Talk:Homosexual recruitment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on April 4 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here. |
Contents |
[edit] Sources
The sources here are ridiculously bad. Someone please put up some WP:V sourcing.--Isotope23 14:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Post-AfD comments
Hi, I'm the one that put this up for AfD last week. I stand by my decision to put it up given the state it was in then. But several editors, most notably FT2, have improved this article immeasurably, and this is well on its way to becoming a fine article and now makes the case for notability. At the very least, something good came from the AfD in that it got this article in much better shape. In any case, kudos to the new editing. --Deville (Talk) 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Its fine that this article talks lots about the debate with christians, but IMHO it needs to prominently state: (a) what scientists think, and (b) that choice and sexual orientation, or related articles, say why scientists think that. JeffBurdges 13:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- AFD is right for articles that have no chance to become notable or meet standards. But if they do, it's worth researching a bit to check, is all. I didn't know much about it except that I'd heard the term. One of the great things about wikipedia is you learn by having to reasearch yourself for edits !! :) Anyway the important thing is its now visibly not contentious what content it has so... yup, the AFD actually did well !! :) FT2 (Talk) 02:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Awfully POV
"Of course this represents a lack of critical thinking…" This is supposed to be neutral? - Jmabel | Talk 03:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, clearly no, its not supposed to be neutral. -Seth Mahoney 04:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] psychologists
I suspect that psychologists are not particularly fond of this idea, as they usually believe that accepting your homosexuality is the way to "cure" it. Anyone know what should be said about this? At minimum, it should be mentioned that psychologists view having a problem with your sexuality as a disorder, but don't view being homosesxual as a disorder. JeffBurdges 18:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Valid verifiable information, not germane to topic. Its more relevant to other topics such as choice and homosexuality which are linked from here as backup and where it is mentioned. Psych view isnt relevant to actual homosexual recruitment. FT2 (Talk) 23:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Fine, but you need to restore some aspect of my edits. This article is inherently a pseudo-POV fork of choice and sexual orientation and yet it fails to even link to choice and sexual orientation!! My editer were primarily meant to place this extremely important link into the intro, where it belongs. I did not intent to significantly alter the intros content otherwise, although I probably did on hindsite. Please restore the link in whatever manor you feal preserves the content of the intro. JeffBurdges 20:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fact tags
I added fact tags on the two quotes currently in section 3.1, Notable activists and speakers. I don't have the slightest doubt that these quotes are correct, and they certain sound realistic. But if we put something actually in quotation marks, then it makes sense for us to have a source describing when and where these people said this. Surely this Pat Robertson quote is written down somewhere? -- Deville (Talk) 14:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Follow-up: I tried to find a source for "socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." using a Gsearch. What I find remarkable is that there are tons of sites which attribute this quote to Robertson, but none of them say where. Moreover, this link attributes this quote of his to describing both "feminism" and "the Equal Rights Amendement". Again, I don't have the slightest doubt that Robertson could have said something like this. On the other hand, this particular quote could be a hoax, given that every site I went through attributed it to Robertson but neglected to mention where and when, or even if it was spoken or written. -- Deville (Talk) 14:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
He said it in a fund raising letter.
"A fund-raising letter written by the evangelist Pat Robertson in opposition to a proposed equal rights amendment to the Iowa Constitution suggests that feminists want women to kill their children and practice witchcraft.
The equal rights amendment, on which Iowans will vote Nov. 3, is a broadly worded measure that would bar sex discrimination.
But Mr. Robertson's letter, distributed late last month to supporters of the evangelical organization Christian Coalition, described the proposal as part of a "feminist agenda" that "is not about equal rights for women."
Instead, the letter said, "it is about a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." " ROBERTSON LETTER ATTACKS FEMINISTS, NY Times, p.A16, 8/26/92 [[1]] Ck4829 20:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Yet another follow-up: I this this search and the same applies. It is always attributed to Anita Bryant, never told where it was spoken or even if it was spoken, and in fact one source said 1977 and the other said 1983. -- Deville (Talk) 14:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Categories
Categories have disappeared from this article. I think it may have something to do with an unclosed tag of some kind though I couldn't find it. -- Longhair 03:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Never mind, it's fixed ;) -- Longhair 03:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Read, Conservative"
Not sure who put that there, but it's really, really POV. Wikipedia isn't a base for making snide comments about opinions. It's for hard fact. Should that sentance be there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.45.163 (talk • contribs) 16 August 2006.
[edit] Sources and Viewpoints provided
I'm concerned that the majority of sources and opinions provided gives this article an imbalanced viewpoint towards those who believe this to be true, rather than being balanced with an equivalent amount of opposing viewpoints and sources. In addition, I'm particularly concerned that the inclusion of a long quotated paragraph referring to one "Hannon" listed under the "Use of the Term" section is solely for the purpose of further getting an intended message across, and that the source provided for this is both unreliable and undeniably prejudiced. However I'm not sure if my first concern is rightly founded, or what should be done about my second concern. --Os-osiris 15:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dubious recent changes
I'm not going to wade into this bigtime, but recent changes seem to me to be headed the wrong way. For example, the lead paragraph, which used to read…
Homosexual recruitment is a term used for the idea that homosexuals (usually gay men) actively target impressionable individuals (usually youth) for homosexual indoctrination to persuade them towards homosexual self-identification, or alternatively, that there is a widespread conspiracy to subvert "appropriate" values by promoting homosexuality as a valid normal sexual orientation in schools and other areas of life. It is mostly used by activists in the United States who strongly disapprove of homosexuality, but has also been used in some other countries.
…now reads…
Homosexual recruitment is a term used for the idea that LGBT people actively target impressionable individuals (usually youth) to persuade them to identify as LGBT, or alternatively, that there is a widespread conspiracy to subvert "appropriate" values by promoting LGBT sexualities in schools and other areas of life. It is mostly used by activists in the United States who strongly disapprove of homosexuality, but has also been used in some other countries [citation needed].
In particular, isn't "LGBT" just political correctness in this context? I don't know of any theories about bisexuals or (especially ) transgendered people "recruiting". - Jmabel | Talk 08:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure about the 'T', but yes for the 'L' and 'B' -- in high schools, there are communities where it is trendy to be bisexual (especially among girls) (see, e.g., [2]), and there has been a reaction against this by the Christian Right. Also, see the Pat Robertson quote in the article. Fireplace 12:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The recruitment isn't active
The proponents of homosexual recruitment don't say anything about _active_ recruitment. That may be the implication, however it's not stated directly.
The phrase "Homosexuals can't reproduce, therefor they must recruit" doesn't mean homosexuals go out and about "converting" straight men to gay men. This statement must be put into context that homosexuality is a 100% lethal gene (all homosexuals are the end-point of a heterosexual family tree) and is obviously enough NOT caused by genes. Therefor it must be caused by other factors, such as upbringing, culture, peer pressure, ect.
Proponents of this theory argue that the more tolerant society is towards homosexuality, the more gay rights homosexuals have and the better the light homosexuality is presented in (note that the stereotypical homosexual lifestyle is currently being seen increasingly as positive, metrosexuality being the adoption of the stereotypical gay lifestyle without adopting the sexuality itself), the more teens will experiment with homosexuality. In turn more of them will become homosexuals and will in turn promote homosexuality and tolerance leading to a situation where eventually a large percentage of society is homosexual.
The proof would be seen when comparing fundamentalist Muslim societies where homosexuality is severely punished and open tolerant societies where there are pro-homosexual campaigns. In the first the number of homosexuals is much lower than what is scientifically considered to be the natural, because people who would otherwise resort to homosexuality are strongly discouraged (to say the least!) by society and become heterosexuals or loners instead. It is actually proven that the most tolerant countries have the most homosexuals.
The proponents of the recruitment theory argue that homosexuality is not naturally determined at birth but instead 100% culture-based. Therefor the number of homosexuals is the result of a positive pro-gay influence of tolerance, positive gay lifestyle image, gay victim/nazi homophobe idea and negative factors of morality, religion or intolerance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.192.96.25 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
