Talk:Love Won Out
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. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
Holy apostrophe and semicolon misuse, Batman! I corrected a few errors, I'm sure there are more. Not sure whether to capitalize the quotes from the protester signs. 35.9.6.175 (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Emily
[edit] This is not homophobia
Homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuals. This organization teaches love for the homosexual (regardless of choices they make on sexual behavior) while taking a firm stance on traditional family values. Just because Truth Wins Out thinks it is homophobic, doesn't make it so. You need a neutral, reliable source to claim it is homophobic. See a similar discussion at Talk:Focus_on_the_Family#Homophobic_category. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No, preaching love of homosexuals doesn't make it not Homophobic, and the literal meaning of hpmophobic isn't what is in use hear so Bringing it up is intellectually dishonest.Kairos (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "The literal meaning isn't what is in use"? By what definition do you classify Love Won Out as homophobic if not the dictionary definition? Do you have a reliable source saying it is homophobic? This source should not be self published. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, here is a reliable source (San Jose Mercury News) talking about a Love Won Out event where there were people protesting the group for alleged homophobia. How does that grab you? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- The protests were not for alleged homophobia, but for false advertisement. Disagreeing with Love Won Out because the protestors don't think people can change their sexual orientation is not the same thing as claiming Love Won Out has an irrational fear of homosexuals. Even so, San Mercury News reporting the protestors says Love Won Out's conferences have false advertisement is not the same as the San Mercury News saying Love Won Out has false advertisement. Merely disagreeing with the gay rights movement is not sufficient to be categorized as homophobic. Calling it a "no-brianer" (edit summary) isn't sufficient either. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- One of the protesters' signs read "Homophobia: Now that's a choice." How does the word homophobia not involve the word homophobia?
- The "See Also" is not saying "Love Won Out" is homophobic. It is saying that issues surrounding homophobia are relevant to the article on Love Won Out. I just don't see how you could possibly deny that. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I can deny that the mere suggestion that someone can change is relevant to an irrational fear of homosexuals. A reliable source reporting that a protester carried a sign with the word homophobic in it is not sufficient. By nature, signs carried by protesters are often exaggerations. To help you see where I coming from, how would you feel if someone found a reliable source that reported a protest where one of the signs carried the message "Homosexuality is a sin" and decided that would be sufficient to list sin in the See Also section for the homosexuality page? I don't know about you, but I would be horrified and would quickly remove it. Yes, a lot of people think homosexuality and sin are related, and it is discussed briefly on the homosexuality page, but that isn't sufficient to get it listed in the See Also section. The same is true for Love Won Out and homophobia. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- The protests were not for alleged homophobia, but for false advertisement. Disagreeing with Love Won Out because the protestors don't think people can change their sexual orientation is not the same thing as claiming Love Won Out has an irrational fear of homosexuals. Even so, San Mercury News reporting the protestors says Love Won Out's conferences have false advertisement is not the same as the San Mercury News saying Love Won Out has false advertisement. Merely disagreeing with the gay rights movement is not sufficient to be categorized as homophobic. Calling it a "no-brianer" (edit summary) isn't sufficient either. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, here is a reliable source (San Jose Mercury News) talking about a Love Won Out event where there were people protesting the group for alleged homophobia. How does that grab you? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, well the Homosexuality article does have a See Also to Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints, and you and I both know how the LDS church feels about homosexuality... Actually, that link seems really out of place, since there is no link there to Homosexuality and Christianity, Homosexuality and religion, etc. So that is a little fishy, I must say...
- Also, for the record, as Metatron Cube explained before, homophobia does not mean "an irrational fear of homosexuals".
- I see your point, though. <shrug> I dunno, you and I live in entirely different realities, so it becomes difficult to discern fact from opinion. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] incomprehensible
The article contains this sentence, 'The ministry exists to help men and women dissatisfy "the (non-biological) condition of Male and Female Homosexuality" to understand that same-sex attractions can be overcome.' I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Could someone re-write this so that it makes sense? Skoojal (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
