Talk:LGBT rights opposition/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Boy scouts

How about:

The Boy Scouts of America exclude homosexuals and bisexuals from its organizations, both as Scouts and Scoutmasters. They say that they have certain moral standards and values, and that homosexuality is incompatible with the Scout Oath and Law, which requires boys to be "morally straight." They say that this is not discriminatory. As they say on their website, "Tolerance for diversity of values does not require abdication of one's own values" [1].
In 2000 the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case Boy Scouts of America v. Dale [2] that the organization can decide its own membership rules, but there is still a movement to try and persuade the organization to change its policy or allow local chapters to decide for themselves.
In 2005, the US Congress passed the "Support Our Scouts Act of 2005" to exempt the BSA from anti-discrimination laws, to require the Department of Defense to support scouting Jamborees (thus overturning a Federal Court injunction prohibiting this as an unconstitutional establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment) and to require state or local governments that receive Community Development Block Grant money from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to allow BSA to have meetings in their facilities or on their property.
Critics claim that homosexuals are not incompatible with scout values and are allowed to be members in most countries in the world [3], including the United Kingdom, where scouting was founded. They say that the ban hurts youth [4] and is discriminatory, and that taxes (e.g the Learning for Life program) and taxpayer-funded facilities should not be used to support an organization that discriminates against certain taxpayers. Some United Ways, municipalities, school districts and businesses have stopped supporting scouting for those reasons. [5]

Wuzzy 11:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. You might want a reference for "Support Our Scouts Act of 2005". DavidBailey 18:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I moved these paragraphs into the article, minus the following:
They say that the ban hurts youth [6] and is discriminatory, and that taxes (e.g the Learning for Life program) and taxpayer-funded facilities should not be used to support an organization that discriminates against certain taxpayers.
This is because it is not supported, except with a non-encyclopedic quality forum page link. DavidBailey 00:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Can they go back in with a {{citation needed}} tag for a few days? It allows people to see that something is about to be pulled. I realize you feel entitled to pull it immediately, but since not including those paragraphs wasn't discussed it would be a show of good faith. If the tag is still there in 3 or 4 days, I'll be the first to say the passage should go away. CovenantD 00:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it didn't exactly vanish, because I posted it here. If someone can cite an acceptable reference, I have no problems with it being moved into the article. Sound okay? I believe I'm following the suggestions in Wikipedia:How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_version#Alternative_to_reverting:_move_to_talk. DavidBailey 20:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Perhaps from:

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

To:

The BSA, however, receives a high level of support from religious groups that tend to support the scout's policy banning gays.[8] Abernaki 11:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I think your version is better Abernaki. DavidBailey 16:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't like Abernaki's proposal because it verges on circularity ("X is supported by groups who support X's policies"; well, that's not surprising) and doesn't really provide any information. Fireplace 17:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

That site is not being quoted on its own merits, but rather the merits of the links it offers to news sites. As these point out, while many organizations contribute, a few are the largest contributors, and the LDS church is one of them. Thank you for understanding. Al 18:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
All that the sources you cite say is that LDS members are a disproportionately high percentage of BSA members and leadership and that they threatened to pull out. There is nothing there to support the claim that it's a direct reason for the BSA's policies on gay scouts or scoutmasters. That seems to be something you infer. Can you connect those dots for us with references? CovenantD 18:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
No need. Rather than making any inference, I changed it to simply state the facts and allow the reader to decide if there's any connection. Speaking of the facts, Chooserr's latest round of edits includes adding the phrase "gay agenda", which is the homosexual equivalent of "nigger". It's a deeply offensive term and I will not allow it in this article. Al 03:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It is in no way an equivalent of the N-word. It isn't applied to a person such as the word "faggot" may be but to their...what's the word again? Oh yeah, Agenda. Also you aren't solely in charge of wikipedia. Chooserr 03:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. It is, as always, a pleasure to work with you towards the harmonious editing of articles. Al 03:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how I proved your point, but sure...Chooserr 03:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
And anyone feel free to view wikipedia's article on the subject here (that is if Alienus doesn't decide to tear the article to shreads because he "won't stand for it"). Chooserr 03:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Concentration camps

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

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

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

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

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

You're simply mistaken. There are countless citations from reliable sources that speak of gay rights and the opposition against them. Just because you don't like the term doesn't mean you get to remove it. Al 04:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Alienus, please don't make accusation against another user, especially when you don't know them.
And Pollinator be bold. Chooserr 05:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Well, why don't you start with the present POV? Right now the page a polemic against that tiny minority of "fundies" whose motivation is to raise money (assume good faith?). Admitedly there are two points of view. America is about divided in half. But your version states only one side of the POV, while trying to knock out the other side every time it is expressed. Note the nearly 50/50 vote in the Senate to see if the "gay rights" opposition is only the "fundies." The opposition to "gay rights" is mainstream. In states where there has been a referendum on same-sex marriage, it fails by wide margins. Bring the article into the reality of the day, not the wishful thinking of a few. Pollinator 13:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
"Right now the page a polemic against that tiny minority of "fundies" whose motivation is to raise money" - The content of the article appears to be verifiable, and I see no mention whatsoever of fund raising. The term "fundies" is not used at all, and fundamentalists are in fact a large force against equal rights for gays. George100 17:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The article presently states: From the late 1970s onwards, Christian fundamentalist organizations such as the 700 Club, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women For America, and the Christian Coalition found that opposition to gay rights based on Biblical teachings, and various anti-gay sterotypes was an effective tool to raise revenue for their organizations.
This is a pretty blatant POV remark, impugning motives, and applying the fundamentalist label to groups that aren't fundamentalist. How much farther off from NPOV can you get? Pollinator 18:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like you're asking for further citations. Al 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Completely rewrite public opinion section?

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

Gay rights is a controversial term, hence the italics

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

  • Hm. "Technical term" encompasses "contested term"? I'm not at all sure that's the case. As far as manuals of style is concerned, those aren't Wikipedia's; at best we have Wikipedia:Manual of Style (italics), which doesn't prescribe that usage. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Somehow, I don't see "gay rights" as being a technical term that readers will be unfamiliar with, therefore I must continue to enforce NPOV by removing the italics. Please understand that anything doen to enforce NPOV is, by definition, never vandalism, so your accusations are as uncivil as they are false. Al 16:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It is a term used in political discussion. Technical doesn't just mean technology. It means uncommonly used in wider circles. Political jargon, such as terms used by political activists, fits this definition. Also, Wikipedia's style guide is made up of best-practices of style usage in general, of which this is one. You'll also see that it does include introduction of a term. I have added a reference in the style guide to illustrate this. DavidBailey 16:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, so "gay rights" is somehow not used in wider circles? There are over ten million instances of the phrase on Google; how much wider use does it need to qualify as vernacular rather than "technical"? Thing is, we use wikilinks here in places where italics for unfamiliarity might be used in print; if a word is unfamiliar to the reader, they click on it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
And everyone -- please hold off on edit warring while we're discussing the issue, OK? It doesn't hurt anything if the italics are there or not there for a while; it doesn't change the reader's comprehension. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Not everyone agrees what gay rights means, so it's appropriate to introduce the term in the article. DavidBailey 17:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and we do that on Wikipedia with wikilinks, not with italics. Look around. Why should this article be different from the rest? Is there an alternate term which would need less introduction? Are people reading "gay rights opposition" going to be confused by the term "gay rights"? Now, if the term itself is sufficiently controversial, this might be a good place to put a sentence or a paragraph with, say, "Mr. Reliable Source considers the term gay rights itself to be a misnomer because the term 'gay' is questionable and what they want isn't rights." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The term should not be in quotes/italics. (1) Wikilinks are sufficient to introduce technical or potentially-unfamiliar words. (2) The term "gay rights" is frequently used without scare quotes/italics in the mainstream media, by politicians of both parties, and by everyday people. (3) It is listed in dictionaries (e.g., Webster's). (4) The existence of viewpoints denying the existence of a thing doesn't warrant scare quotes/italics: if so, then God, the homosexual agenda, special rights, the external world, the soul, etc., should all be put in quotes/italics. Fireplace 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying that no term requires quotes, italics, or phrases such as "what they refer to", "what they see as", "what they believe is" when they are controversial? DavidBailey 17:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Scare quotes might be warranted for a host of reasons, but controversy isn't sufficient to establish warrant (see examples above). Fireplace 17:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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

So then you also agree to quit putting phrases similar to "what they refer to", "what they see as", and "what they believe is" in front of phrases you object to? Frankly, I think italics is much less biased that this technique which you often employ. DavidBailey 17:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
When one is discussing other's opinions, phrases such as "what they refer to" are appropriate for expressions that (unlike "gay rights") are not in common usage. For example, when the whole issue started making news a few years ago, one might very well have written "blah blah have introduced a bill to restrict what they call 'partial birth abortion'" -- at the time, the expression was not at all common, and it's never been medically used -- it's a political term, as you put it. But in the intervening time, the term has become sufficiently common that in general it need not be called out. Likewise, if this were 1962, the nomenclature "pro-life" and "pro-choice" would need to be called out; we certainly don't call them out when we use them now (whether they should be used in Wikipedia articles is a different matter.) The expression "gay rights" is a done deal, especially in an article entitled "Gay rights opposition". Now, if this were the Civil rights article, there might be more need for italics on first introduction, since as is being discussed elsewhere by some of us, there is a non-fringe-element dispute as to whether "gay rights" are a subset of "civil rights".
As far as the use of italics is concerned, it's really just an aesthetic, stylistic thing. Practice here is not to use them to qualify or NPOV-ize expressions that otherwise might convey POV, but instead to use the weaseling phrases you object to. I think I agree with the practice here, as annoying as I find the weasels; italics are imprecise -- they could indeed be the equivalent sneer or scare quotes; they could be attempting to highlight for emphasis; they could be to introduce concepts; they could be to indicate foreign phrases. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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

EB, and from a different perspect, "Gay rights opposition" wouldn't even exist, it would be, "Moral traditionalism proponents". The problem is that you seem to think that all terms the agree with the gay rights activists are neutral and all terms which disagree are not neutral. That in itself is a form of bias. Whether you disagree or not, the article must treat both sides with equal weight and neutrality. DavidBailey 10:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If you want to write that article, go for it. I'll make sure it's linked to gay rights opposition, civil rights opposition, feminism opposition and so on, as is appropriate. After all, we'll still need articles for each type of right that "moral traditionalism proponent" oppose. Al 14:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

So, EB, italics or no italics? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Very simple, and very POV. DavidBailey 16:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, those who oppose gay rights do not always do it on the basis of being self-identified proponents for "moral traditionalism". There are many paths to bigotry, and this is but one. Al 14:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, I've read it. It's more a history than anything. I think a lot of content was lost in the rush to article consolidation. I guess my perspective is US-centric, but my questions are in the context of gays in a modern democracy, not in a fascist state where they had to be concerned about being killed for their actions. DavidBailey 18:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Two words: Matthew Shepard. I rest my case. Al 18:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Hate crimes legislation is wrong. The fact that Matthew Shepard was killed was already illegal. Valuing one life more than another, or punishing one murderer more than another is unethical. Those who killed Matthew Shepard would already have been sentenced to life in prison or death. How does this impact a discussion of gay rights in a modern democratic-republic state? DavidBailey 18:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What rights don't Homosexuals have??

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

Ros, it sounds like you're very unfamiliar with this issue. Perhaps you should do some research on it before doing further edits. For example, it might help if you understood about such things as the right to be protected from discrimination in the workplace and housing market, the right to marry and the right to adopt. Once you are, you may well be able to contribute usefully. Al 21:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Homosexuals have always had the right to marry, adoption is not a right anyway, and how are homosexuals discriminated against in the housing market and workplace? Ros Power 23:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
This is nothing new - try reading Ros Power's contributions. Usually her approach is 1) claim the English language is being twisted, 2) Wikipedia is run by a gay cabal 3) If a non-heterosexual person engages her attention she'll claim that their "practising homosexual lifestyle" (a stock phrase) renders them incapable of offering a NPOV view. That said, she confuses POV and NPOV fairly often (witness the misuse of NPOV her final sentence.) A number of us have seen it all before on various articles, so we keep an eye, friendly of course, on her progress. ReformedCharacter 22:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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

  • I do love Homosexuals have always had the right to marry. Sure they have. They've always had the right to marry people of the opposite sex. Which kinda misses the whole point, probably deliberately. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the language is being twisted by homosexual activists, ExplodingBoy. For example, you argued that all opposition to homosexuality and resistance to the gay agenda, irrespective of its groundings, is "homophobia". Is objection to paedophilia "paedophobia"? Is objection to crime "crimeophobia"? Then you said that "homosexual" was a pejorative term - er, it's actually the only term that belongs in an encyclopaedia, certainly the terms "gay, "lesbian" and "BGTL" are euphemistic terms that have no place in an allegedly NPOV publication. Yet for some reason these terms are plastered all over WikiPedia like they had any currency outside a handful of militant homosexual activists and their sympathisers.
Now you say that homosexuals have been denied the right to marry, when what you REALLY mean is that marriage IS the union of a man and a woman and that doesn't suit your agenda. You can no more redefine marriage than redefine the colour blue or a cat. I really find being called biased on the subject of homosexuality by a militant practising homosexual, whose contributions include "Prince Albert Piercing", "Anal Sex", "Fisting", "Handjob", "Gay Porn Stars", "Anal sex positions" and "Gay bathhouses" so mindblowingly hypocritical that I can't help wondering if you are in some profound state of denial, and if your lifestyle is any reflection of your contributions, I'm not surprised. Ros Power 15:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Thank you so much for expressing the typical gay rights opposition view. If it weren't OR, I'd quote your ramblings in the article. Al 15:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, they have a right to marry according to the laws and traditions of marriage. They also have a right to associate, they can set up power of attorney, can include each other in each other's wills, set up joint checking accounts, etc, etc, etc. Marriage has a history of being supported by society as the best method to create stable households and raise children[10]. Therefore, it has been the tendency of government to promote those families. However, if, as many gay righs activists portend, marriage is a meaingless tradition, why aren't civil unions enough? I think it is because it is not an interest in equality that drives them, but rather a desire to remake marriage in the way they see fit. Marriage is primarily based on moral tradition and religious doctrine, which is why opponents feel so strongly on this issue. DavidBailey 10:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

EB, do you always insult those who are attempting to collaborate with, or are you not attempting to collaborate? DavidBailey 16:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if youtook my remark as insulting. It wasn't intended that way at all. I'm simply observing that you seem to be unaware of some realities concerning the topic under discussion. Exploding Boy 17:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I will repeat what I put above regarding your comment about the fact I should read gay rights: Actually, I've read it. It's more a history than anything. I think a lot of content was lost in the rush to article consolidation. I guess my perspective is US-centric, but my questions are in the context of gays in a modern democracy, not in a fascist state where they had to be concerned about being killed for their actions. DavidBailey 18:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The best solution is for the State to get completely out of the marriage business, then. Let the law deal with civil unions, let contract and family law deal with the results of those civil unions, and make marriage solely an issue for the religious bodies to deal with. Anyway, this has nothing to do with improving this article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

"The best solution is for those who object to crimes of violence is to avoid committing them". Ros Power 19:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "There are literally thousands of laws that make reference to marriage" -- right. The government shouldn't be in the marriage business, any more than it should be in the religion business. Laws granting special rights to people who have gone through some or another religious ritual are the problem. But I was being idealistic, not practical; the amount of legal change to remove religion from the lawbooks is something that won't happen in the US. The easier solution is for the state to remove gender discrimination from the lawbooks except where biologically necessary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, your argument depends on marriage being a religious ritual. This is factually and legally not the case.
What makes you married is not the ceremony or the priest, but the duly signed and witnessed marriage contract (which doesn't require a priest at all) that you recieve from the state. To hammer in the fact that marriage is not innately religious, I'd like to remind you that atheists get married, too.
In short, this is about the role of government in social institutions, not religion. Libertarians and anarchists want to limit government for ideological reasons, not religiousones.
Of course, what complicates things is that religions still seem to think that they own marriage, which is why they act as if their opinions about marriage are relevant. They're not, unless you choose to get married by someone from that religion. If you get married by a cleric of a more liberal religion, or by a judge or notary public or captain, then you don't have to care what these old-style religions think.
Oh, and by the way, I'm an atheist yet I'm capable of performing legally binding weddings all over America. Al 15:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, marriage has nothing to do with religion. Even atheist societies such as the former Soviet Union, North Korea and China recognise marriage as the union of a man and a woman for the common good and as a reflection of the inherent complementarity of the sexes, and accord special rights accordingly. Ros Power 15:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Marriage rights are not special rights, nor are they inherently limited to heterosexual couples. It used to be, in America, that a "mixed race" couple could not marry, but we've gotten past that bigotry. Now we're working on getting past the prohibition on same-sex marriages. I call this progress, but then again, I'm a progressive. Al 17:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Mixed race marriage is valid because all people are equal in the eyes of the law. Same sex unions are not equal to opposite sex unions because they serve none of the myriad of purposes that marriage does - in fact they contradict marriage in every meaningful sense. That is not a reflection of the inherent value or worth of the participants, but of the union, so it is specious to talk about it like it was an equality issue. I call that the truth, but then I'm not into the lies I want to hear.Ros Power 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Marriage was a religious covenant before it was a legal one. Since that time, governments have adopted it as a convenient tool within society to promote stable families. In this article, we are discussing both religious and legal opposition, so both are relevant. DavidBailey 16:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Marriage may have been many things at many times, but we are not and should not be bound by the errors of history. For example, there was a time when a woman lost many rights upon marriage, but we've gotten over this misogyny. Once again, I call this progress. Let's look to the past for lessons on what to avoid, not for bigotries that we can perpetuate. Al 16:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

EB, to whom are you addressing your comment? All of the above discussion appears relevant to article. DavidBailey 16:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
One of the biggest rights marriage grants you in the UK is "next of kin". My mum was most upset that when I was in hospital they wouldn't tell her anything as she was not my next of kin - my husband is. I can see why people of any sex would want this legal status if they were in a committed relationship. Inheritance, tax, tenancy, insurance, pension and child custody are rights that first come to my mind that are directly affected by a person's marital status in the UK. I do think the idea of expanding the list of discriminatory laws is a good idea as this will show on what grounds gay rights activists feel they need change laws. Sophia 17:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
In the US, you can grant power of attorney which can include things like making medical or financial decisions. Can you not do this in the UK? DavidBailey 18:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes they can. And nobody has put forward a cogent case for how state recognition of homosexuality serves the public interest.Ros Power 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

That "gay rights" is a valid term in all cases, and in all nations, such as modern democratic-republics where people who hurt or kill gays are already breaking the law. What rights are missing? DavidBailey 18:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Article talk pages are for the discussion of articles, not for political debate. If you have a concrete proposal to change the article, please do present it. Please do not debate "gay rights." Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

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

The word "gay rights" for a start. Unsigned comment added by User:Ros Power.
This is the last time I expect to have to remind you to sign your posts. All posts. Every time. Thank you.
"Gay rights" is not a non-neutral term, so your objection is invalid. Educate yourself about our policies. Anything else? If not, I'm removing the tag. Exploding Boy 15:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. That makes it non-neutral. And you don't own wikipedia. Ros Power 19:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


No, it just makes you disagreeable. You need to have some basis for your disagreement so as to convince us to care. Al 19:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Right. Back to square one. What RIGHTS don't homosexuals have? Even ones that practise homosexuality? Ros Power 20:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Political debate overwhelming the page

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

Agreed, of course. Al 19:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It is a challenge to people who understand the goals and purposes of the talk page to not respond to things that have nothing to do with the goals and purposes of the talk page, whatsoever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/g/b/Talk%7ELGBT_rights_opposition_Archive_2_8880.html"