Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality/archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Lou blocked for a week, maybe we can now work on improving this article! 2 POV points 3 Removed for repairs 4 Let's wrap this up 5 Why was the illustration change reverted? 6 Another block 7 Convert vs. Recruit 8 Inclusion of Bisexuality and other orientations? - Does article name need amending? 8.1 Workshop 9 What about lesbianism?

[edit] Lou blocked for a week, maybe we can now work on improving this article!

merging two sections, as they both effectively centre on Lou's continued disruption

Ok, I suggest that we leave the stuff above the stuff above (exccept the discussion on removing the POV tag), and move on with sensible things for the coming week now taht Lou has been banned for a week. KimvdLinde 03:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Georgewilliamherbert, what do you see as POV points? KimvdLinde 03:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have changed Lou's block duration to indefinite due to his total lack of productive edits. He's done nothing but disrupt this article. —Guanaco 03:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Guanaco, so sorry to hear you were desysopped again. Lou franklin 02:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The block has been reduced to its original 1 week. Which I agree with, as community consensus for an indefinite block looks unlikely. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Any objection against archieving pretty much everything, and start fresh? KimvdLinde 04:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Good idea. Cleduc 04:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• I would agree as well, though as Lou is not indefinitely blocked from this page yet I wouldn't hold my breath for a complete 'fresh start'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, if someone objects, please undo. KimvdLinde 01:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV points

(note to archivers: cut above this line 8-)

I wanted to put some comments out here regarding the POV issue, separate from the discussions above tangled up with Lou's actions. Hopefully this can be a new starting point for more ongoing work.

First of all, I'd like to thank everyone who's been working on this over the last few months. As I have said before, the article is much more neutral and balanced, better referenced, etc. Accomplishing this much improvement in the face of the damage being done is impressive positive commentary on many people's patience and committment to making positive contributions.

I've said this before, but might as well do so again to put this in context. My personal views in many areas are mainstream conservative, with a dash of libertarian (little-l). Gay rights are not an issue I'm conservative on; it's never bothered me personally, and the political arguments and religious arguments never swayed me. However, I do care that the opinions of people who I otherwise somewhat to largely agree with be accurately represented here.

Attempting to take a long step back and assess where things are now, my 500 meter view is that the article remains evasive about what is essentially the one major sticking point in polite discussion between reasonable conservative and reasonable liberal populations in the US, the question of gay marriage. I think that this is the one remaining serious hot button issue... gay adoption doesn't seem to have legs as a mainstream issue, nor gay priests, outside of the specific congregations where support is too down the middle. It's down to the definition of marriage. The article sort of skips past the question in the second section without really addressing it, and comes back to it briefly in the Statistics section at the end. This issue raises very strong feelings on both sides, and has identified a rift across society in people's personal ideas about what defines a marriage and who sets that definition, etc.

It also doesn't address at all that I see now the controversy over the military's Don't ask Don't tell policy, which has mysteriously been essentially waived due to manpower requirements in the Iraq war but remains "on the books" as it were.

I want to keep reviewing the overall balance; I feel like mainstream conservative objections to gay rights are still not quite fairly addressed outside those points, but a lot of the issue is tangled up in specifics of arguments with absent editor. I think that a case can be made for more specifics beyond those major ones, and for general tone. I would like a couple of days of calm to assess and then start discussing that.

Regarding the POV tag; I have no intention of using it as a bludgeon or weapon in the debate. I feel that there are still unresolved issues, and think the tag is a useful way of indicating that. I'd ask that other contributors agree to leave it there for the time being, with my pledge that seeking consensus is my goal, that I feel that cooperation is extremely likely to work here, and that as we approach it I'll support it going away.

It will probably take a little while to unwind the article from the arguments brought on by absent editor; I know that I am still seeing sections of it mentally framed by the various edit and revert wars and arguments here, and that's not really the ultimate goal or fair to the article, or other editors. But to hazard a guess, we're all there in some form or another, so let's be extra-polite for a few days while we decompress from that.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 07:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Very good Mr. Herbert and I look forward to your suggestions as a breath of fresh air. Yours, Chesaguy 13:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your insights. I also think the article is at places POV, for the same reasons you mention (And I am a left wing lesbian). I get the impression that you want to focus on US aspects primarily, and I disagree with that and I think it has to be focussed on societies at large. For the rest, I am affraid that everything will continue in a week time, unless the ArbCom has made its decision by that time. KimvdLinde 15:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, my ideas. Some major points:

1. Historical versus modern. (aka, two major sections)
2. Cultural relativism. (how to intepret other cultures: own morals verus their morals (and maybe have a clear cut case and discuss that))
3. Different layers. Many cultures have double standards and use different norms for what they condemm in the open and do in the dark.

Some substantial points:

1. Equal rights

US section:

1. Current debate
   1. Army
   2. etc.

KimvdLinde 15:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the english-language wikipedia, and to some degree a focus on the english speaking countries (US, UK, Canada, AUS, NZ) is unavoidable; I think that primarily on the US is stronger than I'm looking for, but more strongly on the US would be a good idea. Gay rights issues seem to have become less controversial in much of the rest of the english speaking world. In terms of the context around the world, no disagreement here - opinions here in the US have varied over time, and in other countries, and seeing both the widely varied other cultural responses and the historical examples are all important. Georgewilliamherbert 18:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is the english wikipedia, but it is also the lingua franca of our time, and many non-native english speakers edit here just because of the reach this language has (see also Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Anglo-American_focus. I think a good solution is to have a seperate section that focusses on the US, so that the additional issues that play in the US can be addressed. KimvdLinde 01:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. For the time being, I believe such a section exists. It may be worthwhile to keep in mind the idea of making it a spin-off article if it gets to big, and just including a summary in this article. -Seth Mahoney 01:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

However we approach it, I don't want to minimize the other stuff already here in any way. Just making that clear. Georgewilliamherbert 01:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think (for the record) that you were going down that road. One major reason I suggested keeping in mind the possibility of a spin-off for the US section is because there is a lot of scholarship on that area, and another is because this is currently a hot topic here. In other words: There's a LOT to write (especially if you're writing in English) about American attitudes toward homosexuality. -Seth Mahoney 04:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed for repairs

Retrieved from archive. ntennis 02:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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.^[1] Since the 1970s, the dominant culture in the West has become more tolerant of same-sex sexuality between partners of legal age.^{[citation needed]}

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)

How are the repairs going Haiduc? ntennis 02:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems like they're not. Nobody has even attempted to repair the article in over a week. More people have agreed that the article is POV on the discussion page, but nobody has done anything about it. When I try to balance the article I get blocked, but nobody else is even trying. I hope that ArbCom will seriously consider removing the article. The article isn't going to repair itself. Lou franklin 02:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom is not dealing with content disputes, only with behaviour. And maybe people are waiting for the time that a reasonable discussion is possible again. KimvdLinde 03:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been away for 8 days. Are you waiting for an engraved invitation? You agreed that the article is POV. Why not fix it? Lou franklin 03:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

To be honest till we are sure that we are not ending up with extreme long discussions on minute aspects on how to insert clear POV aspects. And that time has not yet come. I think most editors are waiting for the ArbCom decision before they are coming back. KimvdLinde 03:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not read that on the discussion page. Are you communicating using email? Lou franklin 03:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, am busy with a) work b) a conference presentation c) another WP project; this is on, but not at the top of, the list of things I am working on. Stepping away and thinking about things often helps get better perspective on fixing them, anyways. If we fix it next month, or the month after, little harm is done compared to fixing it tomorrow. Georgewilliamherbert 03:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

But what about the readers that are reading it now? If you aren't in a hurry to fix it until next month or the month after, I'll just make a couple of changes until then to remove the POV. If you have other changes in a couple of months that would be great too. Lou franklin 03:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to get blocked again? Georgewilliamherbert 03:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would you have me blocked for fixing the article when you can't be bothered to? Lou franklin 03:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Because community consensus has it that your "fix" would make the POV worse, and you know that (even if you disagree with it). Hbackman 04:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the alternative? We all agree that the article is POV. I am apparently the only one here willing to edit the article. So we can all sit here are stare at eachother or we can correct the article. Since everybody else has mysteriously all decided that they don't care about the reader at the same time, why won't you let me correct the article? Lou franklin 04:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Several are willing to make improvements, but not with the extended discussions on POV language that you try to insert to the article. KimvdLinde 04:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen "several that are willing to make improvements". If you say they exist, that's great. My changes have been rejected, so what are your suggestions to balance the introduction, reword "same-sex 'marriage'", and to remove the unnecessary obscenities? Lou franklin 04:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You are not the only one here willing to edit the article. You may be the only one willing to actively edit it a whole lot right now at this instance, but that is different from nobody else cares about the reader. Your false sense of urgency on this matter is either self-deception on your part or part of a ploy to make your actions seem more reasonable.

You should know by now that your idea of correct has typically met many other people's standard for vandalism, inserting worse POV, making non-factual statements, etc. If you were going to fix things in a manner that the rest of everyone agreed with, I don't see that there's a problem. But I somehow doubt that is what you are stating you intend to do.

We can't preemptively stop you, but if you start abusing the article again, the prior conditions for which you were blocked apply again, and almost certainly an admin will reblock you. Georgewilliamherbert 04:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Further which; rewording "same-sex 'marriage'" and removing unnecessary obscenities are not seen by consensus as necessary improvements, and would be vandalism, as has been repeatedly made clear to you. It's not broken, we aren't going to fix it. You don't have to like it. But if you can't live with it, and try and make those edits against consensus, your time as editor here no doubt grows short.

Why do you suppose that "removing unnecessary obscenities are not seen by consensus as necessary"? Who does this consensus consist of, and why would they object to removal of unnecessary obscenities? Lou franklin 04:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you've heard the Serenity Prayer. Georgewilliamherbert 04:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What possible objection could you have to balancing the introduction? Lou franklin 04:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Insertion of more POV. KimvdLinde 04:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If that is truly your concern and you are working in good faith, let's not insert anything. Let's balance the introduction by removing POV. Of all of the societies in the history of the world, the "Sambia boys in New Guinea" are cited because they "ingest the semen of older males". That is clearly an outlier and does not belong in the introduction. Can we agree to balance the introduction by moving that out of the intro, lower in the article? Lou franklin 04:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I change that to: "Making it more POV by selective insertion, deletion or alteration" KimvdLinde 08:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Lou, we've been over this before: That example is there, not to gross you out or to make homosexuality seem more okay (really, do you think feeding semen to young boys makes homosexuality look okay to most people?), but as an example of a society which views what we would see as same-sex sex as not a sex act at all. The examples are there in order to verify claims that would otherwise look, to someone from our society, as completely absurd. Here, however, is one possibility:

1. Remove the example from the introduction, but retain the sentence (or something like it), "Whether or not an act counts as sex or as sexual varies from culture to culture." (with an appropriate citation).

2. Keep all other examples in the intro.

3. Create a new section to discuss variances between what does and does not count as sexual between cultures.

That's the treaty on the table, and after agreement there will be no more debate over the intro. Take it or leave it. -Smahoney 05:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Taken. Lou franklin 01:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Everyone else agree? -Smahoney 03:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep from me. Good suggestion. :) ntennis 03:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just drawing the discussion back to the paragraph above — I re-insterted it as no imporvements have been suggested in the two weeks since it was removed "for repairs". Of course further discussion on this paragraph can take place here, and agreed changes can be made to the text then (as with the rest of the article!). Cheers :) ntennis 04:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

All of the world's major cultures have considered procreative sex within a recognised relationship to be a sexual norm — one which often existed in parallel with customs that facilitated same-sex relations. However, starting with the Hebrew scriptures, and philosophical texts in Classical Greece, carnal relations between males were condemned as corrupt or ungodly, and various punishments were prescribed. While in Asia, America, the Pacific basin and Africa same sex relations continued to be integrated into the cultures, in the Christian-dominated West, a range of practices were employed to prevent same-sex sexuality, ranging to execution for offenders.[3] -- [Haiduc's new version]

I appreciate where you are going with this Haiduc, it is good to recognise the global historical diversity. I do feel, though, that a certain view is implied here that is not held by all the relevant scholars. Namely, that the whole world throughout history has embraced homosexuality until the Hebrew scriptures and Greek philosophy came along and wrecked everything. One problem with this view is that at the time of those writings, most of the world had no written culture. Do you have evidence that no other cultures condemned homosexuality as corrupt or ungodly, or prescribed punishments? These writings were expressing ideas that already existed; they didn't invent them. Can you provide citations that homosexual relations were never censured in pre-colonial Asia, America, the Pacific basin and Africa? Thirdly (and for the third time), you've changed a statement about homosexuality to one about male-male sexual relations. Do you really believe that the church has warmly welcomed lesbianism, or do you just keep forgetting about women? ntennis 04:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion for a version that make so many broad claims: 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 censured homosexual acts and relationships. Since the 1970s, much of the world has become more accepting of same-sex sexuality between partners of legal age. I've pasted it straight in the article as talk page suggestions don't seem to get much response. ntennis 06:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not forget about lesbianism, it just was not an issue around the time of discussion (3000 to 2000 years ago). If the phrasing implies a blanket certainty that there was universal approval before the Hebrewes and Lycurgus we can change that. Obviously we are limited to what we know, but just as obviously we are going from a situation of lesser restriction to greater restriction. Gilgamesh predates Rabbi Levi, the bonobo predates the human. The only thing I have read about pre-Israelite mores is that the Hebrews used proscription of male/male sex to differentiate themselves from their neighbors. And no, we can never prove a negative.

The alternative version is still way too tilted to the censurious side. And which cultures, pray tell, did not consider procreative relationships a norm? And "homosexual acts"?! Like kissing? And you are accusing me of being vague. Call a thing by its name. They did not want men fucking men because it pissed god off and he sent plagues and they did not want to die. At least that was the take in the late Middle Ages. You cannot have an intelligent discussion of "attitudes" if that is not brought out. But you are right, by posting what you did where you did you did get a response. Haiduc 11:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's wrap this up

This article has made good progress. Thanks for your work in compromising on the issues. Two of the four showstoppers we talked about have now been worked out. All that is left to fix is:

1) Remove or reword "same-sex 'marriage'"

2) Remove unnecessary obscenities

"The consensus" doesn't approve of the way I tried to fix the article. So what compromise could we reach on these two items?

Regarding "same-sex 'marriage'", some possible ways to work this out are:

1) Remove the term "same-sex marriage" entirely

2) Replace "same-sex marriage" with "same-sex 'marriage'"

3) Replace "same-sex marriage" with "so-called 'same-sex marriage'"

Are any of those approaches acceptable to "consensus"? If not, what are some other possibilities?

Scare quotes around 'consensus' doesn't really make your approach seem to appetizing. However, the term same-sex marriage is necessary, so 1 is out of the question. Quotes are POV, so 2 is out of the question. 'so-called' is POV, so 3 is out of the question. In light of those problems, one alternative approach would be to make it clear from context that this is a term used by a group of people (though it is also used by their opponents, so its not as if as a term it isn't generally accepted), not a state of the world as accepted by everyone. We can further that goal by devoting a section (which should be there anyway) to same-sex marriage opposition, although this article should only contain a summary of the debates - the bulk belongs in same-sex marriage. -Smahoney 03:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

None of the solutions is acceptable and are POV. Making clear that some object to the word once seems ok. KimvdLinde 04:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to add the following text to make it clear.

Billions of people worldwide oppose same-sex "marriage". Using the term "marriage" to describe a union of homosexuals undermines the institution of marriage. 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.

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 [1], as well as the position of several other religious groups and countless people across the globe.

The term "same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms that is the source of considerable confusion [2]. 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" [3]

My text was reverted. How could this text be reworded to make it acceptable to "consensus"? Lou franklin 12:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

See discussion at the archive. KimvdLinde 14:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please work in good faith. What specifically from "discussion at the archive" do you wish to point out? How could this text be reworded to make it acceptable to "consensus"? Lou franklin 00:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I work always in good faith. But I do not see the need to go through the same discussion over and over again, and I therefore point back to the same discussion of less than two weeks ago. KimvdLinde 03:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What specifically from "discussion at the archive" do you wish to point out? How could this text be reworded to make it acceptable to "consensus"? Lou franklin 03:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding obscenities, the article uses the term "cocksucker" and features an illustration that includes nudity. Some possibilities for removing the term "cocksucker":

1) Remove the sentence from the article

2) Remove the section from the article

3) Reference the statement like this: "McCarthy used vulgarities when describing homosexuals"

Are any of those approaches acceptable to "consensus"? If not, what are some other possibilities?

No. WP:ISNOT. KimvdLinde 04:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"If not, what are some other possibilities?" Lou franklin 04:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

None. If you want to dispute that he used that word, bring the sourcesthat proof that. Read WP:ISNOT to see that WP is not censored. KimvdLinde 04:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, there are no other possibilities. I see.

If you would read this page you would discover that I have not disputed "that he used that word". That is not the issue. The issue is that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Profanity says

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.

The sentence "Senator Joseph McCarthy used accusations of homosexuality as a smear tactic in his anti-Communist crusade" is a more than suitable alternative to "Cocksucker"?

Do you believe that this article should have a section about the USA in the 1950's? Lou franklin 05:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No and Yes to your questions. KimvdLinde 14:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please work in good faith. "No and Yes" doesn't help. I have asked one question here, not "questions". Why do you believe that this article should have a section about the USA in the 1950's? Lou franklin 00:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume always good faith. You asked a question, you got an answer to it. Ok, you do not like the answer, can happen. Furthermore, if the first one was not a question, the answer to the second is, yes, I think this article should have a section about the USA in the 1950's because it is relevant to illustrate how rotten politics has been towards homosexual people. KimvdLinde 03:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to compromise? Are there other examples in world history of "how rotten politics has been towards homosexual people", or is this the only one? Lou franklin 03:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That you don't like that the term 'cocksucker' appears in the article is certainly no reason for removing a section that is of immediate relevance to the topic. Nor is it reason for removing the sentence or replacing it with something banal. I don't really see a compromise happening here, but if anyone has any other suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them. I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, I just don't see any alternative to a vivid, historically relevant quote. -Smahoney 03:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This issue is not that I "don't like the term". The issue is 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. Joe McCarthy, a US politician from 50 years ago, is not central to the topic. That quote is one of thousands that could have been selected. I'm sure that we can come to some reasonable compromise here if we try. Lou franklin 03:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

And, as argued in many other places, this obscenity meets those criteria. -Smahoney 03:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

How so? Lou franklin 03:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Societal_attitudes_towards_homosexuality/archive_through_3/31/2006#Vulgarity. There is no need to rehash this argument yet again. Hbackman 03:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I was actually asking Seth to clarify his statement. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Many things were discussed at the link you provided. I am trying to understand what makes this one statement made 50 years ago by one US politician so central to this topic that it could not be replaced by one of thousands of other quotes. Lou franklin 04:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the illustration, is there an alternate illustration that could be used? Lou franklin 02:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but only and only if they are of equal or better illustrative quality. See also WP:ISNOT. KimvdLinde 04:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Great! There are many available right on Wikipedia. Lou franklin 04:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you bring them here to the TALK page first, they can be inserted as soon as there is consensus that they are of this equal illustrative quality. KimvdLinde 04:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Terrific! Let's go with this one: Lou franklin 05:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No, this image is not a good alternative! It is to ambigious and can hint at mant different things. KimvdLinde 14:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ambigious in what way? The piece is entitled "Jonathan Lovingly Taketh His Leave of David". Lou franklin 00:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It could point at two friends without anything sexual. KimvdLinde 02:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's be reasonable. It is a picture of two men holding hands. One has his arm around the other. The title includes the word "lovingly". That is not acceptable to this consensus because "it could point at two friends without anything sexual"? Is it your position that this "consensus" is working in good faith here?

There are many images that could be compromised on by a group of editors acting in good faith. There was nothing wrong with that image. But I am assuming good faith, so let's select one of these instead:

. Which would you like? Lou franklin 03:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You point exactly out why the image is not acceptable and ambigious. In many (contemporal) cultures, holding hands between men does indicate friendships, NOT homosexuality! The new images are equally unclear. The first is just two men, nothing else. The second is ambigious as it can also refer to "the people of Lut (Lot)." KimvdLinde 03:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The second piece has the word "sodomites" right in the title. Please operate in good faith. Lou franklin 03:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Its unlikely. Only an explicit image would have the obvious homosexual associations that would necessarily tie it to the topic of the article. Likely most, if not any, other images that don't contain nudity could be read in an entirely different way, resulting in a different interpretation and therefore would only be arguably appropriate. The fact is, though, that its not like the image is gay porn (though there are gay porn images on wikipedia!) - its a historical artifact, so I think you're going too far in asking for its removal. -Smahoney 03:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The illustration was added very recently. If it were central to the topic, why wasn't it added long ago? Is it really necessary to display a penis on an article about "social attitudes"? Lou franklin 03:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

To your first question -- because articles are always being improved. Maybe this picture was newly uploaded. Maybe people who knew about the picture didn't know about the article and/or people who knew about the article didn't know about the picture until recently. Hbackman 03:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that correct, or are you speculating? There seems to be a large number of alternative images available. For example [4] Isn't it possible to pick a more appropriate one? Lou franklin 03:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is roughly correct. I added the image, while I was going to the process of adding images to several articles, because I came across it and it was directly relevant to the section it was added to. There may well be more images, some of which may depict penises, breasts, or vaginas, which are also important, notable, and pertinent, but which noone has uploaded or come across yet. That's the way wikipedia works.

It is likely that a penis-free image could be found, but it is unlikely that a more appropriate image could be found. As for your image suggestion, it suffers from exactly the problem I describe above. Are they good friends, or lovers? Are they involved in a homosexual relationship, or is one comforting the other? What are the social norms in the society depicted regarding same-sex touching - that is, would they allow for this behavior as normal heterosexual behavior, or would it be indicative of homosexuality? None of this is clear from the picture. (Note, for example, the intro to David and Jonathan.) -Smahoney 03:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The name of the piece is "Jonathan Lovingly Taketh His Leave of David". That leaves very little doubt. The illustration that is currently being used does not prove they are lovers either. I don't think this would be a very difficult item to compromise on. There are many alternatives available here. Lou franklin 04:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not Joe McCarthy's foul mouth that is the point here, it is his demonization of men in erotic relationships with each other. As such the language is of the essence of the argument. As for the ancient pottery, the picture is valuable and the date of its posting is not germane. Haiduc 03:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

But haven't many people demonized gays over the course of history? What makes Joe McCarthy essential while others are not? Lou franklin 03:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course many people have demonized gays over the years, but none in as prominant a position as McCarthy, speaking publicly, during the time being discussed. -Smahoney 03:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from people who are as prominent as McCarthy.

Pat Buchanan:

"AIDS is nature's revenge on gay men."

Rev. Jimmy Swaggart:

"I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain: if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died."

Dr. Laura:

"The error is in your inability to relate sexually intimately, in a loving way to a member of the opposite sex ­ it is a biological error."

[Responding to a fax, Schlessinger says:] "It goes on and says 'Pedophilia and child molestation have zero to do with being gay, homosexual orientation' and that’s not true. That is not true. How many letters have I read on the air from gay men who acknowledge that a huge portion of the male homosexual populace is predatory on young boys."

Michael Savage:

"Get AIDS and die."

Lou Sheldon:

"They want our preschool children. ... They want our kindergarten children. ... They want our middle school and high school children."

"Homosexuals are dangerous. They proselytize. They come to the door, and if your son answers and there is nobody there to stop it, they grab the son and run off with him. They steal him. They take him away and turn him into a homosexual."

Any of those quotes could replace McCarthy's. Lou franklin 04:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right that most of those quotes should appear in the article, but they're from the wrong time period, and they don't even fit into the section, which describes the ways in which discourses on nationalism and discourses in sexualities tend to intersect. You have to keep in mind that what you will need to find is an appropriate quote, not just any old anti-gay quote. -Smahoney 04:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The people I mentioned are as prominent as McCarthy. Why must the United States in the 1950's be included in this article at all? Should we do a section on every decade in every country? Why couldn't we compromise and replace the McCarthy quote with the quotes I provided? Lou franklin 04:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The 1950s US is a time in which a particularly important phenomenon which has occurred cross-culturally happened with particular intensity (and it is the phenomenon which I mentioned two paragraphs above). No. Because they aren't relevant to the section. -Smahoney 04:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Lou, if you want this debate to continue, you're going to have to try a better tactic than "I don't understand. Please provide an argument."; someone provides an argument; "I don't understand. Please provide an argument." -Smahoney 04:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. But I disagree that the USA in the 1950's is central to this topic. If "consensus" feels strongly that it is, I would say that this sentence must be kept: "Senator Joseph McCarthy used accusations of homosexuality as a smear tactic in his anti-Communist crusade". That is the key point as it relates to nationalism vis-a-vis sexuality. "Cocksucker" is not the key point. It could be removed without any loss of precision whatsoever. Lou franklin 04:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In reply (and entrance to the conversation,) I believe that the word "Cocksucker" in this case is the key point. There are few derrogatory words as insulting as "cocksucker," and when the reader is left with the forementioned sentence, they don't have as clear an idea of how bad the insultation (hehe... not sure if that's even a word) was. There's my 2cp. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 00:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many derrogatory words for gay people more insulting than "cocksucker". We could add "faggot", "carpet-muncher", "fudge-packer", "gerbil stuffer", etc. We could easily Google many quotations containing those terms. But why would we do that? Do we have no dignity at all? The reader understands what McCarthy was up to without subjecting children to the word "cocksucker". It is clearly not necessary and is contrary to Wikipedia's policy. Lou franklin 01:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Update:

1. "Lou, if you want this debate to continue, you're going to have to try a better tactic than 'I don't understand. Please provide an argument.'; someone provides an argument; 'I don't understand. Please provide an argument.'" (as quoted, by User:Sethmahoney)
2. "I'm not sure what you mean by that." (as quoted, by User:Lou franklin)

Sorry, just a bit funny in my mind. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 00:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

When did I ever say "I don't understand. Please provide an argument"? Lou franklin 01:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

By insisting that a rough paraphrase be taken as a direct quotation, you're practically doing it right there. -Smahoney 05:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please. You said "you're going to have to try a better tactic than 'I don't understand...". Would you mind explaining what you meant by that? Lou franklin 12:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

He means that the vast majority of your responses to other people's arguments don't engage with the actual argument at all but are rather just assertions that whatever the other person said didn't make sense. (The comment to which I'm responding is a pretty good example.) Hbackman 00:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why was the illustration change reverted?

We had discussed this on the talk page. I waited many hours and heard no objections. The change was reverted blindly without any comment here whatsoever. Please reinstate the change. Lou franklin 13:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

People sleep. The image is not a good replacement. I suggest you wait the next time a littlebit longer till you have possitive feedback and that people have actively responded and approved. Hearing nothing is insufficient to assume everybody is ok with it. KimvdLinde 14:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It was not reverted blindly, I checked the change carefully and did not revert it until I had seen what the changes were. No other editors agreed with your proposed change. And I specifically disagree with it, for all of the reasons already stated above by other editors. That's how consensus works. Cleduc 13:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: consensus is not unanimity -- so although you may disagree with the consensus, that's what it is, and how decision-making works on this encyclopedia. Cleduc 01:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's not be coy. Everybody here understands what "consensus" means for this article. Lou franklin 02:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No, enlighten us Lou. What does "consensus" mean for this article? And does it mean the same without the quotes? By the way, I believe you might have been using the quotes to show disbelief in the validity of the word in that context. Something that you previously denied up and down was the meaning of putting a word in quotes. Or did you just believe that we wouldn't understand the word "consensus" without the quotes? --Chesaguy 02:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no different type of consensus for this article, and I am pretty sure that I know that everybody but one knows exactly what consensus means. KimvdLinde 02:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be to keep the Patroclus and Achilles image. My own feeling is that between two images of equal value, one showing nudity and the other not, the picture showing nudity should be favored so as not to be swayed by puritan concerns, which I will qualify here as inappropriate. Haiduc 03:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is nudity necessary in an article about "societal attitudes"? Wikipedia says that "images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available". That is not the case here. There are many "suitable alternatives available". Please operate in good faith.

This is a "consensus" where the answer to "what are some other possibilities?" is "no". This is a consensus where the answer to "How could this text be reworded?" is "See discussion at the archive". This is a "consensus" where the answer to one question is "No and Yes to your questions". This is a "consensus" that objects to "images that don't contain nudity". Lou franklin 03:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We have responded to that argument. Provide a new one or drop it. -Smahoney 05:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The topic here is not homosexuality, but "societal attitudes toward homosexuality". What societal attitude is depicted by the Patroclus illustration? It seems to me that images that would be included in an article about societal attitudes would include things like:

1) A picture of people protesting in support of homosexuals

2) A picture of people protesting in opposition of homosexuals

3) A pie chart depicting the results of a poll about societal attitides.

4) A world map with counties colored by their approval of homosexuality

5) An illustration depicting homosexuals being burned at the stake

All of those images relate to societal attitudes. What societal attitude is depicted by the Patroclus illustration? Lou franklin 12:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Lou, it illustrates a culture where homosexuality was accepted, so you didn't need to protest in support of homosexuals. Why would you protest in support of something that wasn't threatened? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How does it "illustrate a culture where homosexuality was accepted"? It has nothing to do with "societal attitudes" whatsoever. It is not germane to the topic and should be removed. Lou franklin 01:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Why was the image reinserted? Can somebody here explain what the image has to do with the topic of "societal attitudes"? Please refrain from vandalizing the article. Lou franklin 01:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Kim VD, Please work in good faith. You reinserted an image that did not relate to the topic of the article. I took the time to discuss the reasons for the deletion of the image on the talk page. You offered no such courtesy. Adding a "troll warning" does not relieve you from your responsibility to work in good faith. If you think that the image depicts a "societal attitude" please explain how, and we may be able to reach a compromise. If you are not willing to work within the framework established by Wikipedia, please refrain from editing the article. Lou franklin 02:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Closing arguments As noted above, Image:Patrocluspederastyscene.jpg demonstrates that the culture that produced it did not have taboos surrounding male-to-male sexual relations. By picturing nudity it shows more explicitly that the relationship pictured is sexual in nature, as opposed to other works which are more open to interpretation. As an example of its genre it is rather tame. Evidence that Greek culture was accepting of homosexual relationships is overwhelming, and readily available.

And as noted above, Lou franklin is not providing arguments: he is restating positions.

Constant accusations that others are not working in good faith are not valid arguments. I would note that evidence presented during arbitration shows misbehaviour and violation of policy on the part of only one editor: Lou franklin. Cleduc 02:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Lou, your edit summar was "Do not vandalize the article. Please discuss changes on the talk page. The image does not relate to the article's topic." I am beginning to see why you are getting on other's nerves. You literally just explained to Kim VD like 50 seconds ago that working in good faith is better than working in bad faith, and then you tag (excuse me) her edit as vandalism. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 02:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

There has been an extensive discussion on this image, and the consensus (all minus Lou) seem to be in favour of keep this image included. Working in good faith would suggest to me that someone respects the consensus among editors after the arguments have been exchanged. Repeating the question is not going to change the arguments, and new arguments for removal replacement have not been brought forward. KimvdLinde 02:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Reinserting images that do not relate to the topic of the article is not working in good faith. Obviously "Greek culture was accepting of homosexual relationships". That was never at issue.

It is vandalism. The image was removed because it does not relate to the topic of "societal attitudes". We all understand "that the relationship pictured is sexual in nature", but that has nothing to do with "societal attitudes" (you know, the topic).

It does not prove that "the culture that produced it did not have taboos" in any way. Nudity has been used in art from even the most repressive cultures. All that it proves is that the artist "did not have taboos".

The image does not depict a societal attitude in any way, and does not relate to the topic. Reinserting the image - especially without so much as a comment on the talk page - is vandalism. Lou franklin 02:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

While not being an expert in Greek Nudist Art, I don't think that a picture such as that could have survived long enough to be scanned into a computer if what the picture was depicting wasn't taboo, and even then, it wouldn't take anything more than a small ammount of anti-homosexual behavior to keep that picture from getting destroyed. And yet we have tons (I believe; as I said, I'm not expert) of evidence in picture form that the Greeks were not discriminatory against homosexuality. To show this to the full extent, a picture depicting a nude man being onlooked by another man leaves the greatest impact. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 02:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The question is not "were the Greeks discriminatory against homosexuality". The question is does that image depict a societal attitude? The answer is no. There are thousands of images that "leave an impact" but don't relate to the topic of this article. Lou franklin 02:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding on to what I just said, while there is also homosexual nude art from other cultures, as I am sure someone is going to point out to me, the Greeks have the most to my knowledge. I'm actually going to go look that up right now to avoid further confusion... GofG _|^|_| Contribs 02:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's already covered under Homosexuality in ancient Greece etc. Don't bother, the research has already been done. Cleduc 02:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That is where it belongs. The image is relevant to the "Homosexuality in ancient Greece" article. It is not relevant to "societal attitudes towards homosexuality". Lou franklin 02:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That is where it belongs. However, it also belongs in the subsection "Homosexuality in Greece" or whatever the subsection is called, because that is what the subsection is about. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 02:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? This article is about "societal attitudes toward homosexuality". The "Ancient Greece" section is supposed to be about "societal attitudes toward homosexuality" in Ancient Greece. Lou franklin 02:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

There is consensus, but Lou franklin disagrees and calls anyone who disagrees with him a "vandal." He advances no new arguments. Further discussion is pointless. Cleduc 02:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe this sort of attitude is unfair. This is just my point of view, and I'm not really going to do anything about it, though. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 02:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is overwhelming to support my statement. To be clear, I was speaking of this particular thread of conversation. There is consensus, but not unanimity -- Lou disagrees. He calls changes he disagrees with "vandalism." Cleduc 02:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I just think it's unfair to say that someone is actually so impossible to communicate with that "further discussion is pointless," even if saying so is for the better of the article. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 02:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Disregard previous comment. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 02:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Arguments do not have to be "new" to be right. Reinserting an image that doesn't relate to the article over and over again is indeed vandalism. Lou franklin 02:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If the consensus is that the picture is related to the article, then no, it is not vandalism. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 02:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What does it tell you about this "consensus" that they agree that it is related, but they can't give a coherent answer as to why it is related? Lou franklin 02:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

We have given overwhelming evidence as to "why" the picture is related. I'm not going to retype everything I alone said, as I'm sure it's been said before several times, and it alone is good enough to disprove everything you just said. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 02:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You have given overwhelming evidence as to why the picture is related to homosexuality. You have given no evidence as to how it is related to societal attitudes towards homosexuality. The picture depicts two people. The image does not relate to societal attitudes in any way. Lou franklin 02:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Whew. Okay. The fact that the picture is still in existence is evidence that the Greeks were civil enough to not destroy it out of anti-homosexual discrimination. This is evidence that the Greeks, as a society, were not anti-homosexual. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 02:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course the Greeks were not anti-homosexual. But the fact that the Greeks did not destroy the illustration does not make it suitable for an article about "societal attitudes". By that logic, any gay picture would be relevant - since it was not destroyed by society. No, images used in the "societal attitudes" article should actually be about societal attitudes, don't you think? Lou franklin 03:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, any gay picture from any society as old as the Greeks would probably be relevant by that logic. The picture in question is of "homosexuality, that happens to be in a 2000+ year old society." It depicts a homosexual couple in ancient Greece, the country that the subsection is about. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 03:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The subsection is about societal attitudes toward homosexuality in Ancient Greece. What societal attitude is depicted in the picture? Lou franklin 03:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

(Thank you for backing up the :'s.) Not in the picture, but the fact that the picture itself exists, depicts a societal attitude that has been explained. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 03:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

(You're welcome). That is a stretch. If the only reason the picture is featured is that it exists, it should be removed. How is the reader to know that we are showing this image because we think its existence somehow proves something about societal attitudes - and we don't even indicate what it proves. Also, we have no idea if that picture was hidden away for hundreds of years. The fact that it exists doesn't really prove anything. Images in the societal attitudes article should be about societal attitudes. Lou franklin 03:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, a rehash. No new arguments. Cleduc 03:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another block

Note: Lou has been blocked for 3RR again -- for one month this time. Cleduc 03:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Convert vs. Recruit

Since GofG has asked we discuss this change, I'll add in my two cp as well. I think "recruit" is the way to go. While "convert" is also stong, I believe that "recruit" has a longer history with regards to this phenomenon. See homosexual recruitment and more importantly Anita Bryant, “As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children”. There's nothing wrong with "convert", per se, but "recruit" seems to have historically been the term used. --Chesaguy 01:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Recruited" is the word to use in that context. Fundies claim "homosexuals recruit children" and this is a direct reference to that claim. Perhaps this should be made more clear, as this is a clear-cut case of a "societal attitude towards homosexuality" that needs inclusion -- in the form of a link to the Homosexual recruitment article. The word "conversion" is more customarily used the other way around (which already has an appropriate mention in this article). Cleduc 01:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

When I hear the word "recruit," I think of setting up advertisements and possibly using propoganda to sway one's opinion to join a group. When I hear the word "covert," I think of using unfair methods or actions to force one's opinion to join a group. That's my reasoning, and I think that's what the Anita Bryant might of meant. Of course, I had not seen all that about Anita Bryant, so "recruit" would be better, as it is what they actually said, even if it's not as strong as it should be concerning biased mothers, such as Bryant seems to be. I'll make the reverts, but right now I'm already late for school. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 11:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of Bisexuality and other orientations? - Does article name need amending?

Having looked over the article it clearly addresses societal attitude towards bisexuality along with those to homosexuality, while the title only refers to homosexuality.

Therefore I suggest we redesignate this article to cover all non-hetero sexual orientation by renaming it to reflect this. Some key reasons are-

• 1. Given the common trait of heterocentric societies (which are the, unfortunate, majority) to divide sexual orientations into the 2 boxes of 'heterosexual' and 'everything else' (a.k.a "gay"), so lumping bisexuality, pansexuality, and asexuality in with homosexuality, the societies as a result tend to treat and regard the 4 'other' sexualities in similar if not identical ways. As the article currently says itself -

Much less research has been conducted into societal attitudes toward bisexuality.[19] What studies do exist suggest that the attitude of heterosexuals toward bisexuals mirrors their attitidue toward homosexuals,[20] and that bisexuals experience a similar degree of hostility, discrimination, and violence relating to their sexual orientation as do homosexuals.[21]

• 2. The article already significantly (although nowhere near comprehensively) covers attitudes towards bisexuality.
• 3. Due to both the aforementioned similar attitudes and the overlap and 'confusion' in general societal perceptions of homosexuality and bi / pan / asexuality, it is almost certain a bi-pan-asex sister article would be in the main a pure duplication of this one.
• 4. Leaving the situation as it stands, the article will perpetuate the damaging misconceptions that bisexuality is a sub-type of, or another name for, homosexuality.

I would propose either Societal attitudes towards non-heterosexual sexual orientations or Societal attitudes towards non-heterosexuality as starting points for a new title.

Does this sound a good plan of action? --Myfanwy 01:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have some reservations about the proposed naming scheme:

1. The article covers a large historical period, over which, for many people, homosexuality describes not an identity, but an activity (really, same-sex sex or desire would be more accurate and less confusing). Thus, in this context, there is no bisexuality.

2. The bisexual is a very thoroughly contemporary identity possibility - if we were just covering contemporary attitudes, that would be fine, but we're not.

That said, I'm not sure 'homosexuality' is the correct word to use in the title anyway. Maybe we should change the name to "Societal attitudes toward same-sex desire" or something ("Societal attitudes toward non-heterosexual etc." is a bit large)?

-Smahoney 05:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

How about "Societal attitudes towards same-sex relations"? I too am uncomfortable with the generalized use of the term "homosexuality", as some of the users here know all too well. Haiduc 02:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur. "Homosexuality" is such a culturally biased term, and this article attempts worldwide scope. The name is difficult, though -- it has to clearly state that it's about same-sex sexual behaviour. "Relations" is too ambiguous. Cleduc 02:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

While all the terms; heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, etc, do (as you point out) refer to an identity, they also equally refer to a pattern of behaviour (or as you put it "activity"). I believe I would be correct in stating that there is no problem in using these labels to describe the relevant behaviour, when exhibited, in times prior to the creation of the terms or establishment of the identities. Therefore I can't see a problem here as long as contributor stick to the established rules for analysing and describing historic societies.

With regard to 'same-sex desire/sex' there are several aspects of the concept which I feel make it unsuitable for the purpose-

• a) with the progress of transgender rights, the phrase 'same-sex' is being increasingly replaced by 'same-gender' due to the undue focus that a person's "sex" puts on their biology and genitalia.
• b) while the article currently seems to brush over it, societies have typically treated those who have close-affectional experiences with members of the gender (see Romantic friendship) the same as those who have sexual experiences with members of the same gender. I consider usage of either 'sex' or 'desire' in the title would lead further towards the article being just about attitudes towards sexual experiences, therefore cutting out coverage of non-sexual affectional experiences, to it's detriment.
• c) despite best intentions and it being terminologically incorrect, the general reader is likely to read 'same-sex...' as a synonym for homosexual. (This is evident in the recent public debate and media coverage of 'same-sex marriage/partnerships' in the UK.)

Although Societal attitudes towards same-gender attractions could be a compromise option, I still feel it falls foul of point (c) in that it can be assumed to refer to just homosexuality.

As to lenght, my 2nd proposal is only 4 characters longer that the current title.

--Myfanwy 03:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But "non-heterosexuality" is a very awkward term, and almost no one would actually think of that phrasing when looking for the article -- part of what we have to consider in naming is what most people will type into the search box when they try to look up an article. I do agree that the current title is not optimal, but I think that most of the proposed changes so far just aren't good names. "Societal attitudes towards same-sex desire" is the only one that I think is moderately useable. Hbackman 03:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am in favour of a name change, I can see that relations is not fitting, activity will do, behaviour also. KimvdLinde 03:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate. In most cultures, even the among for example conservatives in the USA and other countries, it does not matter what you feel, as long as you do not act accordingly. If you are homosexual but nicely marry a woman, get children, most people do not care that you are attracted to other people of the same sex. Therefore, I would say that activity or behaviour is the appropriate terminology because it is only when it is displayed that it becomes an issue. KimvdLinde 03:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, sometimes. Exceptionally nelly men can't become RC priests anymore -- because they are perceived to be gay (regardless of whether they engage, practice, or behave sexually in such a way). However, the title has to be less than a paragraph. Cleduc 04:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand, this is a very recent change, in response to the large scale scandals. And "Societal attitudes towards same-sex activity" is not really longer..... KimvdLinde 04:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to give a concrete example. Nelly little kids are often assumed to be queer. Effeminate men, too. My point is that same-sex sexual activity isn't the only thing that triggers the soi-distant societal attitudes. But I don't think we can name them all in the title. Perhaps I am being pedantic. Cleduc 04:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that we can not name hem all, spare me, it would indeed be a page long title. KimvdLinde 04:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we are trying to do too much with the title. Why not leave the title alone but follow with a discussion presenting the points raised here? Haiduc 04:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

And perhaps this thread is why the article Homosexuality isn't titled Every sexuality but hetero. It's too hard to bring them all in without hiding what the article is about... hence all of the LGBT categories. Cleduc 04:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Haiduc here. Leave the title. Work on the article. ntennis 04:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that Homosexuality, is named such, because that is all it's intended to deal with. It's only because the societal attitudes to homo, bi, pan, etc are the same, that I believe the makes sense to deal with those attitude together in the one article. --Myfanwy 15:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Workshop

Let's try working out an acceptable title. This is one of those "consensus-gathering exercises." We can use editing marks like <s>strikeout</s>, '''bolding''' and ''italics'' and edit in place. I'll go first... Cleduc 04:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Societal attitudes towards same-sex sexual activity

fine with meKimvdLinde 04:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility: Societal attitudes toward same-sex desire. -Smahoney 05:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest "Societal attitudes towards same-sex attraction" (with appropriate redirects) as this avoids the over-emphasise on sexual acts. Remember that these attitude don't suddenly kick-in when the target persons reach the puberty/age of consent/etc, they affect childen from the point they become socially active onwards. Otherwise we wouldn't in western societies have pre-pubescent children being shunned, bullied and abused for simply have loving, but non-sexual relationships with members of the same gender. --Myfanwy 15:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what all these have in common is:

• "Societal attitudes to alternate sexualities", or perhaps
• "Societal attitudes to sexual orientation".

Note that the article on alternative lifestyles will help here. It also means we can cover lesbianism, bisexuality, homosexuality, but also for example, link to articles on polyamory or BDSM if we needed to, as sexual lifestyles which have "attitudes towards..." articles or sections of their own. We could also summarize attitudes to heterosexuality, which are worth listing too. This article would then have attitudes to homosexuality and bisexuality, with "see main article..." tags and briefer summaries for more minor sexualities, and would then cover the field in a more rounded manner. FT2 (Talk) 22:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If we used Societal attitudes toward sexual orientation, we would be necessarily limiting the scope of the article (in a way that I think would be unfortunate), since the idea of a sexual orientation it noticably absent from most cultures. -Smahoney 22:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it? The term may be absent, but the existence of the orientations and views towards them are not. FT2 (Talk) 02:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it? Just ask the Catholics. Haiduc 04:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Or any other fundamentalist Christian group. Or read literature by people who understood themselves as feeling same-sex attractions but who don't see themselves as having any sort of orientation. Or read accounts of contemporary Russian men who feel same-sex attractions. Or stories of men in prison. Or consider certain groups of male prostitutes. The majority of the world has been against the idea that there's such a thing as a sexual orientation. -Smahoney 05:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So the idealogical/philosophical(?) debate on whether and/or where orientation exists, would seem to rule that out. (Although I disagree with several points, such as the whole concept of 'moral-vote-over-others'-lives', I still want a workable consensus.)

But would I be correct in seeing that attraction is generally agreed upon as a base term with less controversy than others?

--Myfanwy 12:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree that "attraction" is a good representative term, because with many faiths it doesn't matter what the attraction is, it's the activity that counts. And then there's the converse -- with the Sambia boys, attraction isn't even supposedly in the equation -- it's all about the activity, the orientation, or the perception -- the attraction is not necessarily detectable by others (for them to have an attitude toward it). Cleduc 23:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. It seems like there must be a term that encompasses both desires and acts (eros, maybe? Or too literary?) but doesn't contain the idea of an exclusiveness, like homosexuality does (queer? No, too controversial). -Smahoney 00:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see now. So attraction doesn't cover all bases, but neither does activity or synonyms of it. (Thinking about it... "Same-sex activities"... unless you add 'sexual' to the mix, that one includes girls junior football, etc :p ) How about"Societal attitudes towards same-sex attraction & sexual activities"?? Too long I presume.

Cleduc- just to clarify, when you talk about faiths, are you meaning the attitudes of the organised faiths, or the typical attitudes of the societies (who are theocratic or dominated by said faiths)? As I would consider that the latter does indeed count in this decision, while the former is merely a side-line matter. Remembering that religions and societies are rarely one and the same, maybe we need to fork off a "Religious attitudes to same-sex...." article.

--Myfanwy 02:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that faith is not necessarily society (though you could make an argument with Islam and the Ummah), but I was using faith as an example, not as a sole proof and reason. Some faiths do not recognize orientation and focus solely on activity. Some faiths equate desire with action (Jimmy Carter lusted in his heart). Sometimes societies ostracise people because they are perceived to be effeminite, or masculine -- and different societies have honoured them -- for reasons related to faith. Generally societies are partly defined by faiths, though that's only part of the equation -- societies are also partly defined by language.

I agree that the title needs to be short enough to be comprehensible. The first paragraph needs to frame the article by defining the terms. Maybe we should start there instead. Cleduc 07:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick note: Religion and homosexuality exists, though I'm sure it needs work. -Smahoney 02:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about lesbianism?

Bisexuality isn't mentioned in the title... but bisexual behaviour is mentioned in the article throughout, in stressing that men who sleep with men also sleep with women. However, all of the examples given are about males. Women are only mentioned in passing under LGBT social movements. What historical examples can we give? Sappho, certainly. Lesbian#History has a couple of others, though it is not exactly extensive (and should be herstory). Lesbian#Culture has a little more. Cleduc 04:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Lesbians are tough. There isn't as much scholarship there, though certainly that's changing, and in a world where primarily men have legislated and written history, female sexuality tends to be excluded or, at best, glossed over. Given, also, certain prevailing assumptions about female sexuality being somehow dependant or parasitic on male sexuality, it becomes extremely hard to find examples of lesbian sexuality in history. However, there are plenty of examples in American history - the US section is already pretty heavy, though. I'm reading a book right now that makes some mention of lesbians in the Soviet Union, but it suffers from the same problem that seems indemic to history - namely, that it is primarily history. -Smahoney 05:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)