Talk:Societal attitudes toward homosexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Societal attitudes toward homosexuality article.
Article policies
LGBT Portal
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.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Coverage issues

So... what's with this article, anyway? I was trying to research this subject, and I'm a little disappointed to find nothing but China, Israel, the USA, Greece, and three variants of Rome. Oh, and 'the Bedami people of New Guinea.' Plus, I think Sulla (who hid his homosexuality his entire life until retirement) and Julius Caesar (constantly and angrily denied being homosexual) would be surprised to hear that Rome was accepting of homosexuals during the late Republic/early Emperor phase. Come to think of it, the individual articles on those two would seem to agree with me... 24.130.61.61 19:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What more do you want? You do realize that you're welcome to make contributions if you want, and have sources. As for the Rome issue, I haven't read the article in a while and it may have changed, but last I recall it by no means makes easy statements like "Rome was accepting of homosexuals" or its converse. -Smahoney 19:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Globalizing"

A tag has been added to the article indicating that, in the opinion of that editor, the article should be more global and less U.S.-centric. I think the article could use some improvement in that department, but I don't personally think it's "off" enough to warrant the tag. For an English-language article, I think this one probably does a better than average job of looking at non-U.S. attitudes.

Anyway, this section can be used to discuss this issue. KarlBunker 13:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is does relatively better is not an excuse not to fix the problem, and I actually happen to agree with the editor. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the tag is fine. Hopefully it will encourage some of us to continue working on the article. -Smahoney 15:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Why not simply move the US section to its own article and leave a short summary here? If there was an equivalent amount of information on each country in the world, the page would be too long. ntennis 00:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to that idea, but as it stands I don't really think there is enough in the US section to warrant its own article - anyone care to add some content? -Smahoney 01:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Date re Constantine"

Under the heading "VIOLENCE" -- "The earliest state recorded to punish anti-gay violence with death was the Roman Empire under Constantine, around 400 AD." As Constantine died in 337 AD, perhaps this line should be amended to read " ... under Constantine, in the 4th century CE." But the notion itself seems strange to me, and must certainly require some citation. Constantine was the first of the Christian emperors: it's hardly likely such legislation was brought in under his aegis. Perhaps it was his nephew, Julian the Apostate? One of Constantine's sons, if I remember my Gibbon, was actually murdered on the pretext of illicit sexual encounters. And anyway, what would "anti-gay violence" have meant in C4 Constantinople? And the use of the phrase "earliest state recorded" would logically indicate that other states followed suit. But the death penalty for anti-gay violence is not a common thread in the jurisprudence of nations. The entire sentence, to my mind, is problematical. I fear to edit it myself, because, as it lacks a citation, I can't properly work out what it means. By the way, congratulations to you, Mr Mahoney, on your perseverence and patience with this article. Jamie O'Neill --194.165.160.159 15:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think O'Neill is right, and there's something mighty fishy about that sentence. Many authors date the inception of oppression of gays in western society to the reign of Constantine, and indeed, according to this source Constantine "condemned" homosexuality, and it was made punishable by death during the reign of his son. I can't find any reference that supports the point made in the article, and it seems unlikely to say the least. I've removed it. KarlBunker 17:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hHomosexuality and religion

I moved the content below the line from the article and replaced it with a summary. I don't think we can devote sections to each religion, because

  • 1) it's content forking with the homosexuality and religion page, which already has a summary for the major religions
  • 2) it covers only christianity and islam, and I don't see that there's room to have a separate section for buddhism, hinduism, jainism, judaism, animism, afro-american religions, etc. etc.

ntennis 05:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

Main article: Homosexuality and Christianity

Some religious groups consider homosexuality to be transgressive of divine law. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, such behavior is "intrisically disordered" and "contrary to natural law". As such, homosexual acts can be approved "under no circumstances". (CCC 2357) The Catholic Church recognizes that the numbers of people with homosexual tendencies is not negligible and urges Catholics to eschew unjust discrimination. The Church calls upon individuals inclined toward homosexuality to live lives of chastity. By way of counterpoint, John Boswell argued that church stance has varied over time, and that during several periods in European Christian history homosexuality was not repressed and was even celebrated.[1] However, this view is generally not accepted by church historians.

On the other hand, a number of religious establishments welcome homosexual individuals, either on a footing of equality with heterosexuals (such as the Unitarian Universalist congregation or some Anglican congregations in North America) or even according them special status as possessing enhanced spiritual abilities (as in many Native American and aboriginal religions).[2]

Acceptance or condemnation of homosexual behavior has led to strife within many religions denominations. In 2003, Gene Robinson was made a bishop of the Episcopal Church. His elevation has led to a rift in the Anglican communion which hovers on the brink of schism as a result (main article: Anglican views of homosexuality).

[edit] Islam

Main articles: Homosexuality and Islam and Pederasty in the Islamic world

There is no concept analogous to "homosexuality" in Islam, in the sense of an innate identity. Instead, same-sex sexual expression manifests in a number of separate forms, which are not treated alike, either socially or juridically.

Rather, Islam concerns itself with sexual behaviors, rather than desires. In particular Islam condemns anal intercourse — whether with males or females — as a major sin. The concept of sexual orientation is not recognized or accepted in Islam.

According to Khaled El-Rouayheb, masculine attraction towards handsome adolescents is considered normal and universal in Muslim cultures, a temptation to be resisted in the same way one resists attraction towards females not lawful to one.[3] Fundamentalist groups advocated punishing sodomy with whipping and death.

[edit] The El-Rouayheb quote - thumbsucking?.

There is confusion here, which I would like to have some clarity on:

  1. Quoting the reference (El-Rouayheb, Khaled, Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, Chicago, 2005), this article says: "In many non-Western post-colonial countries, homosexual orientation is still considered to be a mental disorder and illness. In Moslem areas, this position is ascribed to the earlier adoption of European Victorian attitudes by the westernized elite, in areas where previously native traditions embraced same-sex relations."
  2. In an earlier paragraph, the author(s) say: "Abrahamic religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, traditionally forbid sexual relations between people of the same sex and teach that such behaviour is sinful."
  3. In the article Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered, there appears: "Sexual relations between individuals of the same sex have frequently been repressed by the state under pain of mutilation and death. Such events (represented as buggery or sodomy) took place in Europe from the fifth to the twentieth centuries, and in Muslim countries from the beginning of the Muslim era up to and including the present day."

With reference to Islam, (1) and (2 and 3) cannot all be true. Since (2) and (3) has not been disputed elsewhere, that leaves El-Rouayheb as a doubtful "authority", coming across as blaming "European Victorians" for something which was in place centuries before. I have not seen his book, but as a source it seems to be simply wrong and non-authoritative. Should it even be in WikiPedia? Does anyone know on what the quoted author bases his assertion? Fact or fantasy? --Seejyb 23:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In a reasonable, logical world you would be right. However there are many historians who have written about the tradition of same-sex relations in Islamic countries, which have been at odds with dogmatic and fundamentalist forces since the beginning of Islam. Witness the conflict between Muhammad al-Amin, friend of Abu Nuwas and well known sodomite (greater liwat, with an eunuch if I am not mistaken) and his brother, al-Mamoun, straight-laced puritan. As for el-Rouayheb, he is a post-doctoral research fellow at Cambridge, and the book was published by the University of Chicago Press. What are your credentials? Haiduc 23:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. So someone who does not become educated at Cambridge doesn't have the right to speak now? That's some great logic and reason...

I think your missing the point. Seejyb has the right to speak. However s/he is questioning an authority who apparently has ample authority in the subject in question. Haiduc has responded to the issues raised and pointed out that there is no reason that we know of to doubt El-Rouyheb as an authority on the subject. Remember that wikipedia is not a soapbox and talkpages are only for discussing improvements to an article. Unless seejyb can establish that there is a good reason why we can't quote El-Rouayheb then his or her opionion of El-Rouyheb is irrelevant and definitely doesn't count much even from an intrinsic sense if s/he lacks qualifications or experience in the subject matter. Nil Einne 21:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Native Americans

There's no information here about homosexuality or attitudes toward homosexuality among Native Americans. Has there been no research on this topic?

[edit] Don't overwrite my postings please

This entry is POV. This is one of the worst parts:

[conservatism] has a significant proportion of adherents who consider homosexuals, and especially the efforts of homosexuals to achieve equal rights and recognition, to be a threat to valued traditions, institutions and freedoms. Yuuta 13:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is sourced, and presents a well documented phenomenon. What do you find unbalanced about the way it is presented in the article? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
This is NOT sourced. Yuuta 14:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
An example of this type of conservative reasoning is given in the article itself, in the passage from the Alliance Defense Fund. Statements like "a significant proportion of adherents" are difficult to document with a single citation, but in this case it's a statement that's well documented. Browse a few conservative websites that deal with the issue of homosexuality if you don't believe it. And BTW, if you want to support your POV tag edit, you need to present arguments and suggest alternative wordings, not simply make pronouncements like "this is POV" and "this is not sourced." If you can't do this, then the POV tag is an unconstructive edit and will be removed. KarlBunker 14:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
That is not how Wikipedia works. If it's a statement that's well documented then simply provide a citation. Yuuta 03:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
A list of citations has been provided, per your request KarlBunker 13:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Societal attitudes towards homosexuality is of very poor quality. It has been rated B-Class which means it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) and considerable editing is still needed.

It is shoddy to allude to a significant proportion of adherents and not quantify that in any way. It is one-sided to say that equal rights are a threat to conservatives. The article should have a POV tag and was lucky to get a B-Class rating. It is truly awful. Yuuta 04:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Yuuta is a probable confirmed sockpuppet of the permanently banned user Lou franklin, and in any case he is undoubtedly a troll. There is no need to respond to any of his postings here. KarlBunker 12:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for deciding what everybody else needs to do. This Wikipedia entry was rated as B-Class because it is crap. I am telling you how to fix it but you would rather maintain the status quo. Yuuta 16:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update the table

The new Gallop Poll table has come out recently.[1] Can anyone update the article's table?