexual couples. It used to be, in America, that a "mixed race" couple could not marry, but we've gotten past that bigotry. Now we're working on getting past the prohibition on same-sex marriages. I call this progress, but then again, I'm a progressive. Al 17:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mixed race marriage is valid because all people are equal in the eyes of the law. Same sex unions are not equal to opposite sex unions because they serve none of the myriad of purposes that marriage does - in fact they contradict marriage in every meaningful sense. That is not a reflection of the inherent value or worth of the participants, but of the union, so it is specious to talk about it like it was an equality issue. I call that the truth, but then I'm not into the lies I want to hear.Ros Power 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Marriage was a religious covenant before it was a legal one. Since that time, governments have adopted it as a convenient tool within society to promote stable families. In this article, we are discussing both religious and legal opposition, so both are relevant. DavidBailey 16:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Marriage may have been many things at many times, but we are not and should not be bound by the errors of history. For example, there was a time when a woman lost many rights upon marriage, but we've gotten over this misogyny. Once again, I call this progress. Let's look to the past for lessons on what to avoid, not for bigotries that we can perpetuate. Al 16:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing changes to articles. They are not generalised discussion boards for a given topic. Fortunately for Wikipedia, your personal views are irrelevant to the article. If you have something to say about the article, go ahead, but bear in mind our policies for neutrality and against original research. Exploding Boy 15:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

EB, to whom are you addressing your comment? All of the above discussion appears relevant to article. DavidBailey 16:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the biggest rights marriage grants you in the UK is "next of kin". My mum was most upset that when I was in hospital they wouldn't tell her anything as she was not my next of kin - my husband is. I can see why people of any sex would want this legal status if they were in a committed relationship. Inheritance, tax, tenancy, insurance, pension and child custody are rights that first come to my mind that are directly affected by a person's marital status in the UK. I do think the idea of expanding the list of discriminatory laws is a good idea as this will show on what grounds gay rights activists feel they need change laws. Sophia 17:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In the US, you can grant power of attorney which can include things like making medical or financial decisions. Can you not do this in the UK? DavidBailey 18:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes they can. And nobody has put forward a cogent case for how state recognition of homosexuality serves the public interest.Ros Power 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Exploding Boy has a point: this endless debate does not help the article. Let's focus on productive work. Al 18:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is debating? I'm trying to understand why you feel the article should be written a specific way. I think that is productive work. DavidBailey 18:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Remind me: which way is that? Al 18:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That "gay rights" is a valid term in all cases, and in all nations, such as modern democratic-republics where people who hurt or kill gays are already breaking the law. What rights are missing? DavidBailey 18:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for the discussion of articles, not for political debate. If you have a concrete proposal to change the article, please do present it. Please do not debate "gay rights." Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

To what, exactly, does this tag refer? Could the person who put it there post here what specific things he or she thinks lack neutrality in the article? Exploding Boy 02:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The word "gay rights" for a start. Unsigned comment added by User:Ros Power.

This is the last time I expect to have to remind you to sign your posts. All posts. Every time. Thank you.

"Gay rights" is not a non-neutral term, so your objection is invalid. Educate yourself about our policies. Anything else? If not, I'm removing the tag. Exploding Boy 15:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. That makes it non-neutral. And you don't own wikipedia. Ros Power 19:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it just makes you disagreeable. You need to have some basis for your disagreement so as to convince us to care. Al 19:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. Back to square one. What RIGHTS don't homosexuals have? Even ones that practise homosexuality? Ros Power 20:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If that's all, then the tag needs removal. Al 16:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is amazing. You can think that "gay rights opposition" is so POV that the article needs to be scrapped or rewritten and yet "gay rights" is so non-POV that you're going to remove the tag yourself. Astonishing. DavidBailey 18:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The terms "gay rights" and "gay rights opposition" are not POV, though I'm sure the respective articles have had POV problems at times. Al 18:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault. I mistook a comment made by Pollinator for a comment made by you. DavidBailey 18:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Political debate overwhelming the page

I agree with Jpgordon, ExplodingBoy, Alienus, and Hipocrite that this talk page isn't the place for a debate of gay rights issues, which has recently flooded the page. I propose moving the entire current talk page to an archive for a breath of fresh air. Fireplace 19:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, of course. Al 19:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a challenge to people who understand the goals and purposes of the talk page to not respond to things that have nothing to do with the goals and purposes of the talk page, whatsoever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Geographic Scope

The article is substantially americanocentric. There must be counter-movements in other countries. As a not-observer of gay-rights issues, I have not the first clue where to look and what research to do. Can we make it a goal to do one country every other week, easiest ones first? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was the one who added the relevant tag. Basically, if anyone has any knowledge about other countries, they should add them. Otherwise, if you want to organize your suggestion, great.

Yep, its americocentric.1Z 00:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly this article is pathetic, whoever wrote it seems to have no clue that there's a big gay world out there beyond the United States. Whoever corrects this should probably start by writing about the Muslim world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aussie Jim (talk • contribs) 16:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Title

In accordance with LGBT rights movement, I'm moving this page to LGBT rights opposition. Exploding Boy 20:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Army

Even though i agree with the writer of this section, I have to say that it is VERY um... non-neutral. I don't know the big word. Anyways, someone should change it.--DaGrob 19:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Vegan Reich anarchists?

I don't personally see Vegan Reich as anarchists, and I know many other anarchists don't either. They are a confusing mix of anarchist and fascist ideologies. There are definitely elements of anarchism in their ideas, but calling for a dictatorship to murder non-vegans, gays and such is in no way consistent with anarchism. It's like saying Marxists are anarchists because we want the same end goals (a stateless, classless society). The main difference between Marxists and anarchists is that Marxists believe in seizing and exercizing state power to do it, just like Vegan Reich wants to (and honestly, the end goals of Vegan Reich, which includes killing queers is not the same as any major modern anarchist's end goals AFAIK). Unless a source is provided that says Vegan Reich is specifically anarchist, I think that part should be removed. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Since no one made any objections I took the liberty of removing the info on Vegan Reich and hardline. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Anarchists and other Opposition

I removed a section on "anarchists and other opposition." The article erroneously claims that anarchists oppose LGBTQ rights by opposing all marriage, heterosexual marriage as well. Apart from being an entirely un-cited claim, other than a link to anarchism as a philosophy, the article is misleading. It reduces queer liberation movements to marriage, and then it confuses many anarchists who oppose all marriage, as a coercive institution, with people who specifically oppose gay marriage as a homophobic stance. The anarchist movement includes some of the earliest supporters of queer rights, including Emma Goldman. The contemporary anarchist movement includes many queer individuals; it also overwhelmingly supports queer liberation. If anyone is going to make a claim to the contrary, it better be well-cited.--Begintheend (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Libertarian Party

I noticed Libertarians were included in this list as being somehow opposed to gays and lesbians...because they do not support ENDA. If you read the Libertarian party platform, you will see that they support gay marriage (which both major parties do not), support adoption by gays, support ending the don't ask don't tell policy, among other things. If Libertarians are to be included in this list for political reasons (by partisan Democrats), then the Democrat Party belongs on this list for not supporting gay marriage. It seems that marriage is a bigger issue and it would be hypocritical to leave the Dems out if the criteria for being on the list is not supporting 100% of gay rights issues. I removed the Libertarians from this article because of the hypocrisy.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Christian Horizons

The court made Christian Horizons abolish their code of conduct. This means as a Christian organization they cannot maintain any standard whatsoever. This not only affects the gay employees, but straight and bi employees as well. Allowing illicit heterosexual behavior is an indirect but important side affect of the gay rights movement. That is one of the big oppositions to the gay right movement. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge from Anti-LGBT slogans to LGBT rights opposition

I stumbled across Anti-LGBT slogans from another page and found several policy/guideline issues, as well as a general overlap of this page (this page being more actively developed), and simply listing off slogans would present non-neutral content fork neutrality issues. Moreover, Anti-LGBT slogans is more poorly sourced and is basically a synthesis of original research, and it would appear that in several areas, neutrality in rebuttal found in LGBT rights opposition is omitted. Thus, I suggest merging Anti-LGBT slogans into LGBT rights opposition. I'm not an expert in this area, though, so feel free to trout me if I'm missing something. --slakr^\ talk / 02:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Anti-LGBT and anti-LGBT rights may be considered distinct issues. --Knulclunk (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

LGBT Rights Organization

Because this article is about LGBT rights opposition, I propose the sections on the Al-Fatiha Foundation and its accompanying rights activists either be moved to homosexuality and Islam and deleted from this one. Ejnogarb (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved these two sections verbatim to Homosexuality and Islam, which surprisingly didn't have this information. Ejnogarb (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a good move. Aleta ^Sing 04:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cuba

I understand that the government of Cuba has been very anti-gay. This should be mentioned in the article. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You understand incorrectly. Cuba has actually made progress on that issue. --Revolución hablar ver 05:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Health

This section has some issues:

Some opponents (who?) of gay rights argue that promoting gay rights leads to an increase in health risks coming from men who have sex with men, such as STDs and anal cancer.[21] Critics charge that political correctness has led to the association of sex between males and HIV being downplayed.[22][23] In 2007, the FDA renewed its blood-donor eligibility limitations which restricts men who have had sex with men in the last 5 years from donating blood because such a group has a higher risk factor for HIV and Hepatitis B.[24] In the United Kingdom the National Health Service policy indicates men who have sex with men are also ineligible to donate blood.[25]

The British Journal of Psychiatry reported in 2004 that a study of 1285 GLB respondents indicated that 43% had a mental disorder as defined by the revised Clinical Interview Schedule, and that 31% had attempted suicide.[26]

Certain pro-LGBT activists have also suggested major health issues exist. (weasel) In a 2009 human rights complaint, Canadian LGBT activists filed a complaint alleging that the health issues of GLB Canadians are being neglected by the government. In the complaint, the activists outline several health characteristics of GLB Canadians based on various studies that show a life expectancy 20 years less than average, suicide rates 2x to 14x above average, alcoholism rate of 1.4x above average, use of illicit drugs 1.6x to 19x above average, gay men constitute 75% of HIV cases and 45% of all new infections, and a range of higher cancer rates for GLB Canadians. Rather than concluding that gay rights should therefore be curtailed, however, the authors of the complaint assert that stresses caused by homophobia are responsible for many of these health issues[27].

1. Name the people and organizations that base their opposition of gay rights on health issues, and give their reasoning for why they do.
2. Separate that from sources that discuss the health issues of LGBT people. It is WP:Synth to say that some people oppose gay rights because of health risks, then cite the statement with medical information that discusses health issues of gay people. The writers of the sources are not necessarily opposed to gay rights.
3. James Chin's article (Ref 22) is a dead link. I could not find it on Business Day's website.
4. If Ref 21, The Health Risks of Gay Sex published by the Catholic Education Center, is being used to cite "Some opponents", then make that clear by saying the Catholic Church or members of the Catholic Church. More specifically, it would have to be John R. Diggs, Jr., a doctor endorsed by the Catholic Church.
5. LGBT people are not mentioned in Ref 24, The people punish Mr Blair.
6. Ref 26 from the British Journal of Psychiatry is a very disappointing example of cherry picking information. Even before the text of the article is a summary, of which half is summarized in this article. The entire text reads: Results Of the 1285 gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents who took part, 556 (43%) had mental disorder as defined by the revised Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS - R). Out of the whole sample, 361 (31%) had attempted suicide. This was associated with markers of discrimination such as recent physical attack (OR=1.7, 95% CI 1.3-2.3) and school bullying (OR=1.4, 95% CI 1.1-2.0), but not with higher scores on the CIS-R. Why is this information not included in this article? It also directly refutes Ref 21 from the Catholic Education Center.
7. Is blood donation considered a right that LGBT people are working towards?
8. Why is the information centered on men? What do sources have to say about the same health issues of lesbians and bisexual women? What are their rates of promiscuity, blood donation, STDs and anal cancer?
9. The last paragraph is puzzling. Why is it included? Look, I believe what I do based on my experience and I believe most everyone forms their opinions based on what they know. Part of my beliefs are based on my being a complete homo. But I grew up in the South and I understand that others aren't hot on gay rights. But this argument defies logic. It does not state what part of LGBT rights opponents disagree with. Is it access to health care? Job protection? Which begs the question of why someone would use this argument to counter job protection. Is it access to health insurance? Simply put, this argument appears to be "Some people don't want gays to have rights because they are unhealthy". That doesn't make any sense to me. Do the same people oppose rights for the poor or homeless people who are mentally ill? --Moni3 (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I assigned the oppinion of more rights leading to anal cancer to the source. I only used his name, as i couldn't find anything there that stated this as being an official stance of the organisation. So further clarification would be great - is he a spokesperson for them, or is is a personal essay?

I also moved the later 2 paras here (see below). Although sourced, and interesting, neither had much to do with opposition tzo LGBT rights. The mental health stats were not used to argue either for or against more rights, and the canadian stats only said they could be due to homophobia. I guess that could include the with-holding of rights by the government, but doesn't necessarily mean that, so it should only be used if the source makes the link. To me it read as a prod to get the government to do more to combat homophobia, but that is not LGBT rights (the right to not being hated?)YobMod 13:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Add: I rewrote the last para somewhat, making it more clear what the activists wanted, and trimming the stats. But i have no idea who wrote the source, or why it is notable.

Oh, and i left the blood donation part, as i've been refused as a donor in the UK, and i do think (some) people would consider being treated the same as everyone else a right, even if it the right to altruism (you don't even get bus-fare for giving). But i'm not sure it belongs in the opposition article instead of discussed in the rights article. I guess it is to show that some forms of discrimination are upheld by governments on medical grounds, so could be seen as a reason for rights opposition (but needs expanding if so).

Off-topc (?) paras:

"The British Journal of Psychiatry reported in 2004 that a study of 1285 GLB respondents indicated that 43% had a mental disorder as defined by the revised Clinical Interview Schedule, and that 31% had attempted suicide.

Certain pro-LGBT activists have also suggested major health issues exist. In a 2009 human rights complaint, Canadian LGBT activists filed a complaint alleging that the health issues of GLB Canadians are being neglected by the government. In the complaint, the activists outline several health characteristics of GLB Canadians based on various studies that show a life expectancy 20 years less than average, suicide rates 2x to 14x above average, alcoholism rate of 1.4x above average, use of illicit drugs 1.6x to 19x above average, gay men constitute 75% of HIV cases and 45% of all new infections, and a range of higher cancer rates for GLB Canadians. Rather than concluding that gay rights should therefore be curtailed, however, the authors of the complaint assert that stresses caused by homophobia are responsible for many of these health issues."

Good work on the revision -- much less weasel-ish now. Agathman (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

done some rewrites to lose POV, clarify, inaccuracies, added detail re classical, Baden Powell and stuff. Will sort out some refs re health issues of LGBT folk and education from UK authors (eventually)... Mish (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Question. Who is "catholic physician John R. Diggs" and why is he notable? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is the main problem with the section now. Why is this doctor's opinion important, and why is this activist group important? If the same content, from the same authors was on a blog, we would not use it, so what does the PdF format change? Possible the doctor and the activists are notable, but the sources don't indicate why.YobMod 08:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the point trying to be made is 'being gay is bad for your health, therefore it is immoral.' Sad, really sad. Zazaban (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

or - 'being gay is immoral, or contravenes natural law or contravenes God's law', all bundled up together 'therefore it is bad for your health' and if God or sickness doesn't get you, the fascists will... Mish (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don'T see that it says that anywhere. The premise seems to be:

1. LGBT rights encourage gay sex.

2. People who have gay sex have more health problems

3. Doctors are obligated to promote health.

4. Therefore rights should be withheld to promote health.

Which is a logical argument. I completely disagree with the first point, and i don't think the evidence shows this: it ignores the fact that when LGBT people have fewer rights they still have sex, but it is much less likely to be safe. But that doesn't change that it is a reason given for rights opposition, even if it is based on faulty research/opinions. The article should be explaining what the opposition is, not trying to argue why it is wrong, unless there are sources that do this for us.YobMod 08:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you are correct, I was being 'tongue in cheek'. I do think that the opposition to LGBT people's human rights needs to be documented. But, I think that to locate all these different types of opposition unde one heading as if they are the same movement is synthetic. I don't see that the National Socialist approach to homosexuality can be seen as 'opposition' in the same way as certain Christian ideologies. While there may be connections between 1930's Fascist and National Socialist and modern Fascist and neo-Nazi ideologies and their approaches to homosexuality, this does not reflect a consistent LGBT oppositional movement - and certainly not between 1930's persecutions of LGBT people, 1950's persecutions in countries like the USA, and the post 1970's conservative Christian opposition. It would be better of this article were incorporated within articles that deal with violence against LGBT people, a section covering LGBT rights and opposition to these within LGBT social movements, and homophobia, and LGBT sexual health. The way it appeared when I first looked at this page was that it was promoting opposition, and that is not appropriate in an encyclopedia, and the more I have tried to modify the language to neutralise the underlying POV, the more it does look like an oppositional article is cobbled together from a variety of unrelated sources - possibly making it WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. Christian opposition to homosexuality, the ex-gay movement, etc., these could just as easily be treated in their own articles, without pulling them together with stuff that their only relation is that they don't tolerate queers being queer. Mish (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have touched up the sections so that UK opposition is separated from 'religious opposition' (corrected it a bit as well), but it looks odd alone, so did the same for US opposition as well. I added a section for Christian opposition, and moved most of the section 'religious opposition' before Islam down to there. Problem is that the sections that follow, including 'health' are mostly about Christian concerns as well. Might be better to move them up above Islamic opposition, and separate out the Health concerns as a separate section beneath the religious section and above the US and UK oppositions? Mind you, it tends to be religious doctors who have those concerns, maybe? There needs to be something about lesbian sex in there as well - vaginitis, for example - or rectal tearing as a result of fisting (applies to both gay and lesbian, and straight as well these days though). Probably need to add some comments about how safe-sex affects the discussion of health issues as well - bareback riding is a hight risk activity, obviously, and from what I can gather is half the fun in it, and so some of what is said might apply there. I still think that these issues would be better dealt with in a LGBT health section somewhere, however, as this seems more interested in showing the reasonableness of opposition through over-generalisation about same-sex practices. Mish (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

My apologies if I wiped out any work done on the article today. The first 5 edits for today, May 22, were complete section blankings of the article by an IP address, followed by a couple more from the same IP. The only way to fix it all was to revert to the last stable version. The IP also did the same to Matthew Shepard Act. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate that. I don't have the energy to do the reworking of the poorly-constructed sections, the bits I moved around, and things inserted to complement and accuratize done earlier. I wasn't quite aware what was going on with these previous edits, or that they were ongoing as I edited. It is hard to know how to improve such a poor article while somebody is also vandalising it, because there is no way of getting a 'stable' version moving forward. Mish (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I have re-integrated most of the amendments I have made, a possibly tweaked it a bit more here and there. I have moved all the US stuff down into its own section. The other stuff from Canada and the UK embedded in the Rights conflict section could be moved down as well - a new section for Canada and into the revised UK section. However, that would leave the rights conflict section a bit thin. Looking at the material now, and the way it is organised, the tag about it being primarily a US view is less relevant now. Mish (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words in 'Opposition to LGBT rights in the UK'

The article says that Section 28 was repealed by the "elected Labour government". To me, that implies that the previous Conservative government wasn't elected, which is untrue.

Normally I'd just edit the article to correct for this, but this is an emotive issue so I thought I'd mention it here first. NearlyDrNash (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that emotive - correct - I've changed it. The previous Conservative government acted like it wasn't elected, but it was. So has the Labour government since they were first elected in 1997. Lord Hailsham referred to this process as Elective dictatorship.

LGBT rights opposition is an original synthesis

The term used in this and other contexts as 'LGBT rights opposition' as in 'LGBT rights opposition movement' etc. is a construction that cannot be found in reliable sources. A google search reveals that it is mainly found in online encyclopedias, such as this one, and high school essay-generators. To suggest that all movements which involve heterosexist principles and practices, homophobia, hate crime, eugenic killing and/or opposition to LGBT rights in some fall under such a description is both WP:synthesis and WP:original research. On this basis I suggest that this article be either deleted or merged with homophobia. Mish (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's an ugly name for the article but I don't think it should be merged with homophobia. It was created as a product of using WP:summary style on Religion and homosexuality (under a previous name). It is also, for example, given as a link from LGBT social movements where there is only a summary section on the oposition. Arguably it is a WP:Content fork in that context, but I think it is appropriate to say that the main article on the LGBT movement should concentrate on that movements and not on the opposition.

Renaming this article Organised opposition to LGBT rights or Opponents of LGBT social movements strikes me as appropriate. It will need to be referenced and WP:reliably sourced, but I find it hard to conceive that there hasn't been any academic study of this subject.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to hope that LGBT social movements was big enough to contain the opposition as well. I don't understand why, when there is coverage for Religion and homosexuality, with specific coverage of Christianity and Islam there as well as in their own locations, the information for Christianity and Islam needs to be here as well. Similarly for health issues - there is a section for LGBT health, and I would encourage the merging of that section here with that article. That doesn't leave an awful lot really, apart from the scouts, Nazi's and newer 'far-right' movements. Scouts (USA) already has a section, and although i haven't looked I am sure the Nazi's are done to death somewhere, including homophobia (actually, I had a peek, they are there already). It would not take much to slip modern right-wing extremism into there as well. I still can't see the point, because all this is accommodated elsewhere already, and if it isn't, then it would encourage balance and the development of more material to relocate it there (e.g. 'health'). I am a bit concerned about locating statements about 'extra-legal violence' alongside as organised opposition alongside opposition which is predicated on religious beliefs about homosexuality. Mish (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Whole books could (and have) been written about "LGBT social movements" (which i think is another terrible title, sounds like it means bear parties and leather bars), so there is no way that opposition to the movements could reasonable be covered all in the same article. Using a descriptive term for an article without a common name is normal practice.

However, it does seem that 80% of this article does not cover the topic at all, but simply lists instances of discrimination or bad things happening to LGBT people, with no explanation of how this interacts with opposition to LGBT rights. Most of the health section for example simply covers health problems of gay people, mostly without sources that link this to LGBT rights oppostion in any way. Is a higher rate of mental health problem amongst LGBT people in the UK really used as a reason to oppose LGBT rights? - i have never seen this used as an argument. It is like writing paragraphs on Sickle-cell anaemia in a racism article. The US Armed forces section also says nothing about the opposition to the right of equal treatment, it simply describes the current situation. From the info given here, a reader could assume there was no opposition, but only apathy in updating the laws.YobMod 13:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. It does read more like a list of people or groups who have not liked, or discriminated against, or killed, or felt they had reasons for doing these things, or some reasons for not liking, discriminating against, or killing, LGBT people - beyond that, there is little indication of an opposition movement. I'm sure there is one, and that there are doctors, Christians, and others involved - but beyond the church and a even in campaigns in the 1970's, the opposition was part of a broader rejection of a range of things that happened in the 1960's, like abortion, drugs, extra-marital sex, divorce, pornography, and so on. Before campaigns like the ex-gay movement, and Phelps, I am not aware of any specific campaign focused against LGBT people, only their inclusion in broader campaigns, or campaigns focused on particular pieces of legislation (such as harmonising the age of consent for homsexual sex with heterosexual sex in the UK). The fact that there are no sources covering such a co-ordinated single-issue campaign suggests to me that there hasn't been one until relatively recently. Mish (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit left the history section a bit bereft, and no section header left. I sorted out history section header, and added some more to the short sentence that was left in that section. I've reorganised the Christian section, and moved Natural Law out and Traditional Marriage in. There was no mention of two of the mainstream churches, or conservative Evangelicals, as mainsteam, so I divided up mainstream into pro and against, and did the same for sectarian. I'll sort out any missing sources and citations when I have more time. I don't really understand why this article is necessary, as this has to already be covered under Homosexuality and religion, and its Christian and Islamic spin-offs (can't say much about whether this applies for Judaism, but apart from what I have inserted about Reformed, there wasn't much there beyond a mention). Mish (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have put back the UK research material because it acts as a counterbalance to the assertion by a catholic physician. This shows that because epidemiological evidence is not available, general conclusions about LGBT health are not easy to come to. The research cited shows what the health issues are, which do not appear to be those cited by the physician. The problem is that this assertion is made without his citing any evidence, so is presumably anecdotal. By valorising what appears to be anecdote and eliminating evidence-based findings, this essentially breaches NPOV. What I have sought to do is to balance this to ensure NPOV. I would be happy to have that whole section removed, because it is a bit of a red-herring, like the 'natural law' point that I moved out of the Christian opposition section. They are both more like 'and here's another reason to oppose their rights...', which again suggests breaching NPOV. I have tried to sort out the Christianity section a bit so it is not just a set of disconnected facts about who does and doesn't oppose LGBT rights in the churches, and sets them out in sections. What needs to happen in that sections is a better reflection of the different positions. However, as with the healths section and the ones you took out, I think the whole artcile could just be ditched and serve as a redirect to where these things are discussed better and in more depth elsewhere. Certainly, LGBT health could be dealt with elsewhere in more detail - although whether this catholic physician would get a look in there, I have no idea, who is he apart from somebody who has a bit of an obsession about gay men's bums? Mish (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this thread again two weeks on, I do find myself wondering exactly what this article is about. As you have indicated it is all rather a mishmash. It's not obvious to me why some stuff is here at all. I still think that there is room for an article on organised resistance to LGBT rights, but I don't see what allegations and research about health has to do with that. My fear is that without a clear understanding of what this article should be about, you risk wasting a lot of time doing things that you later decide are irrelvant. If you knew where you were aiming (and there was consensus) then it would be easier to be sure of what should be removed (and then to discuss whether that should go into new articles, be merged into other articles or be discarded altogether.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Boy Scouts founder

How can we include this if there is no record of Baden-Powell being a homosexual? The circumstantial evidence used by two recent historians to imply that he may have been attracted to men is appropriate only in the Baden-Powell and Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell articles where it can be sourced and discussed in detail. Even those two sources indicate quite firmly that there is no evidence of Baden-Powell acting on homosexual desires; desires that he never openly voiced himself.

That said, it STILL doesn't matter what the founder's sexuality was in 1910, as it was not openly discussed and not part of the organization's charter. If it is a fact that he was a "repressed homosexual", how does that relate to the Scout's position on gays today? At best it is an amusing irony in a mildly sophomoric way.--Knulclunk (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that the Boys Scouts' founder would have been disbarred from membership of the organisation he founded because of his own homoerotic interests, yes, it is ironic. I can understand why some might prefer that be excluded from an article which features the boy scouts' position. Mish (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your new language is better, just having a link to the Baden-Powell article. Thanks!--Knulclunk (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is biased

The History section contains _one_ example of LGBT rights opposition and that is Hitler and Nazi Germany... There are plenty of other less extreme examples, perhaps the Church for almost all of history? Seems like that example might be a little more fair to those who oppose LGBT rights? We aren't all as evil as Hitler, regardless of the gay rights radicals like to say.

I'm not familiar with Wikipedia policies or conventions--I'm not even sure this belongs here on the talk page--but when I read the page and there was no "the neutrality of this article is disputed" it bothered me. It is disputed. I'm disputing it. Whoever has the knowhow/power to get one of those little signs up there, please do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.203.42 (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Gays within fascist movements

There should maybe be a footnote somewhere on the alleged widespread presence of homosexuals within far-right or fascist organizations. It seems paradoxical because these are the same political movements that will typically oppose the advances of LGBT rights within modern society. [11] ADM (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition used in the opening is original research

"LGBT rights opposition refers to various homophobic movements or attitudes which oppose the extension of certain rights and privileges that are often taken for granted by many heterosexuals to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people."

This doesn't necessarily hold true for most people who oppose LGBT rights. Some people simply oppose the separate codification of rights for any particular groups. The need not necessarily be homophobic. 98.235.79.159 (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe can we say the people who oppose Anti-LGBT movements as Hetrophobic? Thus, people who oppose LGBT do not have to be homophobic. After all, what is there to be afraid of? (Phobic comes from phobia which means fear). -BiLLa- •^talk• —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

People who oppose LGBT rights may not be "homophobic" but they are anti-gay, the same way people are antisemitic. Why are we creating friendly politically correct terms for a group of people who either believe what they do out of ignorance or hate? When someone is against African Americans they are called "racists", when someone is against Jewish people they are "antisemitic" when someone is against gay people, the common terminology is "homophobic". --DCX (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Because you cannot say somebody is homophobic when they express no such thing against lesbian and gay people, but subscribe to a moral belief system that is opposed to certain actions. People who are anti-gay people because they are gay, that is homophobia; people who are opoosed to enshrining things they consider to be morally wrong, that is anti-gay practice, not anti-gay people. The racism etc. you mention is directed against individuals people because of who they are, not some moral view about their practices. Islam complicates this, as there are now groups who are anti-Islam, but say they are not anti-muslim; being ideologically or morally opposed to Islam is not Islamophobic, while being ant-muslim is. It is a fine line, and some of these groups choose their words quite carefully to ensure they cannot be shown to have stepped over it (especially as doing so is punishable by law in some countries) - because we need to be able to validate allegations of homophobia, we cannot refer to groups that are homophobic whose arguments are predicated on morality and rights opposition, even if we do think they are homophobic. If you look at archives connected with homophobia, we have had to work quite hard at describing this as accurately as possible to ensure it stands against any challenges - and we would be inconsistent if we did not apply that understanding in articles where it might appear. That is how I see it, anyway. Mish (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

edits to Conflict between LGBT rights and the right to oppose LGBT rights

I just rmed two bits of this section, for not meeting the header description.

• The "voter intimidation" section (in addition to being sourced to references that weren't actually talking about voter intimidation per se) is not about any conflict with LGBT rights, as there has been no special right to LGBT voter intimidation called for. It may be a conflict between some LGBT supporters and opposition to LGBT rights. That's a different kettle of fish.
• The Ocean Grove case had no conflict preventing the Ocean Grove group from opposing LGBT rights. They weren't told to stop campaigning against LGBT rights. For that matter, there was nothing particularly LGBT-rights oriented about the problem that Ocean Grove had, as the tax benefit they signed up for simply says public access; it didn't single out types of discrimination that may or may not occur. There's no protected class thing going on here.

- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think these apply fine, but we can discuss here. Perhaps the header title should be modified?--Knulclunk (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Modified to what? "The self-styled martyrdom of gay rights opponents"? Or is it "Conflict between LGBT rights and the right to discriminate"? That just seems a little too obvious (and still doesn't really apply.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a better title would be Conflict between LGBT rights and other rights. A commonly quoted reason for opposing LGBT rights is that it interferes with other rights. Whether that is true or not is another question, but in an article about LGBT rights opposition I think we should discuss the reasons those that oppose LGBT rights give for the opposition. Otherwise, the article doesn't really cover what it is supposed to cover. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The key is "a commonly quoted reason for opposing LGBT rights." Three sections (Natural law opposition to LGBT rights, Conflicts over education, conflict between LGBT rights and the right to oppose LGBT rights) should be combined unded the NPOV title "Reasons given for opposing LGBT rights." The titles involving "conflict" are all POV. Where one person sees conflicting rights, another sees bigotry cloaked in the language of reverse discrimination. --Dr.enh (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Exclusion versus discrimination

Repeated IP edits have replaced the "discriminate against" phrase in "Other outdoor-focused, youth-based organizations such as the 4-H club and Girl Scouts of the USA do not discriminate against homosexuals" with "exclude". These edits have been made without explanation. This may at first seem to be a difference which makes no difference, but it is not - exclusion is a mere subset of discrimination. For example, the LDS church pre-1978 did not exclude black folks - they could become members - but they did discriminate, barring black folks from the priesthood and certain rites. Nothing I've seen indicates that the Girl Scouts or 4-H has any discriminatory policies, and the broader language should be reinstated, Thoughts? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Health section

"Critics claim that political correctness has led to the association of sex between males and HIV being downplayed."

What does this have to do with LGBT rights opposition?

I have removed the information on blood donor services, as while I am sure people use such details in their opposition, it is not about LGBT rights opposition. The NHS is not opposed to LGBT rights. It does not allow a range of people to give blood for various reasons. People from Africa who have had sex in the previous 12 months. IV drug users. People on chemotherapy and other medications. Unless there is a reference from a reliable source that specifically deals with blood transfusion services that are opposed to LGBT rights, or LGBT rights opposition that cites such details as part of its opposition. Then the source would be cited, not the service and details they cite. The way this was used suggests WP:SYNTH. Mish (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

there isn't even such a thing as "LGBT rights". There is legislation concerning homosexual acts, and there is legislation concerning recognition of homosexual partnerships, which you may call "LG rights". Then there is legislation concerning offical recognition of sex change, which you may call "T rights". I have yet to be shown any kind of legislation concerning bisexuality. The point is that these "rights" (these laws) aren't officially so called. Grouping the opposition to such legislation under an idiosyncratic term used by the proponents is a rather blatant violation of neutrality. --dab (𒁳) 21:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nazi photo

To whoever added that photo: thank you. I think the Nazi's ferocity truly demonstrates what opposition to equality looks like. 1933...not too long ago. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

thank god for reductio ad Hitlerum. It works every time, regardless of whether you have a case. --dab (𒁳) 21:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased title

The title, by use of the word "rights" instead of "social movement" like LGBT social movements, is biased. This page should be moved. Thoughts? NYyankees51 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted sources

An editor has deleted a ref here, mentioning on my talk page that it is pulling up a viagra ad; that user may want to check their computer for infection; it pulls up a MediaMouse.org page on " National Socialist Movement" for me. (Even if it didn't, the proper thing to do with a dead link is to mark it as "dead" or to replace it with a WayBackMachine link, not to delete it.) And he deleted material with a source to this page, saying that it says there was no death penalty for homosexuality. That is not what it says; while it says that homosexuals "were not systematically exterminated", it also says "In 1942, the death penalty was instituted for homosexuality." I am restoring the sourced material. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

LGBT social movements opposition

This article should be renamed from LGBT rights opposition to LGBT social movements opposition to mirror LGBT social movements

agreed. LGBT "rights" opposition is biased and is completely different from LGBT social movements opposition, which is what the article is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.229 (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Opposition motived by science

An anon editor has added "science" to motivations, including a set of random citations (some of which are reliable, some of which aren't.) None of the reliable citations link scientific findings to LGBT rights opposition, which makes the addition a case of WP:SYNTH. AV3000 (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The citations are reliable and verifiable. As such, they describe scientific findings that motivate people to oppose LGBT rights. It does not have to link itself to a movement. I know you want to support gay rights, but keep this article unbiased. If you can prove that the scientific findings are not valid reasons why people oppose homosexuality as wrong, then state so and cite them here. 98.231.138.131 (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, there absolutely do need to be reliable sources that draw a connection between scientific findings and opposition; not doing so violates WP's SYNTH policy, and I'm not sure what's so difficult about this to understand. It's certainly not my responsibility to disprove your unsourced assertion of such a connection. AV3000 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"they describe scientific findings that motivate people to oppose LGBT rights" - sez who? That's the part which would need to be reliably sourced -- who claims they motivate people in that way? "If you can prove that the scientific findings are not valid reasons why people oppose homosexuality as wrong, then state so and cite them here." The general criteria for Wikipedia is that we are to incorporate things which are known to be true; we do not incorporate them merely because they are not known to be untrue. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added a reliable source (which had its own sources) which explicitly discusses social scientific evidence and WHY it advances their argument against same-sex marriage. Hopefully this one's clear enough. 98.231.138.131 (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Section is stupid

Okay, this officially the most ridiculous article in the Wikipedia universe. Who wrote this thing? Harry Hay?

No credibility. 66.30.240.233 (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Health section

This section does not address any "rights opposition." It is a COATRACK for a discussion of the state of homosexual healthcare. Any objections to removal? – Lionel ^(talk) 07:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Boy Scouts section

The Scouts are a private company, the issue is a labor issue, and the impact on the homosexual community is marginal. 44 states do not permit "same sex marriage." That would seem to be a more substantive issue for an article on "rights opposition." This section is WP:UNDUE and should be removed. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This section should stay becouse it deals with LGBT rights oposition. Private organisation or not is irrelevant. What is "homosexual community"?--В и к и в и н д T a L k 09:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

When placed in context with the totality of lgbt rights opposition in the US, marriage, adoption, military service, housing, artificial insemination, sex change operations, etc., where does the "right to be a Scoutmaster" fit in? – Lionel ^(talk) 10:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You are certainly underselling it. The BSA is not just a "private company", they are a federally-chartered group. The issue is not just a "labor issue", they discriminate not just against their "labor" (paid or unpaid), but against their paying customers as well - not that labor discrimination should be considered unimportant. It is not just an internal issue, they have campaigned for and receive special government dispensation to discriminate without legal impact. I don't know of any specific way to measure their impact on not just those who would be or are scoutmasters, but those who would be or are scouts, and those who deal those who have been indoctrinated by the scouts.

Having said that, this section could and probably should be shorter. Are there are topics that should also be covered here? Yes, and that should be addressed by expanding the coverage on them, not by eliminating the coverage on other issues. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

What about refocusing on "accomodation"? And include other incidents such as that church that refused to allow lesbians to marry at it's waterfront gazebo--the particulars elude me at the moment. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Organization

What do people think of organizing this by forms of opposition? Not rationales, I mean, but eg. campaigns for criminalization, opposition to equal protection laws, etc. I think any layout has the potential for some redundancy (people in the US definitely use the same arguments and shoddy research to argue against marriage and against adoption), but the geographical organization and historical section both have tons of holes that might not present as much of a problem if the article were organized differently. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Christian section missing

Just because there is a main article on Christianity and homosexuality (or, apparently, three... that is in itself not right, one of those should be considered the main article) doesn't mean that there should be no coverage here. Rather, the coverage here should be basically a summary of the relevant content from the main page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Starting with the Nazis?

Just scanning the article right now however, does it strike anyone else that starting the body of the article with the Nazi German suppression of homosexuality suggests a rather biased approach to the subject?

There's an issue with the scope of the article; we seem to waffle between general anti-gay laws and attitudes (eg. the "religious reasons" section) and movements that were specifically reactionary ("history" and "different countries"). The article identifies late 19thc. Germany as the earliest gay rights movement, meaning that moving from there into the repression of that movement isn't so unnatural, but I'm sure there were earlier movements and/or reactions that we could discuss if someone wanted to research. I do think we should limit the scope as much as possible to the reactionary stuff, though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue with the Nazis is more related to the intent of the article than its scope. This article isn't about the LGBT rights movement, therefore the origins of that movement aren't really relevant. The article is supposed to be about opposition to the LGBT rights movement. The organization of the article makes sense only if you view it as a promotion of the LGBT rights movement. Why not start with the historical opposition to LGBT rights? 98.201.194.69 (talk) 05:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Bias against conservatives

Hello there, I have noticed an extreme bias against conservatism in this article. It makes anyone on the right look like the bad guy. Wikipedia:Neutrality.

MJWilliams1998 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I am shocked that this comment has gone four months without notice. The bias in this article is so thick, you could cut it with a knife! Just in the lead section alone, "Such opposition can be motivated by heterosexism, homophobia, sexualism, transphobia, bigotry, prejudice, extreme political ideologies, or other factors." All moderate or reasonable objections are shoved off as "other factors" while prejudice and bigotry are portrayed as the main motives for such opinions. "The human rights and civil rights that LGBT rights opponents actively work towards the denial of recognition for may include..." Whether or not the things listed there can even be considered human or civil rights at all are at the forefront of the debate!

He who Geezes (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please offer specific proposals for edits that make the article less biased. Remember though, that we follow reliable sources, and simply reflect what they say with the same relative weight. - MrX 02:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is a disaster. It has a strong bias not just against conservatives, but against everyone who doesn't agree with all the goals of the LGBT rights movement. This article does not give a neutral or encyclopedic description of opposition to the LGBT rights movement, it parrots the views of a small group of very passionate and dedicated LGBT activist editors. I just want to read about opposition to the LGBT rights movement, I don't want to read the political views of the editors! Parthian Scribe 02:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

And what do you suggest it say, for instance? Teammm ^talk
_email 03:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider myself "conservative" in general,but strongly oppose much of what is advocated under the banner of "LGBT rights"...and consider this article unbelievably biased.It assumes that the presumptions on which advocates for acceptance of homo- and transsexual activities base their arguments are necessarily valid and leaves no space for those of us who regard them as absurd fallacies.I believe that it is in the best interests of the "gay" to learn to identify as ex-gay and reject the contention that this is "bigotry" against them rather than opposition to lies that might comfort them.The thesis that there are "rights" involved,or that "equality" of persons involves different decisions being treated as equally wise,or that desire to engage in an activity should exempt one from public policy granting preference to other activities...none of these are approached with NPOV.--L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the principle issue is one of tone and word choice, and the very name of the article is an example of what people are taking issue with. The inability to strike a neutral tone leads to some strange phrases, for example, from the intro: "The human rights and civil rights that LGBT rights opponents actively work towards the denial of recognition for." The wording is awkward because it is trying to keep the underlying premise that to oppose this particular movement is to deny fundamental rights. The reality is that because LGBT rights have been heretofore unknown as a technical matter they're not actually rights yet, though they do seem to be in a sort of legal no-mans-land between rights and non-rights. As a result this article seems to be more a history and promotion of the LGBT rights movement rather than an informatory article regarding the LGBT movement's opponents.

A deeper issue is the inability of the article to recognize the philosophical and ideological differences between the LGBT rights movement and other civil rights movements. This is partly because the LGBT movement, for obvious political reasons, has adopted the language of the prior successful movement. By using the older civil rights language in the article it creates the automatic bias against principled opposition. Each of the listed issues in the introduction could be opposed for principled reasons completely unrelated to discrimination. For example, devout and sincere religious belief leads to the logical opposition to many of the LGBT movement's goals. Anti-discrimination and bullying legislation could be opposed on the grounds that they could be abused because LGBT status is not always obvious to the alleged discriminator. Generalized opposition to social programs explains opposition to government funded access to sex-reassignment surgeries. The list could go on. I think finding a better name and/or description of the LGBT movement's opponents would be a great help.

Finally, as noted previously, current opposition to LGBT proposed rights needs to be distinguished from active government or individual persecution and/or suppression. The western "LGBT rights opposition," as the article calls it, generally does not condone the type of legal treatment seen in Nazi Germany or modern Russia and Iran for example. I think a good start would be to divide the article in to two general categories: Historic Discrimination and Current Opposition. Alternatively one could approach the subject by issue, i.e. Same-sex marriage, anti-bullying laws, etc. At the least this would approach the subject in a logical way making it easier to find proper neutrality. 98.201.194.69 (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this article is laughably biased. The introduction has no citations and the sections with citations often cite unreliably sources. 91.84.70.144 (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The introduction (WP:LEDE) does not need to have citations because it simply summarizes content already in the article (and presumably cited). Please offer specifics about the sources that you believe are unreliable, and why you think they are unreliable. - MrX 22:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Ethics

Lincean (talk · contribs) has inserted Ethics as a reason for opposition to LGBT rights. The user claims that it is implied in the sources, which contravenes our policy on original research. I invite Lincean to present their case for adding this novel content. - MrX 20:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

MrX, thank you for the invitation.

A few sources I found:

• Shell, S. M. (2004). The liberal case against gay marriage. Public Interest, (156), 3-16.
• Margaret Somerville, "The case against "Same-sex marriage". A Brief Submitted to The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, April 29, 2003.
• There is plenty on the Natural Law view, see this article on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357 for instance.
• http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_case_against_same-sex_marriage/
• http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/gay_marriage.html
• http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/a-secular-case-against-gay-marriage/

There are many more sources, including published ones, that make ethical arguments. How many would you like?

Lincean (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a single one of those sources qualifies as reliable for your proposed edit. Most of the sources are individual opnions, and representing them in this article would violate WP:DUE. The rest of the sources would require synthesis to arrive at the conclusion that ethics is a motivation for opposing LGBT rights. Perhaps you can produce some scholarly or mainstream media sources that unambiguously state that ethics is a motivation for opposing LGBT rights. - MrX 23:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

In the SEP article http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/#NatLaw that I linked to says this: “Today natural law theory offers the most common intellectual defense for differential treatment of gays and lesbians, and as such it merits attention." This clearly mentions an ethical theory that is opposed to ‘LGBT rights’ as understood in this article. Is the SEP not a reliable source? Finding invocations of ethics or morality for opposition is common in news sources:

• http://articles.latimes.com/2003/aug/01/world/fg-pope1
• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cardinal-samesex-marriage-is-just-as-immoral-as-slavery-7536454.html
• http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/04/04/faith-matters-on-gay-marriage-think-natural-law/
• http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-30/news/ct-met-gay-marriage-natural-law-20121230_1_natural-law-natural-law-marriage-fairness-act
• "Basically unethical, socially harmful." The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec). Date Accessed: 2013/11/26. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.

What more is needed?

Lincean (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between what someone claims to be a reason for their opposition versus and the actual motivation for their opposition. I don't dispute that many people who oppose LGBT rights on do so moral grounds. I would agree to write "moral beliefs" in place of "ethics". Does that seem like reasonable compromise? I would also be in favor of rewriting that entire sentence to remove some of the more obscure reasons like "cissexism" and "heterosexism". Here is a draft proposal:

"Such opposition can be motivated by religion, moral beliefs, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, sexualism, bigotry, political ideologies, or other factors."

I think this would be little more neutral and more clear. What do you think? - MrX 02:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your proposed sentence. It is an improvement.Lincean (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed a number of revisions made by this editor, after my own contribution to a different page was reverted. I must say I don't understand Mr X's modus operandi. None of the reasons in the list "Such opposition can be motivated by religion, moral beliefs, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, sexualism, bigotry, political ideologies, or other factors." is referenced, although some are discussed later in the article. If the addition of the word "ethics" is unjustified original research, then so presumably is the presence of such nebulous categories as "biphobia" and "other factors". If the editor has the courage of his convictions he should delete the lot, or add one of the catch-alls such as "reference needed".

It seems to me that tools such as Wikipedia:TW have made it too easy to simply revert contributions made by others. This editor took about 60 seconds to decide to revert this page during a long session of reversions and nominations for deletion. I admit that in many cases this work may be necessary, but even if the editor is right 90% of the time, if he makes more than 100 changes a day, 10 of them will be unhelpful. As I have said elsewhere, Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes warns us against failing to be bold. "Yes, you might mess things up a little. But someone else will probably clean up after you. Really, go ahead and change it." Reversion is the enemy of this approach. I don't care if my text is ruthlessly edited, removed from its own section, etc etc, because that is the whole point of Wikipedia; but if it is reverted, no one else gets the chance to improve it. At the very least, hold the existing text to the same standards that you expect of revisions, and spend a little time actually reading the article. Keep your finger away from the "revert" button - better still, uninstall TW. 212.159.102.166 (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC) KJN

Reasons for opposition

The page says "Such opposition can be motivated by (ethics,) religion, moral beliefs, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, sexualism, bigotry, political ideologies, or other factors."

On looking again at this list of reasons, I can see a number of issues.

The reasons given for opposing LGBT rights fall into three categories: first, opposition by reference to external systems of thought - religious, moral, political (and ethical); second, opposition rooted in the character of the person who opposes: homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, sexualism, bigotry; and third, "other factors".

"Biphobia" - this neologism has its own Wikipedia page, but the word may appear only in a single primary source - Ref. 1 of that page. This is the only evidence that biphobia is a separate phenomenon from homophobia.

"Sexualism" - this concept also has its own Wikipedia page, but a careful reading of the page shows that the second sense of the word (the one relevant here, "discrimination based on sexuality"), is a neologism that is not attributed to any of the page's references - the author might as well have made the word up. Ref. 1 refers to "sexual prejudice", Refs. 2 and 3 to "heterosexism". The content of Refs 1 and 2 can be searched on Amazon; Ref 3 is available in PDF form and can be searched; none of these includes the word "sexualism".

If we accept the term "sexualism", then homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia are examples of sexualism, rather than separate phenomena.

I expect most LGBT activists would also consider these phenomena to be examples of bigotry, rather than separate phenomena.

"Other reasons" seems to mean "anything I haven't thought of" rather than something that is documented.

The page was split out from Homosexuality and morality and deals almost exclusively with opposition to homosexual rights. The addition of the terms "biphobia", "transphobia", and "sexualism" appears to be a half-hearted attempt to generalise the page to cover the full range of the "LGBT" label without adding any substantive new content.

The misuse of tautology, and of neologisms that are not in widespread use, make the list akin to "oak, beech, quasi-oak, trees, treeoids, and other things".

Please could someone with appropriate expertise amend the page.

212.159.102.166 (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC) KJN

I more or less agree, so I have boldly removed some of the terms. If another editor disagrees, they will likely restore them and hopefully join this discussion. - MrX 16:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts...

Some pieces of text in the article seem to agree to certain types of opposition or at least use language that reads as if it does. Per example 'The driving force was the elimination of degeneracy at various levels' <- I added perceived in that sentence, or 'It is argued that the numbers of homosexuals eliminated was quite low' the word low makes it sound very troubling to me, it /could/ work if more text was to be added comparing the numbers to other WW2 statistics. But even then 10-30% of gays charged with being gay put into concentration camps seems /high/ to me!

The 'Religious reasons for opposition' sub states that Abrahamic religions do not support homosexual sex as if it where fact. Within the Christian churches there are opposing interpretations where homosexual sex is /not/ viewed as a sin. I'm unsure about Islam but I can imagine that it's mostly hadiths (='word' -> interpretations from Koran that are viewed as canon by most Muslims) that oppose homosexuality. I would propose making a clear separation of facts and interpretations (even if those are the most dominant interpretations) GizahNL (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What about parents wanting their kids to have kids?

The core reason why parents oppose homosexuality is because they want their kids to have kids. Parents do not despise their lesbian daughters as much as they despise their gay sons. The reason for this is because a lesbian daughter can still have kids that are genetically theirs but gay males cannot have kids that are genetically theirs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.236.162 (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Many same-sex couples, including male couples, have children through surrogacy, adoption, etc. Please provide a source for your edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Article title

I think using the word "rights", especially in the title, is inherently biased. It implies that we already have all of these god-given rights and some angry people are trying to deny us those rights. Look at the second paragraph here: Abortion_debate#Terminology: "Appeals are often made in the abortion debate to the rights of the fetus, pregnant woman, or other parties. Such appeals can generate confusion if the type of rights is not specified (whether civil, natural, or otherwise) or if it is simply assumed that the right appealed to takes precedence over all other competing rights (an example of begging the question)." We have the same situation here, the existence of certain "rights" is already assumed in the article title. (Yes it's currently specified in the lead that we're talking about civil rights, but that's not the point.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Er, so what would you suggest in its place? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If I had a suggestion I would have already offered it. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. I think the lead section makes it clear what the word "rights" refers to (laws, and possible laws).

Speaking of which, the lead section is a bit repetitive. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Creation of a LGBT Rights Support Page or of a LGBT Rights Topical Arguments Used in Debates

I know that LGBT Rights Opposition page is flagged as being biased, and was wondering if it would be possible to either expand the page to LGBT Rights Argument Basis (would include both opposition and support) or to create a page for Rights Support and link the two pages? I'm not currently aware of any page that lists JUST the supporting arguments, in the same way that this page lists just the opposing arguments. Considering the fact that there are countries that are struggling to make up their minds (cough, Australia, cough) as well as the fact that there are countries that have had to have serious debate, such as America, it might be useful to collate arguments that support the LGBT Rights movement. Thanks, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:30 07 July 2015

Hmm, sounds interesting. I still think that if a "LGBT rights support" page were to exist, that there would be enough content for that to be a seperate article, but I'm not sure. What do other editors think of this? – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 13:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a combined article on the model of Abortion debate (or, not necessarily on that model, the article has issues, but you know) could work. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

So as a brief summary of change:

a) name change to LGBT Rights Debate?

b) creation of sections relating to Supporting Arguments

c) a lot of debate about what should and shouldn't be included? (See Reasons above) ;P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcrazy102 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 14:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Might want to ping one or two places (at the very least, WP:LGBT studies) for more input before doing that kind of overhaul. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've put up a message on the LGBT studies' talk page. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 22:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Coming from this note at WP:LGBT, I see no need to change the article title to LGBT rights debate, which is a narrower title and makes it seem like the topic is any one particular LGBT debate. Even if we changed "debate" to "debates," I'd still oppose. I also see no need to unnecessarily split the article. See WP:Spinout and WP:No split. Also, if this is an official move request, a WP:Requested moves tag should be added, so that wider opinions and not just members of WP:LGBT will know of the discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: In regards to the WP:Requested moves, this is just a discussion to see if the article should be made bigger and provide a more balanced view on the arguments of LGBT Rights Debate/s by including the common arguments that support and oppose LGBT Rights; or if a new article should be created to list and explain the common arguments that support LGBT Rights in a similar manner to that used on this article.

However, we are not splitting the article since, the first idea of creating a page dedicated to showing both sides of the debate/s would simple make this article a sub-section and would become integrated into the discussion; and the second idea would be to simply create a yang to the yin of this page (my personal opinion, but it would still aim to balance nevertheless), and I fail to see the point of the WP:Spinout reference unless you are referring to WP:POVFORK, but both types of ideas seem to be more WP:SUBPOV.

I'm certainly interested in why you don't want to create an article that also lists the arguments that support LGBT Rights, in a single article; as well as why you don't seem to have read the relatively small discussion that has already happened?

If you still have objections to creating a new article that either:

Discusses the arguments used on both sides of the LGBT Rights debate/s in a single article and would likely feature a merge of this article, or,

A new article that discusses the arguments that support the LGBT Rights debate/s in a similar manner to that of LGBT Rights Opposition.

@Zumoarirodoka:@Roscelese:

User:Drcrazy102 User talk:Drcrazy102 02:05 9 July 2015

This article is not just an "opposition" article; it also counters opposition arguments, as it should. If more countering of the opposition aspects are needed, then we should do that...with WP:Reliable sources and WP:Due weight. I noted WP:Spinout and WP:No split because, in my opinion, you would essentially be splitting the topic by creating an "LGBT rights support" article. It had nothing to do with not having read the discussion. I did not have WP:POVFORK in mind, but, now that you mention it, WP:POVFORK is clear that "[t]he generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." Why exactly do we need an article about people supporting LGBT rights when that is already somewhat covered in this article, can be expanded further in this article, and when there is an LGBT social movements article? The LGBT social movements article is the actual LGBT rights article, which is why the LGBT rights article (which is currently titled LGBT rights by country or territory) points to that article in its WP:Hatnote; it should be titled LGBT rights. And, of course, we also have the LGBT community article, which goes over some of the same things. I am not against "an article that also lists the arguments that support LGBT Rights." And if there was any suggestion in your question in that regard that I have something against noting pro-LGBT rights arguments, that is a silly suggestion...as my track record editing this site shows. I am against unnecessary splitting of content, WP:POVFORKS and WP:REDUNDANTFORKS. As is clear from looking at this other talk page, I always am.

Also, your WP:Ping didn't work on me. I haven't yet checked the talk edit history to see if you pinged me after you signed your post, but WP:Ping only works with a fresh signature. I don't need to be WP:Pinged to this talk page, though; it's currently on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

If people feel that we should rename the article, then I suggest LGBT rights support and opposition as the title. This bit gave me that title idea. Flyer22 (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I apologise if I sounded like I was questioning your desire to note arguments that are pro-LGBT, that was not my intention. I was just a little confused as to why you seemed so against creating a summary page similar to the current opposition article. I also don't often check the background of other editors unless they seem to be really dodgy, which was why I was unaware of your "track-record" as you put it.

I was, and am, referring more to an article that lists the arguments used to oppose or support LGBT Rights, in a single article, though it would by necessity require "see also ..."'s to the various articles that discuss the organisations, and the behaviours that support or oppose LGBT Rights. When I was referring to it being in a similar style to the current article, I was meaning in a layout format, with Religious Opposition, Health Opposition, Legal Opposition, Family Opposition, and an overview of Countries that are debating about LGBT Rights and (if needed) what specific aspect of the Rights they are debating.

I can certainly understand your worries about WP:POVFORKS and having WP:REDUNDANTFORKS, but the proposed changes would be about creating an article with sections of discussion about the arguments used by both sides. Not necessarily a more historical approach that seems to be used in the current Rights Opposition article.

I'm certainly open to adaption and discussion about any changes since this would be a fairly large task either way and I would have no clue how to do any of the 'technical' aspects.

User:Drcrazy102talk 06:13 9 July 2015

I could support a name change for this article, since it is a bit misleading.

Dr Crazy 102 (talk)

Non-opposition

There's still stuff here that isn't about opposition (eg. xanith). How can we make sure we provide the full perspective (not giving the impression that some country, culture or religion totally opposes homosexuality when they don't) without including extraneous information? (Overhauling the structure may be helpful, as I have suggested in the past - so that it's not by geography or by group, but by forms of opposition or by the type of argument.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that reordering the structure will help improve the article, but I'm not sure what to do about not including extraneous information; I know that wikilinking to certain terms, pages etc. may help but apart from that, IDK. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 18:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, in regards to the Xanith in particular, if they are made a "See Also ...". E.g. the Xanith paragraph would be almost entirely deleted and made as a reference that there is an 'acceptable' form of homosexuality in Islamic culture, preferably after the HRW/Amnesty paragraph (just for flow-on clarity), with a "See also Xanith"? Just an idea to help but a restructure is probably needed as you are both indicating, but I don't have that much experience at making/reordering wiki pages, so I'll leave that with you.

If there are no objections within a week or so, I will go and change the Xanith paragraph and have a more thorough read-through to find other areas of discussion that aren't directly relevant to LGBT Rights Opposition

Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:50 06 July 2015

I've changed the "Xanith" paragraph to "Khanith" to a) better reflect the related article (it's kind of a stub BTW), and to cull off some of the unnecessary parts.

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC for the inclusion, or exclusion, of Bigotry as a reason for opposition towards LGBT Rights

The debate has lasted for several months now and has, at its core, been based around whether the distinct definition of Bigotry (not bigot) can allow for WP:NPOV or if the term is in violation. @Lincean has argued, through various policies, that Bigotry cannot be NPOV due to its derivation from the word bigot. Various others users, myself included, have argued that Bigotry be included as a reason due to its inherent beliefs and sources have been found to support the claim.

At the moment, the article contains Bigotry as a reason due to the ongoing discussion, but little in-article discussion revolves around bigotry.

Please leave a comment on whether Bigotry can be NPOV or if it should be taken down or found in-quote/attributed. See discussion here, for the full debate.

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not a fair characterization of what I wrote. Lincean (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to correct me then, as I was writing a summary, not the entire 6 months of arguments which seemed to centre around WP:NPOV and other policies.

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit War and possible POV-style around the /Religious/ Christian opposition?

Is there currently an edit war occurring around this section? Also, the wording of the section seems to be POV, at least from my view. I felt like a discussion should be opened to at least discuss the constant editing changes. User:Drcrazy102 talk

Oops, forgot to put in a signature, well that's been amended, but I can't find the time, so my apologies.

Since most of the reverted edits seem to be based on anonymous users creating edits and resulting in reverts, should we consider WP:SILVERLOCK?

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Will need summary of content in The Bible and homosexuality and Christianity and homosexuality.

Changing Section based on WP:NPOV and adding information

In my opinion, opposition to LGBT rights by the Christian Right is more based on a desire to advocate Complementarianism and Biblical patriarchy within nuclear families than opposition to LGBT people per se. -- Callinus (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why you have included the WP:SS(summary) since that is dealing with leads, unless you are suggesting that the Christian opposition section is in need of expansion, which would make some sense as there seems to be a lack of balanced arguments. I would like some clarification as the statement is a bit confusing.

Again, some clarification would be appreciated, mainly since the reasons are used to oppose LGBT rights, whether it is to keep "Biblical patriarchy" or not. However, Complementarianism is essentially the backbone of all of the various religion's arguments against LGBT rights, and I would like to bring your attention to this SBS Insight episode where several religious 'mentors'/'leaders' were present and debating Same-Sex Marriage. They all use the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" debate, though one clever atheist points out the 'natural' world's tendency to include homosexual animals. (That atheist bit is my POV, but hey, it was a nice and fairly civil episode and I learnt a few things) So whether it is to advocate within the nuclear family or not, it still forms and can fuel opposition to LGBT rights.

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I meant that the full text of Christianity and homosexuality § Critical views has to be summed up here.

For non-Australian editors, Insight is an Australian opinion panel program for general audiences. Opinions of individuals given on opinion programs are not published by a fact checking organization, so don't meet reliability standards as secondary sources. Opinions of inidividuals can be quoted in statements that attribute their opinion but synthesis by interpolating quotes or editorializing over them should be avoided.

There may be academic sources saying this, at the moment I've only found activist groups saying it and academic feminist sources responding. John Piper and Wayne Grudem in 1991 railed against evangelical feminism as leading to acceptance of homosexuality, and academic works respond to that. None of this meets NPOV or RS.

In short, I don't have any proposed improvements to the article, and I don't think my suggestion helps. -- Callinus (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Huh, so it's just called Insight on Wiki, that explains why I couldn't find it using the linking tool. I was not intending for it to be used as a source, but merely to raise the point that Complementarianism forms a basis for almost all religious debate about LGBT rights, though again, that is currently just my POV since I can't be bothered going a Google-ing. I think the United Ecumenical Catholic Church's Position Statement on Homosexuality may be a good source as it is a religious organisation arguing a religious debate using the common passages that are used against the advancement of LGBT rights. (Short form, it 'debunks' the passages, but POV to phrase that way, sorry) That may help in improving the section but *shrugs* who knows if the IPs will accept it? Maybe if they came onto the talk page and discussed their issues.

I've just moved the paragraph around since there now seem to be two areas: firstly the POV-style correction and secondly the possible protection of the article

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted the word ""clobber"" as a) someone put it in quotations but never sourced it, and b) WP:NPOV of these articles would require either a source/citation or to take a more neutral stance other than saying: "These passages are used by Bible-bashers, let's call them "clobber" passages". I may be wrong in my insinuation and I'm not casting aspersions on the user/s that wrote that particular line, but that change needed to happen to remain neutral.

I have changed "God hates" to "God is against" to better reflect WP:NPOV, something this article has been tagged as being deficient for Wikipedia.

I have changed "same passages condemn" to "same passages refer to" to better reflect WP:NPOV, and seems to have been written in the same vein as ""clobber" passages" (^see above^)

I have changed the line referring to LGBT-affirming Churches due to WP:Clarity, though my edit may still need some citation of history. I don't know much of the history of the LGBT-friendly churches, so I will leave sources to whoever has more knowledge. Edit: I have also changed the link to go directly to the article in question, i.e. LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations.

If anyone has any issues with these edits, please discuss and provide reasons instead of starting a WP:WAR of reverts. That is why I asked for the LGBT rights opposition to be semi-protected, and evidently NeilN agrees with my reasoning.

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Protection of LGBT rights opposition in response to potential WP:EDITWAR between IP/s and Users (Resolved)

Semi-protection

On the original point, one week of semi protection may be useful unless any better options are offered.-- Callinus (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I've put up a request on on the request page, here but I've asked for Pending Changes due to the low traffic that the page experiences and that it is only between IPs, yourself and @Rosceles over the Christian Opposition section.

I've moved a section, read about it above ^ ( Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC) )

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think semiprotection would help due to the IP-hopping, yeah. (I requested it a few weeks ago, unsuccessfully, and this is obviously the same person.) The addition this person is trying to push through is both incoherent and factually wrong, and I wish they'd stop wasting time like this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected 2 weeks. No comments on content, but reverting without participating in discussions is not on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)