Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-28 Homosexuality and religion revert war

Carry-over from article talk page

I am copying the mediator's paragraph from the article's talk page to here, to get things started. Sean Lotz talk 07:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody! I'm one of the cabalists that just took the case for mediation. I am glad to see that so far this dispute has been rather civil (compared to most revert wars) and I hope we can proceed with that in mind. I'm still only scratching the surface here, but from what I can gather, there is a contested pararaph that Inthebeginning has added and continues to revert to. I have read the paragraph, although I have not checked out the sources yet, and it seems to follow the rules in that it properly cites material. I suppose the real question here is the relevance of that paragraph pertaining to the article, and whether or not the points raised in that paragraph qualify as original research or analysis. User:Tony Fox raised some interesting points concerning that, but, in the interests of remaining impartial, I don't want to take sides here. So instead, I would like to hear from the involved parties. Inthebeginning, are you sure that this article is the right place for your paragraph? Certainly, that paragraph is relevant elsewhere and belongs under the 'criticisms' section of the 'homosexual marraige' article or perhaps in an article all its own, if you can prove that a credible researcher or notable person has drawn the same conclusions. And Queezbo, if you can't accept the paragraph as being relevant, are you sure you wouldn't rather construct a solid philosophical argument instead of simply reverting his edits? for example, the idea that homosexual marraige would inevitably lead to the destruction of society could be counterbalanced by other factors, such as technological advances (e.g. Brave New World) or a concept of societal responsibility which transcends sexual preference (sexually reproducing anyway regardless of orientation). Or, you could argue that the world faces a terrible overpopulation problem as it is, so homosexual marraige is a logical solution to a major problem. These are some rather ridiculous options, I know, but perhaps you should meet each other on your respective terms, rather than reverting constantly. I wish Wikipedia was a place where people could agree to disagree, but sadly this is not the case. Our goal here is to create a good article that does not include bias or irrelevant information. Please contact me and let me know what you think. Also, we should move the discussion of this particular dispute to this page to avoid cluttering the article's talk page. Antimatter 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

First, thank you to the several persons who have taken an interest in this since I put in the request with the (non-existant?) Cabal. Second, yes, your summary is correct. The problem is a paragraph which I believe to be irrelevant to the article, though it might be appropriate elsewhere. I think that its relevance is the only thing to be discussed, really.

Sean Lotz talk 07:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why I do not want to counter-argue

I thought about writing something to oppose Inthebeginning's views, but decided not to, since it would not be relevant to the topic of the article. And since my whole contention is that his/her addition is not releveant to begin with, it would be silly of me to put a bunch more irrelevant material to balance it out. And besides, my own understanding of this matter is not really relevant here. I could agree completely with her/his comments. I don't, but I could. And I would still find it irrelevant in this article.

I sort of want to argue the matter here, but I don't want to dilute my assertion that the whole thing simply does not belong in this article.

Inthebeginning (would you mind if I call you "ITB"?) says,

...all societies that have accepted homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle have fertility rates below replacement and are certain to perish off the face of the earth unless they reverse their position. Those societies that legalize gay marriage have also legalized no-fault divorce and abortion. No-fault divorce and abortion always precede gay marriage.

Where to start? What s/he says is "D (no-fault divorce) and A (abortion) precede H (homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle) in those societies where H exists. H accompanies L (low fertility rates)." Even if it is true that H accompanies L, it is a logical falacy to suppose that H causes L. One would have to examine societies which do not have H and see if they also have L.

It is known that high economic and educational levels generally coincide with (maybe produce?) L. Countries which allow A and D tend to be ones which have higher economic and educational levels. There certainly is no reason to blame L on H.

I believe that the first country in modern times to allow same-sex marriage is the Netherlands, in 2001. In that time, what precipitous decline of population has been recorded? I don't know. Maybe he/she can back up his/her assertion with hard facts from the last five years, but I doubt it.

But none of that is relevant to "homosexuality and religion."

ITB does try to make it relevant by the assertion

This explains why there has not been gay marriage in past - religious prohabitions against homosexuality have guaranteed survival.

First, no it does not explain anything. It may be true that "it makes sense to me," but that is not the same as explanation. It is like saying, "Trichonosis explains why pork was considered unclean in the ancient Jewish law." Well, no it doesn't. That may have been the reason, or part of it, but I don't know, can't know. I can guess, but all it is is a guess. Same in this case. A guess is all it can ever be. Second, it makes no sense. If religions prohibited same-sex marriage for the sake of procreation, then there would not be so many voices in several religions in favor of celibacy. Christianity certainly has it, in the persons of Jesus Christ and Saint Paul, both of whom obviously prefer celibacy over marriage and procreation. Buddhism absolutely shows this, with Buddha himself teaching that sexual desire and its fulfillment is no way to reach enlightment. Hinduism has its tradition of celibate holy men, about which I don't know enough to comment other than the simply assertion of their existence.

The problem is that homosexuals comprise only about 2-3% of any population, according to any reliable research I have read. That's just not enough to deplete the population. It is far less of a concern than would be a whole bunch of Christians or Buddhists taking seriously the words of their respective founders and Scriptures. It is at least theoretically possible that, oh, let's just say 50% of all Christians could decide to become "eunuchs for the Kingdom." But it's not theoretically possible in any universe I have ever inhabitted for 50% of the population to be gay.

And there is the problem for me. Whenever I am confronted by an assertion which makes no sense to me at all, I ask myself, "What set of assumptions would make this reasonable?" And the best I can come up with in this case is, "I think ITB is assuming that if same-sex marriages were made legal, then hoards of men would 'decide to live a homosexual lifestyle,' and would flock to the courthouses to divorce their wives and marry their beer-drinking buddies." In the universe I inhabit, this would not happen. The men who live in the same universe as I are mostly straight, and will always be that way. I have yet to meet one who is waiting for legal approval so he can 'convert.' -- This is the only thing I can think of which makes sense out of ITB's assertion. If somebody else can think of another angle, I would love to hear it.

But still, none of this is relevant. Even if the argument "religions prohibit it because it decreases population" were true, it would need to be stated, with support, for each religion for which it is true, not in general, since various religions in this article treat sexuality differently. If only two of them encourage celibacy, then you can't say that all of them in general prohibit homosexual marriage for the sake of population.

I'm tired of typing. That's enough for now. Sean Lotz talk 08:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed text

Just for convenience, here is a link to an old version with the disputed text. It is the fourth paragraph, beginning with, "One fact that is not disputed...." Ironic, isn't it, that all this dispute is about a declaration of indisputability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_and_religion&oldid=90653254

Sean Lotz talk 18:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

an opinion

Well Sean has made some interesting points. I have formulated a tentative compromise. The disputed text is inserted in the article's lead-in, which is generally only reserved for a general discussion and overview of the bulk of the article. I find myself having difficulty believing that homosexual marraige is the only cause of low fertility rates. As Sean said, there are a number of socioeconomic factors that contribute to lower fertility rates, and although homosexuality may be one of them, its total influence is most likely negligible. Anyway my compromise is this: the disputed text could be moved from the head of the article to its own section, as long as it is clear that the text is a belief that is held by some notable authorities or religions. I don't think saying it is indisputable is appropriate, nothing in sociology is absolute and indisputable. A counter-argument could be included along with it, if necessary. This is a very tentative compromise, as we have yet to hear from Inthebeginning. I hope you understand that through the course of this mediation some of you may have to sacrifice some of your beliefs in order to forge a complete, informative, and unbiased article. Let's hear some compromises from both sides of the table as well, that way we can see where we stand on this. Please keep it civil and avoid a revert war. Antimatter 00:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Wiki eZach| talk 01:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions and the encouragement. I am involved in WP in part because of this very sort of thing. I really believe in this process. As long as everyone is civil and cares about the good of the project, it really works!

First, let me make my position clear: I don't really care what opinions are expressed here in WP, as long as they are relevant, reasonable, and factual. I am quite willing to see all sorts of things in various contentious articles, many of which I would rather not see. But that's life; it's not all about my opinion or point of view.

Frankly, my opposition to the inclusion of Inthebeginning's paragraph has nothing to do with the basic idea. (Whether I disagree or agree with the content is a different matter.) It is just that it does not belong in this article. So I'm not sure if putting it farther down would help, though that would certainly be preferable to having it in the lead-in, where it certainly does not belong, by any standards.

I am willing to let beliefs with which I disagree find their way into this or any other article. And I have edited out things I really liked in other articles because they were inappropriate or not verifiable.

So anyway, I won't fight ITB on the basic idea he/she wants to espouse. As long as it is reasonable and relevant, let it stay! I'd let somebody else delete it if it needs it. I just don't think that what was written satisfies any of my (reasonable) criteria.

But this may all be moot. I think ITB may be away on vacation or in hospital or just tired of it all. We haven't heard from him/her in a while. I put a message on his/her talk page about this attempt at mediation, but I don't know if it was seen.

At any rate, I will not revert if ITB re-adds the offending paragraph, as long as there is an attempt at mediation going on.

Sean Lotz talk 08:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead in the water?

Well, I don't know when one just admits that the issue is moot, but it has been a week since Inthebeginning's last edit to the page in question, so I suspect this is a non-issue. Maybe she/he will return from vacation or something in a few days and it will start up again, but for now, it looks like the issue is settled. I hope that you, Dmeyering, will keep watching the page just in case, but if nothing else happens and there is no further call for communication here, I want to thank you now for your offer of help (and you, too, Wikizach, but apparently you've left already). Sean Lotz talk 01:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, still here just busy with cases. Wiki eZach| talk 02:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well, I'm always willing to help out...in a way I'm kind of glad it worked out the way it did. Hopefully, if there is a resurgence in activity, we can discuss it again, but for now this case seems to have cooled itself off. In any case, I hope there is some degree of satisfaction all around. Without any further developments, Wikizach or myself will probably close the case in a couple of days. Thanks! Antimatter---talk--- 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]