Talk:Societal attitudes toward homosexuality/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Do not remove POV tag

The neutrality of this article is disputed. We have been discussing that dispute on the talk page directly above. It is not as if you weren't aware that the neutrality of this article is disputed.

The POV tag has been removed twice without any discussion on the talk page whatsoever. Do not remove the tag. Lou franklin 03:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Somebody's bossy today. -Seth Mahoney 03:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is not disputed, except by you. And your POV warring isn't sufficient reason to warn readers that they can't trust the article. If someone follows the advice on the notice and comes to the talk page to read up on the 'dispute', all they'll find - assuming they take the time necessary to read through your repetitive diatribes and the painstaking efforts of editors to reply to them fully and civilly - is that there is no dispute, just a single opinionated, argumentative and disruptive editor. Frankly Franklin, I can't see why you'd want that outside scrutiny. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I want that outside scrutiny because I want to shine as bright of a light on this article as possible. You cannot just pretend that the neutrality of this article is not disputed and make it all go away. The way to get the POV tag removed is to remove the propaganda from it. That is the function of the POV tag. You aren't supposed to just remove it because you feel like it. Dude, the article compares ingesting semen with taking vitamins... right in the introduction!

The case is under arbitration. Until the arbitrators reach a decision, there is no doubt that the neutrality of this article is indeed disputed.

Let the reader read about the dispute and make his own determination. The tag says that "the neutrality of this article is disputed", and that is accurate. Removing the tag is clearly vandalism. Lou franklin 16:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the criteria stated at Wikipedia:Vandalism, I do not agree that removing the tag is vandalism. I am satisfied that the reasons for removing it are valid as Sam stated. Vandalism doesn't mean "any change I don't agree with." Since the edit war seems to have subsided, and arbitration is continuing, I have removed the POV tag that I originally added. Cleduc 16:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You removed a tag that says "the neutrality of this article is disputed" when you know very well that the the neutrality of this article is disputed. You also know that the tag was just added. You know very well that it is not "the POV tag that you originally added".

The neutrality of this article is disputed. The reason that Wikipedia has such a tag is to inform the reader of that fact. Do not remove the tag. Lou franklin 21:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• There are definitely still POV problems with the article. For example, the phrase "Hatred of homosexuals..." in the "anti-gay speech" section is POV. Using an anti-gay slogan does not equate to hatred of homosexuals. Johntex\^talk 07:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "Anti-gay slogans date back at least as far as Classical Greece 2500 years ago. They have expressed numerous derogatory viewpoints against gays which have ranged from disrespectful to overtly offensive." Is that better?

I agree that problems remain, but as regards Lou's adding of the POV tag, as far as I'm concerned you don't get to perform long-term disruption of an article and then claim that adding the POV tag - even when every other editor removes it - is somehow different. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's the real reason we're removing the POV tag - such templates are known as "Wikipedia maintenance templates" for a reason. The purpose of the POV tag is to be removed (eventually). It should be added by either of two sides when they disagree in good faith over an article, and removed when they have come to a consensus version. You, Lou, are incapable of assuming good faith or seeking and respecting consensus, and it's quite blatantly obvious that if we let you add the tag, you will never accept a version of the article that is genuinely neutral and it will never come off. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not your decision whether you "let me add the tag". The tag says that "the neutrality of this article is disputed", and the neutrality of this article is disputed.

You can't just declare that I am "incapable of assuming good faith or seeking and respecting consensus" and it becomes so, and it becomes a valid reason to remove the tag. You may be an administrator, but that doesn't make you King. You are just one member of the community like everybody else.

The rule is that a POV tag "means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to NPOV standards" [1]. You can't change that by decree. You have to live by the rules just like all other members of the community.

There is a comment on the talk page from today that says "there are definitely still POV problems with the article". Was that ignored because that user was also deemed to be "incapable of assuming good faith"? Look through the "citations and verifiability" section of the talk page. How much evidence do you need that "the neutrality of this article is disputed"? Lou franklin 03:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet the fact remains that, given your history with this article, it is easily possible to see this as more vindictive edit warring and gaming the system because you were frustrated. See KillerChihuahua's comment below. I think that most, if not all, of the editors on this article can no longer assume good faith with you, given your previous behavior. The fact that you are the only one adding the tag, combined with the fact that you have been edit warring and disrespecting consensus and other editors for the past couple of months, just makes this look like another bad-faith attempt to disrupt the article. Sorry if that's not your actual intent, but in light of your past behavior, that's how it comes off. Hbackman 03:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but that does not give you the right to remove the tag. Lou franklin 03:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been removing the tag. I'm sick of edit warring, so I'm staying out of this for now. Hbackman 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

See WP:VAND, under Improper use of dispute tags: Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. . KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There actually is a dispute here. Lou franklin 03:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If anyone's thinking I'm digging my heels in over this and maybe making it too personal (my last edit summary, though I stand by it, may give this impression), it's because I completely reject a POV tag that will stay there indefinitely (ignoring the pending ArbCom judgement for the moment) because I don't believe Lou will ever accept an article that is acceptable to everyone else, given the POV he's attempted to introduce before. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't have the right to "completely reject a POV tag". You have to live by Wikipedia's rules just like all other members of the community. You can't just "not believe" that the process will work and remove the tag. You are actually supposed to remove the POV and then remove the tag. Lou franklin 11:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Lou: Under what specific conditions would you agree to have the POV tag removed? -Seth Mahoney 17:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is POV in many ways. Some of them are documented on the talk page. But I am not saying that the article has to be perfectly NPOV, and that you have to correct all of the problems with the article. It would be amazingly easy to clear this dispute up right now. Of all of the problems with the article, correcting just these four would be enough for me to remove the POV tag:

1) The introduction is pro-gay and many attempts to add balancing examples have been rejected. This has been brought up by multiple editors. I have offered balancing examples of cultures that "condemn such activity" (part of the thesis) [2]. I think that my examples are fair, but you don't have to use my examples if you don't want to. But for each pro-gay example in the introduction, add an example of a culture that "condemns such activity".

As I've pointed out more times than I care to count, the introduction is not pro-gay. It includes societies that have made exceptional positions in favor of homosexuality in order to illustrate some claims that would be fairly unbelievable for someone coming from our society otherwise. Examples of cultures that condemn homosexuality are unnecessary in the introduction, since we live in (a mild version of) one of those cultures. We're all pretty well aware of historical attitudes toward homosexuality in our own culture, so we're all aware that such attitudes exist. Examples are provided in order to prove to the skeptical reader that such cultures do exist. Of course, Hbackman is right below, and I have no expectation that you will ever admit that you could possibly be incorrect in evaluating either the text in the article or the motives of the editors, so I guess there's not much point to writing this... -Seth Mahoney 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your "expectations" are not the issue. So "the introduction is not pro-gay" - it's just that "it includes societies that have made exceptional positions in favor of homosexuality" and doesn't include societies that haven't. I see. Lou franklin 12:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: this topic has already been discussed above at Bias in the introduction. No new arguments are presented here. Cleduc 17:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur with this one condition. There should be balence in examples. Hernando Cortez 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

2) The term "LGBT civil rights movement" is offensive to African-Americans and others (for reasons that I have already enumerated). There are several easy ways to compromise on this. One way is to replace "The LGBT civil rights movement" with "The so-called 'LGBT civil rights movement'". Another way is to skirt the issue entirely. For example, the title "LGBT civil rights movement" could be changed to something less POV like "Gay Activism".

Which is why the points of view of several African Americans are included (note, however, that it is not offensive to all African Americans, but only to some). Like above, though, I think I would drop over dead if you admitted you were wrong in your evaluations of anything. -Seth Mahoney 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether you would drop dead or not really is not germane, is it? The word "nigger" isn't offensive to all African Americans either, but that doesn't mean we should use it. Black Americans have been terribly oppressed and were denied their civil rights. To compare that to gay people trying to get additional rights is insulting. Lou franklin 12:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: this topic has already been discussed above at "Civil Rights". No new arguments are presented here. Cleduc 17:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

3) The term "same-sex marriage" is POV. We have discussed this before. Many people feel that marriage means "the union of one man and one woman". One easy way to resolve this conflict is to change "same-sex marriage" to "same-sex 'marriage'".

We have discussed this before, and like your above two points, you are wrong. The inclusion of 'same-sex' before 'marriage' indicates that we aren't talking about your everyday definition of marriage here. It works thusly: No one, before digital clocks, would ever use the phrase "analog clock", because there were only analog clocks in existence. 'Digital' used before 'clock' indicates that we are talking about some other kind of clock. Likewise 'same-sex' before 'marriage'. -Seth Mahoney 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of 'same-sex' before 'marriage' does indicate that we aren't talking about your everyday definition of marriage here. That is the point.

Clocks are a bad analogy. Clocks tell time whether they are digital or Analog. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Sticking "sex-sex" in front of it makes it mean something different. Lou franklin 12:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Marriage" means the union of two or more things. Lou, have you seriously never read phrases like "Its distinguishing feature is the marriage of landforms, substrates, and vegetation" or "The Blair-Brown political marriage is not over yet"? The former I pulled directly from our article on landscape gardening - are you going to stick scare quotes on that as well? If the definition of marriage can include the union between dirt, rocks and plants then it can certainly be used to refer to a ceremonial and legal union between two men or women without scare quotes. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the word "marriage" in "the marriage of landforms, substrates, and vegetation" is being used metaphorically. Wow. Lou franklin 03:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: this topic has already been discussed above at Gay "marriage". No new arguments are presented here. Cleduc 17:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to compromise and change "same-sex marriage" to "same-sex union"? The term "same-sex marriage" is not universally accepted. For example, the official teaching of the Catholic church says that the term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron [3] and there are over a Billion Catholics! That is to say nothing of all of the other groups that object to the term. Lou franklin 18:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The term "same-sex marriage" cannot be changed in the "Law" and "Statistics" sections. To do so in the first would amount to an attempt to override certain countries' autonomy with a conservative, American POV (these countries have made their decisions on the meaning of 'marriage'). To do so in the second would misrepresent the questions asked to participants in the surveys. If you're talking about the intro to the section "LGBT social movements", then it already mentions same-sex unions, as something different from same-sex marriage. I don't see the point in spending a lot of time on that (small) paragraph, though, considering it will be completely rewritten within the next couple weeks. -Seth Mahoney 18:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Using quotes around it is not going to make it acceptable. The term marriage is not exclusive for use by religious people, and in my country, same sex partners do MARRY! KimvdLinde 21:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No they don't. "Marry" means a man and a woman joining as husband and wife. It is not possible for same sex partners to marry. Seth makes a good point. There are parts of the article where "same-sex marriage" cannot be changed to "same-sex union". I know that the article will be completely rewritten within the next couple weeks, but just for now the single quotes should be added because to billions of people "same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron. Lou franklin 21:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not to you to redefine the definition of Marriage of my country. KimvdLinde 21:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The word "marriage" has meant the same thing for hundreds of years. Now you want it to mean something else, yet you accuse me of redefining it. That's rich. Lou franklin 21:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So, now it does not anymore. Things change. In my country, marriage is DEFINED in the LAW as a between twi people, with no gender attached. Deal with reality! KimvdLinde 21:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Lou, if you're going to take this into the context of linguistics and start talking about the semantics of the word 'marriage', you can't deny that the meanings of words change over time. The fact is that in many countries now that meaning has changed, that that change is largely supported by the citizens of that country, and that that shift in meaning is supported by legislation (by the way, calling another country's laws "bizarre" when speaking to a member of that country, is likely to be considered inflammatory by virtually anyone that walks in on this conversation). What we can do is try to work together in a way that explains the view that "same-sex marriage is an oxymoron" (since that is, of course, a societal attitude toward homosexuality) without either

1. Stating it as fact,

2. or, acting in a culturally imperialist manner toward countries that don't share the currently majority US view that marriage is, and should be, only between a man and a woman.

Now, one way to go about this is to talk about the move by gay rights groups to effect that shift in the US and elsewhere, the opposition to that move, and other cultural attitudes toward it. I don't think, in that context, quotation marks around 'marriage' would be necessary, since it will appear within the context of an explanation that a shift in meaning is what is being attempted, and I also think that this context will make relevant opposition points more meaningful. So let's get off the "you're POV!" "no, you're POV!" and the "my country/culture gets to define 'marriage'!" "no, MINE does!" debates, since they aren't going to lead anywhere, and try to start working together, eh? -Seth Mahoney 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I do think that "quotation marks around 'marriage' would be necessary". Although gay activists are doing all they can to work the term "same-sex marriage" into the public lexicon, billions of people object to that term. Most people agree that "marriage" means the same thing that it has meant for hundreds of years: the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. The best way to handle this is not to use the term "same-sex marriage" at all - with or without quotes. But I thought that a fair compromise would be to change "same-sex marriage" to "same-sex 'marriage'" since the difference is barely detectible anyway. I really don't think that is an unreasonable request, given the numbers of people who disapprove of the term. Lou franklin 03:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Your country can make any type of bizarre law it wants. If your law says that "twi people with no gender attached" can live together then that's terrific. What your country can't do is change what marriage means. Billions of people agree that marriage means one man and one woman. I don't think it's too much to ask to acknowledge those billions of people with a single quote. Otherwise you are indeed redefining the word. Lou franklin 21:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre or not, it is not to you to determine that in the article, as that is POV. And those billions, I doubt that and no, that some people have an issue with it is largely insufficient to redefine a legal term as used in some countries. KimvdLinde 22:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

And I have removed the POV pushing. KimvdLinde 21:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you have added POV pushing. Lou franklin 21:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

4) This sentence should be removed: "On one occasion, he went so far as to announce to reporters, 'If you want to be against McCarthy, boys, you've got to be either a Communist or a cocksucker.'". We have talked about this before. Wikipedia says that obscenities "should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate". That is not the case here. The point has already been made in the article without invoking that image in the reader's mind.

I actually do believe that without the cocksucker quote the article would be less informative, relevant, and accurate. Nothing makes history more relevant than including the relevant words of people who lived in the time under discussion. Maybe you should throw your other issues on the table as well, and we can see what all we can clean up, with the aim of building consensus rather than just you having your way. -Seth Mahoney 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The quote is not central to the topic and does not serve the readers' interests. The fact that Joe McCarthy used the word "cocksucker" once 50 years ago isn't central to the topic of "societal attitudes towards homosexuality".

There is no need for an article about "societal attitudes towards homosexuality" to include language that describes sex acts. There are many quotations that could be used that are far more relevant to the topic. I understand that Wikipedia allows obscenities when they are absolutely necessary, but we should not deliberately and unnecessarily offend the readers. Lou franklin 04:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: this topic has already been discussed above at Vulgarity and Motives, among many other places. No new arguments are presented here. Cleduc 17:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have many many other issues with the article, but I would be willing to compromise on just cleaning up these four issues. I think that is very reasonable. Lou franklin 02:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

How is point 4) a POV issue? Hbackman 03:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: all topics mentioned above have already been discussed in the archive. No new arguments have been presented. Responding to Lou franklin's attempts to rehash the same set of issues under new sections of the talk page is a waste of time -- just refer back to the arguments already presented and refuted above. Cleduc 17:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Lou: Seth's point is that he doesn't think you'll ever believe the POV has been removed, thus if the tag is allowed to stay now but later removed, you'll just edit war to get it put back in. Hbackman 23:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Lou, you have said multiple times that you think the only solution is to delete the article. Failing that, I doubt you will ever agree to remove the tag. -Seth Mahoney 03:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith: Lou says that if everybody "compromises" by letting him have his way with the four pet topics above, he'll give up on the POV tag. Well, the debate on those four topics has been conclusive: he has been unable to persuade anyone else of his positions though evidence, logic, or sheer dogged persistence. Lou's proposal isn't compromise: Lou compromises nothing and demands everyone else to let him have it his way. It's an empty bargain.

Each argument succeeds or fails on its own merits, and all four of those arguments have failed. Since Lou says the POV tag depends on those four arguments, the POV tag fails. Cleduc 20:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If taken as your read it, Lou: "in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to NPOV standards" would qualify every article on Wikipedia for the tag since it's possible to find one person who's willing to declare any article POV. --Chesaguy 02:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not how I read it. The issue is what it says. What it says is "in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to NPOV standards". Lou franklin 02:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And consensus disagrees. One person does not own an article and one person, overridden by consensus, does not get to declare what the nature of an article is (i.e., POV vs. NPOV). If that were the case, one White Supremacist would be able to slap every article that refers to Black people as anything other than sub-human as POV because he would view that as POV in favor of black people. If you can get support for your position, fine. But, regardless of the wording, one person cannot override consensus and enforce a tag. If it was supposed to be so, only the person who placed the tag or an Admin would have the ability to remove a tag. --Chesaguy 03:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Which word don't you understand: "in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to NPOV standards". If you have a problem with Wikipedia's policies then work to have them changed. You can't just ignore the rules because you don't like them.

And it is not just me who is declaring that the article is POV. Just above, another editor said "there are definitely still POV problems with the article". The same issue that I brought up about the introduction is dicussed here: "what is really missing from the lead section is an adequate acknowledgment of how widespread such disapproval is and has been for much of recorded history. Do some editors working on this page think it is homophobic to acknowledge this?" Lou franklin 12:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Lou, to quote your talk page: Lou, for your future reference, the Arbitration Committee has held that the repeated reinsertion of a neutrality or dispute tag by a single editor in the face of significant opposition from a substantial number of other editors is something to be avoided. The concern is that a single editor would otherwise be able to hold an article 'hostage' by repeatedly adding a tag, no matter how much opposition he faced. --Chesaguy 20:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute says that a POV tag "means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to NPOV standards". If that policy has changed, please provide a link to the new policy and I will abide by it. Lou franklin 15:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Regarding the Afro-Americans, arguments that we should not say X because it is offensive to me (or to Y) are tantamount to saying "I do not like what you are saying, shut up." They do not belong here. 2. Disapproval of sodomy (including fellatio and anal sex, whether on males or on females) was encountered among the Greeks, the Jews, the Christians and the Moslems. Not universal by any means, but encountered. Also, it was disapproved of because it "caused the wrath of god" and led to droughts and divine epidemics, and who wants that?! We could say something about that, but let's avoid generalizations about "homosexuality". Haiduc 17:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose a solution to the second of Lou's objections: that we change "LGBT civil rights movements" to "LGBT social movements". It's broader anyway and covers things like gay lib or queer nationalism which don't have a civil rights agenda (analagous to the U.S. Black Power Movement vis a vis the Civil Rights Movement).

On the first point about balance in the lead section, I agree that the acknowledgement of the high level of social disapproval (especially in the Christian-dominated West) is still too weak. Here's how gay historian Louis Crompton summarised it in Homosexuality and Civilization (2003): “To look back on the history of homosexuality in the West is to view a kaleidoscope of horrors: Justinian's castrated bishops; the dangling corpses of Almeria; the burning of the 'married' couples in Renaissance Rome; the priests starved to death in cages in Venice's Saint Mark's Square; women burned, hanged, or beheaded on the charge of lesbianism; men tortured and burned by the Spanish Inquisition; Indians savaged by Balboa's mastiffs or burned in Peru; the deaths at the quemadero in Mexico City; the men and boys of Faan; and the scores of men and adolescents hanged in Georgian England. All these atrocities were committed with the certainty that they were the will of God, necessary to stave off the kind of disaster that had overwhelmed the Cities of the Plain."

While I think we can avoid such sensationsalist language, I think the current "Some religious traditions..." doesn't really cut it. As for the examples, to call them "pro-gay" is misleading. In the samurai example, for instance, sex between men is considered inappropriate. Maybe this stuff is too challenging for the lead section and should have its own paragraph, something like "problems interpreting same-sex sexuality across cultures and history"? ntennis 04:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with much of what you're saying, and agree that the so-called "pro-gay" examples should have their own paragraph(s), they should still be included in the introduction for the reason I've given multiple times above: They serve as examples for claims that it would be difficult for someone from our society to believe as true without. -Seth Mahoney 06:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

For me, the main point is that things have to be presented in context, and we have to be vigilant that we not be colored by either the conventional "homosexuality was always disapproved" (what was the "homosexuality" that was criticized and why, and how were other crimes treated?) nor some pollyannish notion ("antiquity was a paradise for gays" kind of thing). You want to talk about the historic rage and brutality of Christianity and Islam against sodomites. Fine. Just don't call sodomy "homosexuality" and if you will mention examples of such savagery, you must also mention the general punitive climate (hangings and limb chopping for theft, castration for adultery, whatnot) and the eschatological fear and ignorance that drove it. Otherwise, taken out of context, it gives the persecution of same-sex love an artificial specialness which plays into the hands of modern day moralists like you-know-who. Haiduc 14:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

LGBT Social Movements?

I am in favor of changing "LGBT civil rights movements" to "LGBT social movements", and I haven't heard any opposition. I think that we can compromise and reach a reasonable agreement on this article. There are only four show-stoppers and you have just addressed two of them, so we are well on our way.

But I do ask your indulgence regarding the POV tag. Multiple editors have a problem with the POV of the article. It's not only myself but also Johntex and Hernando Cortez, and we are also discussing possible changes here. I think that we can wrap this up soon, but until we do please respect the process and don't remove the POV tag. thanks Lou franklin 15:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's three more reverts (within 5 hours) for Lou today. --Chesaguy 19:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed the title of the section "LGBT Civil Rights Movement" to "LGBT Social Movements". I did not change any occurrences in the text, because the text seems to be specifically talking about the LGBT Civil Rights movement(s), not about other social movements (and agree with it or not, that's what its called). I also didn't change the header for the following section, because it contains specifically criticisms of the LGBT Civil Rights movement(s), in fact criticisms of the name "LGBT Civil Rights", and would not make sense with another name. What I foresee happening with this section is that it will be expanded to contain pertinent social movements, and there will eventually be subsections for gay rights movements and LGBT civil rights movements anyway. I think, though, that we can work the text in such a way as to point out specifically that, whether or not these are actually civil rights issues, that is what the movements are called, so as to hopefully avoid POV issues in the future. I'd also like to make it clear to Lou, just in case he attempts to take credit for this change (as he has with many other changes), I have stated multiple times on this talk page that it was my intention to work on this section next, so once again its not as if his complaining has really led to this particular (and superficial) change, but has only perhaps sped it up. -Seth Mahoney 19:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in taking credit for anything. I just want a neutral article.

That's a big improvement. I would even be agreeable to removing the entire "Criticisms of the LGBT civil rights movement" section if you want to. I'm not thrilled that there is still a reference to "See Category:LGBT civil rights", but half a loaf is better than none. Lou franklin 20:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the criticisms section is very appropriate to an article titled "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality". In fact, I'd say the article would be lacking without it. As for the category link, there was briefly some talk to changing the name of the category to Category: LGBT rights, if that sounds more appropriate to you, you're welcome to leave your 2 cents on the talk page. -Seth Mahoney 20:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Pacific basin citation needed

The section entitled "The Pacific basin" says that "heterosexual activities are seen as leading to decay and death". No citation was provided, so I added {{Fact}}. But it was reverted. Why? Lou franklin 03:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been. It was probably a reflex revert or something. I'll add it back. Um... Its still right there, in the article, right where you left it. -Seth Mahoney 03:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. Sorry about that. Why was the POV tag removed? Lou franklin 03:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Dunno. Wasn't me, and we're hardly the organized group of gay extremists you make us out to be (or, at least, we're not organized). -Seth Mahoney 03:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks yet again for coming up with a much needed citation, Haiduc. -Seth Mahoney 04:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Citations and verifiability

Editors, please take care when re-wording a cited claim not to misrepresent what the author said. Here is the actual quote from Leila Rupp about the Sambia maturation rituals: "In the case of the Sambia boys in New Guinea who ingest semen through acts of fellatio on older men, we can ask, “Is that a sexual act? Or akin to taking vitamins?” Is it significant that the boys swallow the semen directly from a penis rather than from a bowl with a spoon?"

Here is Rupp's footnote to that sentence: "This is a point made by Carole S. Vance, “Social Construction Theory: Problems in the History of Sexuality,” in Which Homosexuality?, ed. Dennis Altman et al. (Amsterdam: Dekker/Schorer, 1989), 13–34. Vance credits a student with the incisive question about the bowl and spoon."

While a particular editor may feel "I don't think you can de-sexualize Melanesia pederasty", wikipedia prefers a view published in a reputable source to an editor's view. The point that Rupp and Vance are making is that we should be careful in ascribing "sexuality" (a modern western notion) to certain genital acts that exist in other cultures. I'm not wedded to this particular example, or the wording, but it was changed to attributing a claim to Rupp that she never made.

Citations are given so readers can verify the claims. A bold claim like "most cultures have created a social space to accomodate same-sex sexuality" really needs to be qualified. For example, "historians, anthropologists and cultural theorists agree that...", and then a list of citations from the major writers on the topic who make this claim given in the footnote. Personally, I find it odd that editors want to insert counterclaims like the one above every time a sentence documents any social disapproval toward same-sex sexuality. For me, what is really missing from the lead section is an adequate acknowledgment of how widespread such disapproval is and has been for much of recorded history. Do some editors working on this page think it is homophobic to acknowledge this? ntennis 00:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Particular editor responds: While I have not studied this closely, Herdt indicates that the relationship is generally intimate, loving and erotic. Are you suggesting that the emotional involvement of the two boys with each other is on a level with that of a maid milking a cow?! I am not interposing my opinion here, I simply think we need to cover all aspects. As for the generalized claim of who did what about homosexuality in the past, I absolutely will oppose that kind of terminology, which dumbs down the discussion and feeds into every Tom and Jane's preconceived 21st century notions of "homosexuality." We are not talking about "homosexuality" we are talking about "sodomy", we are talking about behaviors blamed for inciting god's wrath, and specters of the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah. If you are going to say that sodomy (which includes presumably the baker tonguing the aforementioned milkmaid) was punished by death you cannot leave it like that, it is a half truth, and we all know what that is equal to. Haiduc 04:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, Haiduc, I think you are missing the point. My opinion of the nature of the Sambia blow job is irrelevant. I am making no claim about whether or not it is sexual. What is relevant is that notable scholars have questioned the nature of the act, in reputable sources. Or, to be more exact, numerous scholars have examined the cultural specificity of the very concept of sexuality, and some of the most prominent contemporary scholars of same-sex sexuality have used the Sambia example to illustrate the point. If you have a better example from the literature then please give it.

I'm not sure I understand your second point. Do you mean that you will absolutely oppose statements like "most cultures have created a social space to accomodate same-sex sexuality"? I agree that such unqualified and unsourced sweeping statements can "dumb down" the discussion. ntennis 05:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is getting very hard to follow the conversation here for all the old posts. I admit the sweeping generalization, but if you are going to criticize that, then get rid of all of them. I simply found the tone of the previous formulation moralistic and prescriptive. Also, neither do I speak from personal opinion on the Sambia, not having been there. I was simply presenting an aspect that I had read about, I believe from Herdt. No, I no longer know where, it was a long time ago. As for a comment above on this page about Greek citizen boys being an underclass, I think there are conflicting views on that also, we'll have to look at that separately. I don't want to create an antagonistic climate here, and I am sorry if my colorful language hurt others' feelings, in particular Ntennis who sounds put out. Let's just try to be very specific and not use terms like "homosexuality" anachronistically. I don't think anybody here would disagree with the argument that the statement "The Catholic church in Renaissance Florence opposed homosexuality" is nonsensical. But I come across that kind of stuff often. We could talk among ourselves of "Melanesian homosexuality," and we would all know what we meant, but other readers may not. Haiduc 17:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed put out; I didn't mean to give that impression. I do get exasperated at times but I wouldn't be here if I wasn't having fun! :) Can we at least agree that an editor presenting something they vaguely remember reading somewhere, a long time ago, does not meet our encyclopedic standards? You are certainly right about the conflicting views on ancient Greek homosexuality; our friend Rictor Norton, for one, would be one of those who challenge the analysis above. That is why I began the sentence with "it has been suggested, (although it is controversial)...". At the risk of repeating myself, we shouldn't be presenting anything on these slippery subjects as simple truths about "the way things are (or were)". Rather, we should try to preface claims with "several notable scholars have argued..." and then give the citations.

Also, I am pleased to be able to surprise you by disagreeing that the statement about Renaissance Florence is nonsensical. :P It actually does make sense to me, and on first glance appears reasonable. Can you explain why you think it is nonsensical? ntennis 02:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Because what the average person understands as "homosexuality" and what the average Catholic cleric understood as "sodomy" five hundred years ago are sets that intersect only marginally, and the reasons for disapproval in the Renaissance and disapproval today ("God will kill us all" vs. "God hates fags", to chose an example) are also fundamentally different. That's why I think it is much more instructive, and less prone to misunderstanding and interpretational error to be very specific about what it was that was being banned, and why.

Yes, I admit to being sloppy at times, I do it either hoping someone else will fill in the gaps, or thinking that I will get to it soon, real soon. Haiduc 02:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The claim attribtued to Rupp was changed by three editors, but the citation remained, in each case attributing the editor's own perspective to Rupp. In my opinion, this is more dangerous than making an unsourced claim and hoping someone will 'fill in the gaps'. As for the sodomy vs. homosexuality question, I'm not sure that the average person's understanding of sodomy is any more enlightening in this case than their understanding of homosexuality. In fact, I would suggest that to say that the Church opposed "sodomy" and not homosexuality is even more misleading than the simple statement that they opposed homosexuality. For instance, Louis Crompton in "The Myth of Lesbian Impunity: Capital Laws from 1270 to 1791" (Journal of Homosexuality 6:1/2 (1980), pp. 11-26) documents women who were executed for lesbian relations in Italy during this time. Does the "average person" see lesbian sex as sodomy? Crompton's latest book, "Homosexuality and Civilization" (which, BTW, is possibly the single most useful reference for this entire artilce), documents Christian hostility to same-sex sexuality from the time of the Church Fathers (who re-interpretated the story of Sodom to emphasise homosexuality) until the present day. There is ample evidence that sodomy laws are targetted at homosexual male acts rather than other kinds of "unnatural" or non-procreative sex (also see Rictor Norton on this point). Even if the reasons for Christian disapproval of same-sex sexuality are different today than during the renaissance (as you claim), it hardly makes a simple acknowledgement of the Church's disapproval nonsensical. ntennis 05:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sambia boys in New Guinea

I strongly believe that the discussion of the "Sambia boys in New Guinea" should be removed. I say that for several reasons.

Since "it is disputed whether this is best understood as a sexual act at all", it is not relevant to the topic of "societal attitudes towards homosexuality".

Also, it is non-notable. The Sambia is an obscure tribe from the remote regions of New Guinea. Of all of the societies that could have been selected, why was such a unknown one picked?

Additionally, Wikipedia should not be used to spread word about practices that involve the sexual abuse of children. Lou franklin 04:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree on all counts. This topic illustrates the 180-degree differences in societal norms. It is notable for that sole reason, if no others. Yes, it might be troubling to some, but then the easily offended probably shouldn't be reading up on sexually-oriented subject matter (and the word "sex" is in the title). I would also note that "sexual abuse of children" is a subjective matter -- people as young as 12 are old enough to marry in some parts of the world. And finally, once again, Wikipedia is not censored. Cleduc 08:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, but is this topic "sexually-oriented subject matter"? Take a look at this section of the talk page [4]. Chesaguy bemoans the link that "some people see between mentioning orientation and same-gender relationships and intimate details of the sex lives of gay people". It is really necessary to discuss these details in an article about "societal attutudes"? Are the details of homosexual sex really essential to the article? Lou franklin 13:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am generally against the removal of accurate information. This material is a germane example of sexual behavior and its native interpretation. The contention about "sexual abuse of children" is really a kind of cultural aggression which does not belong here. Haiduc 14:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "cultural aggression"? How are examples of "sexual behavior" germane to this topic? Lou franklin 17:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

arcane wikitext

I developed the "Measuring attitudes toward homosexuality" paragraph but am concerned that the wikitext now looks very dense with the new referencing system and a large table, and some may be discouraged from editing the text. I moved the table to a template, so the text just shows a friendlier {{Pew2002}}. I don't know if this is acceptable wikipractice or if there is a better solution? BTW, I'm not particularly attached to formatting the list of stats as a sidebar; I just thought it may be a more interesting layout. - ntennis 15:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Templates shouldn't really be used to contain text that only appears in a single article. From Wikipedia:Template namespace: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article". I don't think it makes the wikitext that crowded. Section editing avoids the need to scroll through huge amounts of text to find a particular part of the article. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's fine with me if you want to revert it. Did you check the wikitext of the old version? I noticed that the Australia article (a featured article) also has a large right-aligned table in the form of a template that is used in no other article. On the other hand, I think templates create a little extra pressure on the poor overloaded wikipedia servers? I'll leave it for you or others to decide. ntennis 15:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. In that case I'll leave it as it is for my part, since I don't mind either way. It's not like it would need to be changed very often. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the table that says, "The 2002 Pew Global Attitudes Project: 'Should homosexuality be accepted by society?'", are those numbers correct? Where is the citation for those numbers? Lou franklin 05:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I just moved the figures here from the sexual orientation page; I didn't check them. Here is the link to the Pew Global Attitudes Project if you would like to do so. ntennis 05:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

They appear to be correct. The direct link is http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/185.pdf . Lou franklin 06:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that :) ntennis 14:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, adding a reference within a template is not possible using the REF tag (and, really, this should be referenced), so that is out of the question. Does anyone know if the REF tag works inside a DIV? If so, it seems like we could put the text at the top of the template in a DIV with a reference to the actual study, and then just keep the data inside the template. -Seth Mahoney 02:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Islam

Islam was listed under Regions and historical periods, though Islam is neither of these. Confusion results -- are we talking about the middle east, Shari'a, or what? As a result, there's an attempt to say what "Islam" "says" about homosexuality -- though it is certainly as complex a subject as what "Christianity" "says" -- there are many voices and interpretations. I have moved the Islam section to lie under Religion and morality where it more properly belongs -- although it is the only subsection (and the rest of that section seems to concern itself with Christianity with minor mentions of everything else). Perhaps a Middle East section should be created under Regions and historical periods. Cleduc 20:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Anything about a specific region and historical period should go under "Regions and historical periods", and anything specific to Islam should go under the new section. Although, now that I think about it, isn't there a homosexuality and Islam? (Yes! Hurrah!) Maybe the Islam section in this article should just paraphrase what's in that article, and anything else should be used to beef up homosexuality and Islam. -Seth Mahoney 21:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

some expect all members to engage in same-sex behaviour, while many others condemn such activity

I hope I am not rehashing an old debate, but this statement strikes me as ethnocentric, and without hard numbers showing that most societies over time found same-sex love blameworthy I believe it should be modified. Which cultures have been "polled" for this? What is the original quote? Haiduc 03:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -Seth Mahoney 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Haiduc, the sentence doesn't day "most", it says "many" — a fact which is well established in the article. I'm sure you remember the discussion we had on this issue a couple of weeks ago. However, I don't oppose the removal of the word "many" if it bothers you. ntennis 04:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion "some expect all members to engage in same-sex behaviour" should be removed. There are very few cultures that expect all members to engage in same-sex behavior. It is an outlier and doesn't belong on the second line of the introduction. Lou franklin 11:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's an outlier. When I wrote the sentence I was trying to give a sense of the breadth of social norms about homosexuality, from one extreme ("everybody does it") to another ("nobody does it"). A weaker statement might be "in some societies, some forms of homosexuality are OK, while in others, none are OK" — but It doesn't really cover the whole spectrum like the initial wording does. What wording do you suggest? ntennis 12:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In most societies homosexuality is condemned, while in other societies some forms of homosexual behavior are acceptable. Lou franklin 12:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

To say that most societies condemn homosexuality outright is a stretch! The first major survey of the prevalence of homosexual practices found that male homosexuality was unknown, rare or repressed in only 28 out of the 76 sampled societies. In 17 societies, female homosexuality was known and accepted. (Ford, Clellan S. and Beach, Frank A. (1951) Patterns of Sexual Behavior . New York: Harper.) More recent research has revealed still more, and there's plenty of evidence that anthropologists have missed or under-reported same-sex activity (especially of women). How about we compromise with a softer "some sanction certain forms of same-sex behaviour, while others disapprove of such activity"? ntennis 16:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So, what we want to say here is that there is a large difference between societies in acceptance, basically ranging from full acceptance to full rejection. So, just say it that way. KimvdLinde 16:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"Some sanction certain forms of same-sex behaviour, while others disapprove of such activity" is a good compromise. I don't like "ranging from full acceptance to full rejection" because if there are any societies with "full acceptance" at all, they are few and far between. Lou franklin 00:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be understood that "certain forms" are all that is ever sanctioned, as is the case with opposite-sex sexuality. Thus "Many sanction same-sex behaviour, while others disapprove of such activity" would be a better starting point. Haiduc 00:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, sounds like we're moving toward an agreement here? I'd also be happy to replace "many" with "some", just to avoid making any kind of quantitative claim. ntennis 02:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I am all for being even-handed, but, speaking about being handed, how would it sound to say "some people are right handed while others are left-handed"? We need to underline that tolerance is the rule and disfavor the exception. Haiduc 02:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the crux of the dispute. I contend that disfavor is the rule and tolerance is the exception. I Googled this site that says "gay identity and life style are neither approved nor accepted by most societies" [5]. I don't think there is any question about that. Look though this very article. Look at the "Anti-homosexual attitudes" section, look at the "Islam" section. Just as more people are right-handed than left-handed, more societies disapprove than approve. Ideally, we would note that in the article. Lou franklin 06:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are "many" cultures on both sides of our somewhat artificial line. The problem is with measuring and comparing social sanction or disapproval. Unlike handedness, we don't really have two discrete groups here — how would you characterise the results of the Pew survey in the table? And as I've said before, how do we count "cultures" anyway? Do we give more weight to more populous societies? Over what time period? Do we include gay culture? Not to mention the already stated difficulties in identifying what constitutes "same sex" and "sexuality" anyway! This is really a question for researchers. In the meantime, let's find a wording we can agree on. Personally, I'm fine with any of these four versions:

1. some expect all members to engage in same-sex behaviour, while many others condemn such activity

2. some sanction certain forms of same-sex behaviour, while others disapprove of such activity

3. many sanction same-sex behaviour, while others disapprove of such activity

4. some sanction same-sex behaviour, while others disapprove of such activity

Haiduc, could you live with number 4? -ntennis 03:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's another option (simplicity is important in the lead section): "some sanction homosexuality, while others disapprove of it". -ntennis 05:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Some sanction certain forms of same-sex behaviour, while others disapprove of such activity" is an acceptable compromise, but really "sanction" is too strong of a word. "Tolerate" or "permit" would be more accurate. Also, I think the "certain forms of" is important. It is more accurate to say that "some sanction certain forms of same-sex behavior" than "some sanction same-sex behavior". Lou franklin 06:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of them "sanction" opposite-sex behavior too; if we chose to use other terminology for one, then that's a value judgement about it. Some societies do care about the distinction, some do and object, others don't, or place equal value. Georgewilliamherbert 08:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This difference in perception of the relative proportion of 'pro-gay' and 'anti-gay' cultures is really interesting; it speaks volumes about the different ways we can interpret the data. Note that in the quote from glbtq.com, "gay identity and life style are neither approved nor accepted by most societies", she is talking about gay identity and lifestyle — this is actually a separate phenomenon to sexual behaviour. I'm not just splitting hairs; in many cases, a gay lifestyle and identity may be totally inappropriate, while certain genital acts between males (for example) are a normal part of life. We could say: "some sanction certain forms of homosexuality, while others disapprove of certain forms of homosexuality", but I'd rather keep the wording as simple as possible for the wide range of readers this page may have.

There's another small point that's come up a couple of times on this thread, relating to the words "acceptance" or "tolerated". To me, this implies that an individual's sexuality pre-exists culture, and is constrained by it. However, there's a large body of writing that argues that the form and meaning of sexuality itself is socially constructed, and we should be careful not to misrepresent the scholarship on this. ntennis 08:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The argument at glbtq is strictly a modern day argument and while incontestable (and limited as you mention) it is not relevant to a historical discussion (which is what that paragraph is, unless I am mistaken). As for sexuality being completely socially constructed - you are not really arguing that, are you? There would be no transgressive desire if that were the case. As for "tolerated", the term is intolerable. It comes from the Latin "tollere", to bear a weight, and the current use is analogous. Lou, how would you feel to be told that you are "tolerated" here?

I'd feel grateful for the promotion. Can we compromise on "permitted"? Lou franklin 12:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

With all this discussion of "approval", "disapproval", "sanction", "tolerance". It seems we're describing a like/dislike dichotomy that may not be universal. What about the possibility of indifference. Surely, it's not always a matter of: "It should be stopped" or "Yes, we are fine with it". What about the "It doesn't matter, and we don't care". Is there any support for culture really not even having it on their radar? Just wondering. --Chesaguy 17:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Indifference is the rule, as has been indicated in a couple of related articles where we mentioned that the gender of the beloved was not of concern. As for the formulation of "permit," it still sounds too guarded. Imagine saying that "in antiquity swimming was permitted at most beaches." Haiduc 17:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree, but let's come to some agreement. I am not all that comfortable with Ntennis' suggestion of "some sanction same-sex behaviour, while others disapprove of such activity", but it beats the hell out of "some expect all members to engage in same-sex behaviour". So let's go with that, shall we? Lou franklin 01:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Another option would be, for the introduction, to focus on legislation (which, without thinking about it at all seems like it would be more straightforward), and save the more complex cultural talk for specific sections. -Seth Mahoney 02:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me because it is more verifiable. As long as it still reads like an introduction to a "societal attitudes" article rather than a legal article, that would be great. Lou franklin 02:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My thinking was that laws are one type of societal attitude, and laws are, as you said, more easily verifiable (though their application is often another matter), and that we were just talking about this one sentence, not the entire introduction. For sections on specific cultures, we would have to make more detailed statements about their often more complex cultural, rather than legal, attitudes. -Seth Mahoney 02:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Procreative sex as a sexual norm - all cultures or most cultures?

This has been chagned back and forth a couple of times so i'll share my thoughts. Firstly, I am wary of any blanket statements about "all cultures". Some cultures did not "consider procreative sex within recognised relationships a sexual norm", eg the Skoptzy (there are others). I would be happy with "all" if it was qualified, e.g. "all national cultures" or something. But why not leave it simply as "most"? ntennis 05:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. Lou franklin 02:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This may be tricky ground to walk. Without sounding too much like a first year philosophy student (I hope), the validity of that statement depends to a great degree on how terms like 'norm' are used. In many cultures it seems that while it may be perfectly accurate to say that procreative sex was considered the norm, the attitude toward nonprocreative sex was indifferent or, using certain periods of the Ottoman empire as an example, even encouraged within the right context. These attitudes are compatible enough, so long as "consider procreative sex the norm" isn't taken to mean "consider nonprocreative sex deviant/sinful/wrong/unhealthy/etc." To complicate matters further, what counts as procreative sex can vary from culture to culture. Among certain groups in the West, only sex with procreation (not pleasure) as its goal counts as procreative sex (in official discourse - likely, lives were lived according to different standards), and among many other groups sex between a male and female where procreation is impossible still fell under the umbrella of "procreative sex" (for the purposes of determining norms, anyway). -Seth Mahoney 02:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed for repairs

I am bringing in the last para of the intro, since in its present form it is ethnocentric and punitive. I appreciate Ntennis' motives for attempting to balance things, but I think we need to polish this brick a bit more.

New Version:

Most of the world's cultures have considered procreative sex within a recognised relationship to be a sexual norm — sometimes exclusively so. Some religions, especially those influenced by the Abrahamic tradition, have long considered homosexual acts and relationships undesirable. Throughout the history of the Christian-dominated West, a range of practises have attempted to prevent same-sex sexuality, including execution for offenders. Since the 1970s, the dominant culture in the West has become more tolerant of same-sex sexuality between partners of legal age.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

Old version:

All of the world's cultures have considered procreative sex within a recognised relationship to be a sexual norm, often in parallel with customs that facilitated same-sex relations. Some religious traditions have long considered sodomy undesirable, and, acting through their own institutions or those of the state, have even carried out or supported the death penalty for those who engage in same-sex sexual behaviour. Since the 1970s, the dominant culture in the West has become more tolerant of same-sex sexuality between partners of legal age.

Critique of new version: It privileges procreative sex, and it ignores the experience of the other four fifths of the world. Haiduc 00:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The new version also ignores those (admittedly rare) instances in Christian history where homosexual sex was acceptable-ish. It seems like something like the new version belongs in a section on the Christian west(s), and some brief mention about Christian attitudes toward homosexuality should be added to the old version. -Seth Mahoney 01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

same-sex 'marriage'

I thought this issue could be resolved quickly and would not require its own section on this discussion page. I was apparently wrong, so I am continuing the discussion here.

Billions of people object to the term "same-sex marriage". Most people agree that "marriage" means the same thing that it has meant for hundreds of years: the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. The best way to handle this is not to use the term "same-sex marriage" at all - either with or without quotes. But I thought that a fair compromise would be to change "same-sex marriage" to "same-sex 'marriage'" since the difference is barely detectible anyway. I really didn't think that was an unreasonable request, given the numbers of people who disapprove of the term.

But my changes were quickly reverted with a comment of "it's not a compromise until someone else actually thinks that they're somehow necessary". But billions of people think they're necessary! In the official teaching of the Catholic church, for example, gay marriage is an oxymoron - a logical impossibility [6] and Catholics represent 1/6 of the world! And that is to say nothing of all of the other groups that feel the same way on the matter. How in the world can you contend that those people don't exist, and that a such an enormous number of people's views should not be acknowledged with even a single quote? Lou franklin 13:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a legal term in several countries. As such it is a valid term. Its a reality that the term is used as is. Whatever people accept it or not is after that irrelevant. IT is only a oxymoron when you start with the assumption that the word inplies opposite sex partners, which many people do not. Furthermore, I know sufficient number of catholics that have no issue with the term, and so linking between the official doctrine and the folowers is an invalid argument. KimvdLinde 16:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"it's not a compromise until someone else actually thinks that they're somehow necessary". This is actually irrelevant, as it is not to Wikipedia and its editors to change the legal meaning of terms as used in various countries, regardless of how many people want to see it used. KimvdLinde 17:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse the sarcasm, but "billions"? And all of those people speak English? And you have evidence of this? I hate to break it to you, but if your argument is that 1/6 of the world is Roman Catholic, and Roman Catholic dogma is anti-gay, therefore 1/6 of the world agrees with that dogma, that argument is a syllogism. (Never mind that few of them would understand or object to that particular english phrase.) Granted, it's probably not far from true -- I'm sure you can scrape up a billion people who disagree with gay marriage without breaking a sweat (though they probably won't all be RC). I just don't see how you can present this as a fact unless you have a reputable source for this claim.

Since I recall someone being rather "wed" to the dictionary definitions of words, here's the Merriam-Webster dictionary's definition: (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> (and that's a real red-blooded US dictionary, not some commie-pinko-euro-canadian dictionary).

This issue is covered quite thoroughly at Marriage and at Same-sex marriage (which is where this discussion has already happened many times) -- and we've been over this here before. Nothing new this time except a false claim that we haven't discussed it before. Cleduc 02:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The scare quotes are unnecessary.. if there has been notable criticism of the term "same sex marriage" as a contradiction under someone's belief system, that criticism should be added. Scare quotes should almost always be avoided in articles. Rhobite 18:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The scare quotes were a compromise. Removing the term “same-sex marriage” from the article, although clearly the right thing to do, was not acceptable to these editors. If scare quotes must be avoided, let’s do the right thing and remove the term entirely.

As somebody said just above, “I'm sure you can scrape up a billion people who disagree with gay marriage without breaking a sweat”. I don’t think that anybody here would argue that point. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered" and "under no circumstances can they be approved." The Catechism is translated to almost every language on the planet and is the summary of principles for one billion people. There are many other religious groups, and many other people who are also deeply offended by the term “same-sex marriage”. Many people feel that this term undermines the institution of marriage. Many people feel that marriage is a sacred relationship between a man and woman sanctioned by God as the best way to organize families and rear children. The fact that you feel that the addition of ' is too drastic and cannot be compromised on says a lot about the perspective of this “consensus”. Lou franklin 03:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Repetition does not change the fact that it is a legal term used by several countries as is. As such, there is nothing to change about that. KimvdLinde 03:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you ignored my point, just because the RC church says something doesn't mean all "one billion" catholics support it -- see Birth control (and syllogism). The scare quotes were not a compromise: they were unilateral on your part, and nobody else agreed (once again, see the archive). Cleduc 03:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You just finished saying “I'm sure you can scrape up a billion people who disagree with gay marriage without breaking a sweat”. So how does a huge number of people (at least in the hundreds of millions) who feel that "same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron not warrant a '? Lou franklin 04:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, a billion people may disagree with gay marriage. That does not mean that they are on your side on a silly semantic battle over the definition of the word marriage. If you have specific evidence to the contrary, enlighten me. Can't help but notice, but suddenly you're not paying attention to the dictionary anymore. What's the matter? Cleduc 04:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

For everyone's consideration: Would an acceptable compromise be to use 'same-sex marriage' (without scare quotes) in legal contexts, and limit discussion in a rights context to phrases such as, "LGBT rights activists are attempting to broaden the definition of 'marriage' to include same-sex partners where such redefinition has not already taken place."? -Seth Mahoney 04:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's a factual statement. Do we have a source for that? Cleduc 04:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A source for the statement that LGBT groups are trying to broaden the definition of marriage? I'm sure we could come up with one, if you really think it is necessary. Although, now that I think of it, there are also arguments that the definition of marriage already includes same-sex couples, and redefinition is unnecessary. -Seth Mahoney 04:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Counting

Lets see, all but one editor is in favour of leaving things as they are and that is Same-Sex Marriage without quotes around it. Clear! --KimvdLinde 05:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope you can count to a billion. Lou franklin 05:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that a threat of meatpuppetry? As much as I'd love to have a billion editors on Wikipedia, that doesn't seem likely anytime soon. Cleduc 05:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Unacceptable behaviour

User:Lou franklin changed the main page with as edit summary: (Compromise per talk page). This compromise is ONLY accepted by him, not by other editors. I suggest that he does not add compromises to the page anymore, and let that be done by other editors when there is indeed a compromise that is accpeted by all, aka, when there is consensus about the compromise! KimvdLinde 18:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Who did you consult with before making this edit: [7]? I must have missed that on the discussion page. As has been explained to you several times, this compromise is not only accepted by me - it is accepted my the majority of the world. Lou franklin 03:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not to Wikipedia and its editors to change the legal meaning of terms as used in laws of various countries. Furthermore, what non-editors think of it is irrelevant for the consensus, because I could argue equally that there are billions of people who do support Same-Sex Marriage! KimvdLinde 03:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if I didn't understand all of that. I don't believe that "leagal" and "cinsensus" are words, but I think I understood your basic argument nonetheless. I think you tried to say that "what non-editors think is irrelevant". That seems to indicate that you feel that the opinion a billion people doesn't matter because they don't edit this article. Of course that doesn't make sense, but was that even what you were trying to say? Lou franklin 03:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

a) Please don't be snarky about people's inability to spell. Comment on the content rather than making personal attacks. Thanks.

b) Majority does not equal right. If you can make a reasoned argument to change our minds other than "billions of other people think this," I would like to hear it. But people who think critically make decisions about right and wrong for themselves rather than doing what everyone else says is right. Yes, frequently this ends up with them going with the majority, but not always by any means.

Hbackman 03:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The majority of people think that "same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron. You can't just ignore them all because "majority does not equal right". It's great that you are such a critical thinker, but when writing an encyclopedia article you actually need to use language that most people understand. It also helps if you don't unnecessarily offend the majority of the free world. Lou franklin 03:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The "most people don't understand 'same-sex marriage'" "argument" (used by you explicitely above, and implied in the sentence "when writing an encyclopedia article you actually need to use language that most people understand") is so ridiculous as to justify anyone participating on this page ignoring all your comments, Lou. It is just preposterous to try to say that most people don't understand what 'same-sex marriage' means, and if that's the level at which you're capable of engaging a text, listening to you just isn't worth it. -Seth Mahoney 04:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, if these theoretical billions of people will be hopelessly confused when they see the phrase same-sex marriage, how in the world do you think surrounding it with single quotes will make it any more comprehensible to them? Call this edit what it is Lou: an attempt to imply disapproval (which is definitively POV). The fact that the disapproval exists is a necessary topic to explore in the article. But to add an implicit support for that disapproval is POV and not, as you claim, clarification. --Chesaguy 04:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It makes it a lot more comprehensible. The quotes mean that the authors understand that the term "same-sex marriage" is not universally accepted. It does not express support for that disapproval in any way. It just acknowledges that disapproval exists. Lou franklin 04:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hardly Lou. If one does not understand the phrase (as was your contention), puncuation will not make it more comprehensible. Acknowledging that the disapproval exists should be done in words, not snarl quotes. Putting quotes around a phrase in such a way indicates dubiousness, not disagreement. The quotes suggest, not that the authors acknowledge that a dispute exists as to meaning, but the expression itself is not legitimate. Why not suggest wording to express the dispute rather that the quotes which are, at best, ambiguous. If you can cite a source for the billions of people who see the phrase same-sex marriage as an oxymoron, put that in, since you seem to be claiming that this is the meaning of the quotes. --Chesaguy 04:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not just leave the quotes out and explicitely discuss the disapproval? -Seth Mahoney 04:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a great idea to explicitely discuss the disapproval, but the term should not be included elsewhere in the article for the reasons already given. Lou franklin 04:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You haven't really given any good reasons, though. Your only ones seem to be "people don't understand what 'same-sex marriage' means" (which is obviously false), and "lots of people don't agree with same-sex marriage" (which is obviously irrelevant). -Seth Mahoney 04:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The term "same-sex marriage" is POV. Many people don't understand what 'same-sex marriage' means. Please provide a link that proves that to be "obviously false". Many others feel that "same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron. Lou franklin 05:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Since when is a legal term POV? KimvdLinde 05:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have explained that at least three times. Lawyers have their own vernacular that is often very different from the language used by common citizens. Many legal terms would be POV in a non-legal context. Lou franklin 05:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage is not a legal term -- it is a popular term. The law doesn't use that term, generally. Cleduc 05:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Provide a single source, Lou, that suggests that many (English speaking) people don't understand what 'same-sex marriage' means. For that matter, provide a single source that suggests that any people (who are fluent in English) don't understand what 'same-sex marriage' means. The point is utterly ridiculous. -Seth Mahoney 05:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It is utterly ridiculous from your perspective as a gay man. My Aunt Mildred from Nebraska has no idea what the term same-sex marriage means. To her - and those of her generation - marriage has always meant the same thing.

Here is your "single source": http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu68.htm#answer2 . I'm sure we could Google many more, or better yet - just talk to people you know. There are a lot of people confused by the term 'same-sex marriage'.Lou franklin 05:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That source doesn't prove what you want to prove at all! I want studies, something reliable, not someone who obviously wants 'same-sex marriage' to appear confusing! I have quite a bit of faith in people's ability to take a verb they hear applied in one situation, and apply it in another similar situation with little difficulty. -Seth Mahoney 05:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that there are studies about what percentage of people are confused by the term "same-sex marriage"? Is that really reasonable? And what "verb" are you talking about?

I asked you to provide a link that proves your claim that people are confused by the term is "obviously false". You were not able to. Adding a ' to the article is really not a lot to ask of a non-POV group of editors. Lou franklin 06:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That source, to me, clearly shows that some people disagree with same-sex marriage, but I don't understand how it supports your assertion that some people don't know what the term "same-sex marriage means."

The term "same-sex marriage" is a catchword in the debate over whether marriage should be limited to the union of a man and a woman. Anyone who knows about current events, especially current political events, would know the term. I believe someone else in this discussion cited some sources from CNN and another news outlet that would support that contention.

Hbackman 05:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The link does "support my assertion that some people don't know what the term 'same-sex marriage' means". The question is asked "how can two persons of the same sex get married when they cannot be husband and wife?" That sounds like confusion about the term "same-sex marriage" to me.

It is clearly a deliberate rhetorical phrasing. FAQs aren't always questions that people actually ask; sometimes, and especially on controversial political/religious issues, they're the questions that whoever is writing the FAQ wants people to ask. It's a great way to create false controversy. This is like the scientists hired by the government to "question global warming." There is no controversy among independent scientists as to the existence of global warming. People who find it inconvenient to acknowledge the phenomenon just make people ask questions that no reasonable and informed person would ask to create an appearance of controversy so that they can manipulate other people who (and here we're back to critical thinking) just swallow everything they're told. Hbackman 06:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not assume that all readers of the article "know about current events, especially current political events". They may not.

I was asked to "provide a single source that suggests that many people don't understand what 'same-sex marriage' means". When I did, your response was it doesn't count because it was "clearly a deliberate rhetorical phrasing".

You asked to prove that your claim that this is "obviously false" you could not. Lou franklin 12:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is all nonsense. -Seth Mahoney 06:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, there's some openmindedness for you. Lou franklin 12:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

So are we supposed to write to the level of readers who have been living in a locked box for the past five years? If you watch TV, you've heard about this almost for sure. Hbackman 06:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You are making too many assumptions about the reader. There are young readers and readers from other countries. Lou franklin 12:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source to back up this assertion, such as the Pew study? How do you define "free world?" Why should we be concerned with whether people are offended by facts? Cleduc 04:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearer now? KimvdLinde 03:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The words makes sense now, but the idea still doesn't. Lou franklin 03:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And I do not expect you to ever be able to accept that. However, it is not to you to change the legal definition of a term as used by several countries, and unless you can come up with some extremely good arguments that would require an encyclopaedia to make decisions about the incorrectness of a legal term as used by some countries, you and I have to live with the fact that same-sex marriage is used as it is used, and that is to indicate the marriage between two people of the same sex. An encyclopaedia is to report facts, not to change them! KimvdLinde 04:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That is my point exactly. Your laws can use any language that they want. That doesn't change the fact that the large majority of the world's population define "marriage" as the union of man and wife. Regardless of what words Bhutan uses in its laws, you can not have two men join as husband and wife. Lou franklin 04:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Good, now that we have established that it is a legal term and as such encyclopedic, can we go on with making sensible edits? KimvdLinde 04:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you aren't fluent in English, so please forgive me if I appear to be talking down to you: I just made the point that "your laws can use any language that they want. That doesn't change the fact that the large majority of the world's population define 'marriage' as the union of man and wife." The point is that we don't change terminology because some tiny island nation used a word in their legislation. I am trying to persuade you to make "sensible edits" that reflect the language and attitudes used in the majority of the world. Lou franklin 04:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Canada a "tiny island nation"? -Seth Mahoney 04:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It's the second (or fourth) largest country by area, #37 by population, #9 by GDP. And 43.2% of them are Roman Catholic, which must be impossible since 66% of Canadians are okay with same-sex marriage, and everybody knows that all Catholics follow Church dogma. You could call it tiny, but it is definitely not an island. Sorry to answer a rhetorical question, nationalism got the better of me again :). Cleduc 05:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. How does that change the fact that the large majority of the world's population define "marriage" as the union of man and wife? Lawyers have their own vernacular that is often very different from the language used by common citizens. Lou franklin 05:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

So how many countries, of what size, have to change what marriage means before it means something different? -Seth Mahoney 05:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you selected Bhutan randomly, but a cursory search reveals that people in Bhutan practice polygamy. So much for that argument. Care to present some evidence? Cleduc 04:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about polygamy in Bhutan. The point is that we don't change words because some tiny country used a particular word in a bill. You can't have two women join as man and wife regardless of what words are used in some obscure haitian law. Lou franklin 04:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't get any better by repetition. You need to supply evidence of this "universal agreement of the meaning of the word marriage" -- which will be hard considering that the predominant common usage is reflected in the dictionary. Cleduc 04:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

MW's inclusion of that definition is clear evidence of its liberal bias and participation in the liberal gay agenda. -Seth Mahoney 05:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't think that gay people lobbied to have that definition changed? Lou franklin 05:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please, please, please tell me that that was tongue in cheek. Hbackman 05:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If that's your argument, then I suggest you find some evidence. Cleduc 05:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just can't resist: "you can not have two men join as husband and wife" -- my marriage certificate, produced before Ontario updated its forms, says exactly that. Laws can do anything in human society, and human society has changed. Language has changed as a result, and if you don't think so, you obviously haven't checked the dictionary. Cleduc 04:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I already contacted him about that. He may not listen, however. One option, though it may be too late in the process for this, would be to add that suggestion to the arbitration case against him. -Seth Mahoney 18:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If he ends up being blocked from editing the article (in my mind, the most likely end to all of this), does it even matter? Hbackman 03:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

new section proposed by Lou

Lou just inserted this section, which I think is strong POV, as it uses the disputed quotes, claims things that are grosely unsourced etc etc etc. KimvdLinde 02:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wide-spread opposition to same-sex "marriage"

Billions of people worldwide oppose same-sex "marriage"‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  . Using the term "marriage" to describe a union of homosexuals undermines the institution of marriage ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . Billions of people feel that marriage is a sacred relationship between a man and woman sanctioned by God as the best way to organize families and rear children ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› .

For hundreds of years the term "marriage" has meant the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. As such, the term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron, a logical impossibility. This is the official teaching of the Catholic Church, of which there are one billion members [8], as well as the position of several other religious groups ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› and countless people across the globe‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› .

The term "same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms that is the source of considerable confusion [9]. The point has been made that "after World War II, dictionaries were taken over by sodomy-enabling secularists who tried to make America accept homosexuality by hijacking some of our most cherished words" [10]

Ok, My problems with the text. First of all, the scare quotes again. Second, no sourcing see {{Fact}} tags. Thirdly, the sources used are either not providing evidence for what is claimed, or are extreme partisan sources, not neutral sources. Until this is fixed, this is totally rejected. KimvdLinde 02:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you randomly crossing out text? Do you dispute that the Catholic Church has one billion members? On what grounds?

You crossed out a line that said "the point has been made..." which had a link to the exact location where the point has been made. What are you thinking? Lou franklin 02:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

All crossed out text is either based on non-acceptable sources, namely activist sources. Or they make a link that is not valid. The official teaching of the catolic church does NOT imply that everybody agrees with that. KimvdLinde 02:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's try it again: On what grounds did you remove the fact that the Catholic Church has one billion members?

The topic of the article is "societal attitudes". The text "the point has been made" was followed by a link that shows one place where the point has indeed been made. Does that represent a "societal attitude" or not? How is it less POV than "The Invention of Heterosexuality"? Lou franklin 03:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Lou, is that really the best you can do? Do you honestly feel that the passage above reflects a neutral point-of-view? You can do better. --Chesaguy 02:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dude, if you honestly feel that refusing to add a ' is too much of a compromise you are on crack cocaine. There are billions of people who are offended by that term. Don't talk to me about "neutral point-of-view" when you won't even compromise on a '. Lou franklin 02:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dude, the quote has specific connotations that promote a non-Neutral Point of View. Accepting it would not be "compromise" (see how the scare quotes work). --Chesaguy 03:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

'The lack of the quote "has specific connotations that promote a non-Neutral Point of View". Lou franklin 03:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So you would then prefer to violate NPOV by commission than by omission? The lack of a quote has no connotations, in and of itself. The quote is either there or it's not. Not having the quote does not necessarily endorse same-sex marriage, but having the quote definitely derides the concept. --Chesaguy 03:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Mostly this subject belongs on Same-sex marriage where it is already covered -- except the grudge about the dictionary, which is a hilarious new conspiracy theory that makes great reading. I think "people object to the term 'same-sex marriage" on moral and/or religious grounds -- see Same-sex marriage" would be adequate. Cleduc 02:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is in no way "adequate". This article uses the term "same-sex marriage". You have refused to make even the most minor of compromises, to add a '. On some level you need to address the fact that your view on the matter is a minority viewpoint opposed by the large majority of the people on this planet. Lou franklin 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Lou, this sort of stunt is why you're going to get whacked by Arbitrators shortly. It's not really controversial that a lot of people oppose gay marriage... one can do a poll in neutral or even pro-gay-marriage terms and find out that most people in the US oppose it. Phrasing the description of that statistical truth and people's opinions on it as an attack on gays, however, is not neutral point of view.

You're getting stomped on because you can't say true things without introducing gross bias and insults against people. Which is a pity. You're an ineffective spokesman for the conservative viewpoint, because you can't write encyclopedic material and resort to attacking instead of describing. I can't even engage here while you're doing this stuff... you're so frustrating to work with that I have to just walk away until you get whacked by Arbcom, and then maybe I'll have the patience to come back and try and make some points here. Georgewilliamherbert 03:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Time to remove POV tag

Only one editor (Lou franklin) wants this tag, which he now bases solely on scare quotes around the term "same-sex marriage". He has been unable to convince any other editors that this change is necessary. In his own edit summary when adding the scare quotes he said "In preparation to remove POV tag - see discussion page" -- which indicates that this is the last issue that concerns him. Since his retaliatory and self-referential new section has been removed from the article, I see no reason to humour him by leaving the POV tag on any longer. Cleduc 03:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support for removal of POV tag. KimvdLinde 03:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it - I actually have some ongoing POV issues with the article; Lou is a terrible menace to civilized discussion about them, and I don't want to engage until he is sanctioned, but there are still some issues here. Lest this be misinterpreted, I completely absolutely disagree with how he's trying to phrase things. But there are still issues with neutrality and POV. It's far better than a couple months ago, and further back, but still has further to go. Georgewilliamherbert 03:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Since another editor has chimed in that he wants to address some POV issues, I withdraw my call. I look forward to working with you, Mr. Herbert. Cleduc 03:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)