Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality/archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Notes for future work

I came across this article, which might have usable material for later work here:

Feel free to add more stuff to the list if anyone finds anything. -Smahoney 21:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What Gibbon also says

I heard that Edward Gibbon cites sexual perversion and homosexuality as a cause for the fall of the Roman empire in his book "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". This book is cited as a source for this article. Is there a problem here? Perhaps the article should mention the anti-homosexuality argument that is based on that conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.173.126.153 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end, even if you don't have an account. I have no objection, but I'd rather any such additions were made by someone who has actually read the book, not only heard about it. -Smahoney 14:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Lou franklin banned from this page

The Arbitration Committee has decided that Lou franklin is indefinitely banned from editing this page and related articles and discussion pages. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin for he ruling. KimvdLinde 22:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Patroclus caption

I've edited the caption of the Achilles and Patroclus image, because although most Athenians of the 5th century BCE did understand the relationship between the two to be a sexual one, if you read Plato's Symposium you can see that the exact details of the relationship were problematic even at the time — for example, there was no consensus over which was the eromenos and which the erastes. Clearly, although the 5th century Athenians were viewing the relationship through the lens of the pederastic relationships they were accustomed to, it was not easy to fit Achilles and Patroclus into that framework. (The relationship is arguably ambiguous in Homer.)

Given that the Classical Greeks had so much difficulty fitting the relationship neatly into the pederastic mold, I'm not sure it's entirely accurate or appropriate to say the image is pederastic (despite the name the image has here). I do think it's fair to say that the image reflects a sexual aspect to the relationship, but since the question is so complex I think that calling it pederastic in this context is a bit too simplistic. I hope the current wording is acceptable. (By the way, there's a page on the relationship of Achilles and Patroclus which anyone who's interested can come and improve.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I think that we need to balance here between two chasms of misconception. No, the Homeric version was not pederastic - but then neither was it sexual. And the time when the plate was produced, two to three centuries after Homer, at the cusp of the sixth and fifth centuries, a generation before the birth of Socrates and three generations before the birth of Plato, the period of full bloom of the pederastic tradition – was that a time when a non-pederastic same-sex sexual relationship would have been enshrined on a symposiac cup – and the symposium one of the main venues of pederastic practice?! Myths evolve to suit the needs of the evolving cultures, and it is apparent that this kylix reflects the understanding of the myth prevalent at the time of its making, a pederastic one, since any other would have received a grossly comical, mocking treatment - clearly not the case here. To not call this interpretation pederastic, intentionally so, is to mislead. Haiduc 11:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
That's probably fair — and given that the cup depicts Patroclus as bearded and Achilles as beardless, it's probably depicting Patroclus as the erastes. I suppose I'm just concerned about the caption suggesting that any sexual interpretation of the Achilles/Patroclus relationship is necessarily a pederastic one, which is equally misleading. Perhaps something like "In this image of Achilles and Patroclus, Patroclus' penis is exposed in reference to the sexual and pederastic interpretation of their relationship"? That gives appropriate credit to the fact that the image probably does depict a pederastic reading, but allows the existence of other interpretations (even in the Classical period). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely! Or even, "A pederastic interpretation of the Achilles and Patroclus myth, a story given mutually contradictory interpretations in antiquity, in keeping with the evolution of Greek attitudes towards same-sex love. Patroclus' exposed penis is thought to be an allusion to the sexual aspect of their relationship"? Haiduc 23:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
That's OK, but I've just had another problem drawn to my attention. In Greek art of the 5th century, the exposure of the genitals isn't necessarily a sexual cue. In the context of a depiction of this relationship, it may well be, but can we actually say that is is or is thought to be a sexual reference? I'm not an expert on classical art styles, but there are plenty of red-figure images which depict male nudity without being sexual references. Perhaps we need a citation for this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I was myself wondering where that came from. I have a hunch it is one of Apollomelos' edits, but he is no longer with the project, and while I expect he got it from a reliable source, I don't remember encountering it in the literature. While with most Greek art of the time nudity is not overtly sexual, this depiction of the penis is exagerated and the artist is seemingly trying to make a point. But we have no source. I would suggest putting a "fact" tag on it. Haiduc 02:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we could just say "An image of Achilles and Patroclus, presenting the mythological figures in the pederastic context common to Greece of the 5th century BCE"? That's a bit more concise, and avoids the entire issue of whether the exposure of the genitals is specifically a sexual cue. Besides, the issue of the varying presentations of the Achilles/Patroclus relationship isn't all that relevant here, really. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Pretty soon we will run out of room, with all these colons. It's fine, though I thought it was amusing that the changing constructions of the myth illuminated the evolving Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. But I do not mind removing the penis discussion - it always struck me as a bit over the top. Haiduc 03:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I also agree that those parallels are interesting, but I think they're better discussed at Achilles and Patroclus than here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Neutrality disputed" tag

The article seems quite neutral to me. It appears from the history that the dispute on that point was the opinion of one person, who has recently been removed from the debate. Are there any objections to removing the NPOV tag? KarlBunker 02:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It has outlived its purpose. Haiduc 03:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and maybe we should archive averything, people who want to continue discussing stuff can bring those specific item back. Kim van der Linde at venus 04:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see all the citations provided first. I don't see why we need to use swear words. And Georgewilliamherbert has reservations. Hernando Cortez 16:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Missing citations and presence of swear words are not NPOV issues. KarlBunker 17:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with KarlBunker on both counts (remember, Wikipedia is not censored for minors, and the fact is that that quote tells the story more clearly and concisely than any other I've found yet). As for Georgewilliamherbert's reservations, I'd be glad to hear them. -Smahoney 21:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I've been really busy recently and haven't had time to actively participate on this article, however, I will review current status and respond to this over this weekend. The citations and swear words are not the issues that I (and some others) had with it. Kimvlinde agreed at the time we decided to retain the tag (when Lou first got blocked for a long time, if I recall) that there was some validity to NPOV concerns. That said, I do need to take the time to review and respond. And will do so in the next couple of days. 23:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The quote is illustrative, and Wikipedia is not censored. This has been discussed before at length -- perhaps it would be a good idea to read the prior discussions. Cleduc 22:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the tag, and then belatedly saw that the discussion here isn't really concluded. I somehow missed that in my review of this page's history. No offense or unilateral action was intended, and the tag can of course be put back if anyone thinks it's still appropriate. KarlBunker 12:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Kim put it back in. I'm reviewing this afternoon... Georgewilliamherbert 18:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

My review input...

The article is far better than it was a couple of months, or six months, ago. Congratulations to the editors who have been actively working on it. Things like sources and balanced treatment of issues are very much improved.

There is still a lack of adequate coverage of modern american "conservative" criticism of homosexuality. I don't know if that justifies or requires a POV tag, and want to think about how to approach this issue. I may be ok with tag removal, but I want to sleep on the question.

Thanks for everyone's patience. Georgewilliamherbert 07:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And what is the verdict after two nights sleep? :-) Kim van der Linde at venus 02:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Three nights now. Either Georgewilliamherbert was really tired, or he (gosh!) actually has a life outside of Wikipedia. :-)
Anyway, I'm going to remove the POV tag; we'll see if it sticks this time. KarlBunker 10:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I only wish my outside life was less tiring. I have an extra hour a day in exercise/physical therapy and PT appointments most weekdays at 8am an hour's drive from my house, and am working 10+ hr days on top of that. Sleep is in short supply.
That said, I am willing to accept the tag removal and move forwards with improvements on the Conservativism section from here on out. Thanks for everyone's patience. Georgewilliamherbert 18:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Controversial tag for an article similar to the one for talk pages that let folks know that it's a contentious issue without necessarily impling a lack of neutrality? --Chesaguy 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The only Controversial tag I know of is the one that appears at the head of this talk page, which is for talk pages only. KarlBunker 10:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hernando Cortez: Still disputed?

Are you still disputing the neutrality of this page? If so, it would be beneficial to start with sentence one and just go through the article and list your complaints, quoting each sentence you have an issue with and suggesting corrections. Otherwise, I doubt this will ever get done. As with the rest of you, your efforts here are appreciated. -Smahoney 19:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If an editor isn't going to make any more substantive contribution than to check in once a week or so to give an article his "I'm ag'inst it" stamp of POV disapproval, then other editors would be justified in ignoring his insistence that the POV tag remain on the article. "Consensus" isn't supposed to be the same thing as "veto of one." The POV tag is supposed to serve as an initiator of discussion and improvements, not as an indicator that someone somewhere at some time read the article and didn't like it. KarlBunker 17:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Conservatism section

Georgewilliamherbert mentioned the lack of coverage of modern conservative criticism of homosexuality, and I was inclined to agree with him. This is certainly an important part of "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality," so I've added a section, doing my best to present the viewpoint fairly and rationally. I put this section in the 'Anti-homosexual attitudes" section, which may not be the best place, but I didn't think it fit in anywhere else. Comments and improvements are welcome. KarlBunker 18:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Another possible place for it would be the historical section, just following the rise of the gay rights movement(s), and then with other specific conservative positions throughout the article as they relate to specific developments or issues. -Smahoney 21:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not think it should go under history, as it has been around during the changes that occured, and those changes made the difference just more clear. Kim van der Linde at venus 01:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying: What has been around during what changes that occurred when? And what differences were made more clear? -Smahoney 01:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I think I was a bit criptic. Conservatism is from all ages, and hence, it is difficult to place it under a specific header in history. Sure, after the rise of gays rights movement, the conservatism and its arguments have become more visible, but that is more because before they were just accepted. I hope this is clearer. Kim van der Linde at venus 03:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh! Yeah, I understand. You're right, though I was thinking of contemporary American conservatism (which is likely what the section will represent), which has been strongly shaped as a response to the gay rights movement. -Smahoney 03:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that would also be an option. But the position it has now, it allows for a wider coverage. Kim van der Linde at venus 03:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Right, which is definitely better, provided we take advantage of it (I admit, I haven't read the new section yet). -Smahoney 03:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I can see that there are actually two things, the more becomong exposed and becoming visible (which is history) and the morals perse behind it (with is at the current place).Kim van der Linde at venus 13:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You made it worse. Such attitudes are not generally tied in with a FEAR of an ASSUMED "homosexual agenda". That is slanted. You say conservatives disapprove of equal rights because they feel threatened. Slanted. Why did you put redefine in quotation marks? Acceptance of homosexual parents and homosexual doesn't redefine marriage. Redefining marriage redefines marriage. What about this goal of increasing the acceptance and rights of homosexuals? Who has that goal? Hernando Cortez 16:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but how about saying how you think something can be fixed instead of just saying it's broken?
I agree that "fear" isn't the most neutral word, so I'll change it. As for "assumed" (homosexual agenda), I think that has to stay. Saying that something is "assumed" does not rule out that it actually exists, whereas leaving out that word (or something similar, such as "perceived") would be to state that it does exist, which would be a POV assertion.
The phrase "conservatives disapprove of equal rights because they feel threatened" does not appear in the article. Rather than paraphrasing, it would be better if you used exact examples from the article text, and stated what (in your opinion) is wrong with that text. In general, what would (in your opinion) be a less-slanted way of describing conservative reaction to gays and gay rights?
I put "redefine" in quotes because "redefining the family" and "redefining marriage" are phrases that are often used (as in the example I provide), but "redefine" has no clear meaning here; I only use the word as a repetition of something that someone has said--hence quotation marks.
Your sentence: Acceptance of homosexual parents and homosexual doesn't redefine marriage. Redefining marriage redefines marriage.--I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by that, or what objection to the text it is meant to express.
And What about this goal of increasing the acceptance and rights of homosexuals? Who has that goal? -- I don't fully understand that either. Many people have that goal, as is common knowledge, but that isn't the point. It is a "pro-homosexual" goal, and therefor those who oppose it can be characterized as having an "anti-homosexual attitude", which is the title of the section. KarlBunker 16:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, these objections are sufficiently unclear that I feel okay about removing the POV tag again, pending further input from the (apparently) sole objector. KarlBunker 20:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Aha! I was just rereading my edits to the article (obviously I have no life whatsoever at all in the least of any kind whatsoever), and I realized what Hernando Cortez meant by "What about this goal of increasing the acceptance and rights of homosexuals? Who has that goal?" The current phrasing can be interpreted as suggesting that the goal of acceptance of homosexuality is a universal goal of society, which only a fringe few oppose. I'll try to rewrite that so any hint of such a suggestion is avoided. It just goes to show how POV can sneak in through the tiniest lapses in one's vigilance. KarlBunker 01:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Not to nitpick (I do very much appreciate your efforts, and the same goes with all the editors here), but now it sounds as if the goal of increasing acceptance, etc. is only the goal of homosexuals, and as if it is a goal, perhaps, of all homosexuals. This is one reason I thought it would be a good idea to place sections on conservatism in particular geographical and historical sections - to show how responses, which despite similarities are particular to different times and areas, form in both camps. (I'm not wedded to that idea - I just want to explain where I'm coming from.) Maybe a wording tweak, something like changing "homosexuals'" to "rights activists'"? -Smahoney 02:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I think you're right. Wording is tweaked. KarlBunker 02:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't say ASSUMED homosexual agenda. Say homosexual agenda. You say Those who regard homosexuality as a sin or perversion can believe that acceptance of homosexual parents and homosexual marriage will "redefine" (and presumably diminish) the institutions of family and marriage. EVERYBODY says homosexual marriage redefines marriage. There are much more changes. You may feel okay about removing the POV tag again but please do not. We are still changing the wording. Hernando Cortez 15:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"EVERYBODY says homosexual marriage redefines marriage"? Says who, everybody? I've certainly seen different opinions on this point. Cleduc 16:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that sentence has to be made much clearer, as yes, there is an agende for equal rights etc. However, there is also a whole series of assumed aganda's that concervatives add to it, which are just indeed assumed. The redefinition sentence is correct because not everybody sees it that way (Or surprise me with a clear study that shows me wrong). Maybe what you should do is copy and paste the section here and modify it to reflect all changes that you are not speaking out. This is not going to be a productive way of discussing. Kim van der Linde at venus 15:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I've changed "assumed homosexual agenda" to "perceived homosexual agenda," though I don't expect that to fully mollify any local conquistadors. As Kim points out, "homosexual agenda" is a "talking point" scare tactic phrase that's usually used by those opposed to gay rights. As such to use it without any qualifier would be vastly POV. I guess the POV tag stays for the time being. KarlBunker 16:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the word "perceived" helps this article. Obviously they perceive it that way if they call it that. I think saying "what some conservatives call the homosexual agenda" accurately describes who has this attitude (some conservatives) and it references the article itself which explains, disclaims, etc. as appropriate. Cleduc 17:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
...And obviously they call it that if they perceive it that way. I don't think this matters much either way. No one who believes the "homosexual agenda" is a real thing is likely to be happy with any description that suggests it might not be a real thing. I have no real objection to you putting back "what some conservatives call..." if you want to; I just think it's a more awkward way of saying the same thing. Just don't leave out "opposition to"; otherwise it sounds like the "homosexual agenda" is something that conservatives are in league with. KarlBunker 17:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess my problem with "perceived" is that it's kind of a weasel word in this context, devaluing the concept in a way that would probably offend those that believe in these "protocols of the elders of sodom." Cleduc 17:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Heh, I so need to get me a copy of that. -Smahoney 04:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Hernando -- Since, as you can see, other editors are actively trying to make the article more neutral, I hope you won't take it as an affront if, from time to time, an editor experimentally removes the POV tag (though I don't plan to do so myself for the time being). Since you haven't given a complete or clear list of your objections (not that you're required to), there isn't any other way to see if the article passes muster with you. KarlBunker 11:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Achilles and Patroclus image

I know this image has been discussed just a teensy bit already (heh), but I have a comment that's rather the opposite of the preceding discussion. If the purpose is to illustrate the acceptance of homosexuality and pederasty in ancient Greece, shouldn't the image be less ambiguous? The image shows Achilles bandaging Patroclus' arm. Some have chosen to interpret Patroclus' exposed genitals as symbolizing the sexual nature of their relationship, but obviously that's open to debate. A (naive) reader could easily interpret the caption saying that this image presents "mythological figures in [a] pederastic context..." as a politically-motivated editor projecting his agenda onto an innocent scene. With a more explicit image, there would be no chance of a reader making that misinterpretation.

There are several far less ambiguous images used in the Pederasty in ancient Greece article. Personally, I would recommend the At the palaestra image.

Comments? KarlBunker 14:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I demur. The image functions as desired, and the figures are more significant for not being anonymous, tying together sexuality and religion, thus saying far more than some mere sexual tryst. Haiduc 15:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to be argumentative, but you don't address the main point I raise, I don't see how the current image ties together sexuality and religion (perhaps religion as a source of good mythology stories, but certainly not religion in the sense of spirituality), and I don't see how the figures being non-anonomous makes them more significant, especially considering that they're fictional characters.
KarlBunker 16:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I don't see you as being argumentative at all, and these are good points. Religion and mythology for the Greeks were inseparable, just as religion and Biblical stories are inseparable for modern Christians. Thus Achilles and Patroclus were figures of reverence and worship, and the fact that they were depicted as being in a love relationship with each other, one with sexual overtones, is of profound significance for our understanding Greek attitudes towards same-sex relationships. I hope this answers your first question (unless you would deny the spirituality of Greek religion, a different discussion altogether). As for Achilles and Patroclus being fictional characters, any Greek would have said otherwise. The personages from Greek mythology were considered by most Greeks not only holy, but also historical. Many kings claimed, for example, that they were descended from Heracles, or Pelops, or some other hero. They were as real and historical, and as holy, as Christ is to the Christians, but the relationship was even more intimate since Christians do not consider themself the physical descendents of Christ, but the Greeks did view the heroes literally as their very own relatives and ancestors. Haiduc 16:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
You make some good points, but I think they apply more to an audience of people who already have a broad understanding of ancient Greek culture. My thinking was that an image that was a) clearly sexual, and b) showed a scene of ordinary daily (or perhaps "nightly") life in ancient Greece would do a far better job of making the desired point. OTOH, it's occurred to me that my hypothetical naive reader might not be any more impressed by the type of image I suggest. Such a reader could assume that a more explicit image is just ancient pornography, and as such doesn't say much about acceptance of homosexuality in mainstream Greek culture. So on that count the less-explicit image might be better. Hmm. KarlBunker 16:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
All that aside, I think there are many dangers to formulating articles so as to address the lowest common denominator, and they are plain enough that they need not be trotted out here. Elevating the discussion is generally a good idea, people will come away with as much as they can handle. Haiduc 01:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"sanctioned" and "disapproved"

Ntennis, even if the Greeks had never existed, those statements would be accurate. Those who "sanctioned" never sanctioned all homosexual behavior, and those who disapproved, likewise never disapproved of much beyond ass-fucking - whether it was of a man or of a woman or of a goat. The message seems to have been "put your seed where it will sprout". So that is why I think we need to qualify these statements very carefully lest we become a mouthpiece for some faction.

Not only that, but the word "sanctioned" is liable to cause some confusion, since it can be used for both "forbid" and "permit." As for the Greek culture links, I could have linked to the Arabs or the Japanese or the Persians or the Melanesians or the Romans or the Turks or the Albanians. . . I just took the easy way out of a minor dispute. The present formulation says nothing, while spirituality, philosophy, and education were same-sex love aspects valued by many cultures, as I have indicated.

Furthermore, the "evenhanded" approach is a deception when the "balance" is to be found only in the mind of the editor, rather than in history. Maybe we should come up with color-keyed maps to show how the attitudes shifted over time. But to say that some did and some didn't?! Be serious. It is like saying that over the course of history some men took wives and some didn't.

Having said all that, are you mad at me for some reason? I am still trying to figure out where the "soapbox" accusation is coming from. Haiduc 11:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not mad at you :) I just think your recent changes to the lead section were inappropriate, and that we have been through these arguments before. By soapbox (sorry) I meant that you try to present the Haiduc-view-of-history in articles as if it is incontestable fact. Your last edit added some completely undefined — but somehow universal — romantic distant past where heterosexuality was valued "as necessary for the preservation of the species", but homosexuality was valued for "hedonistic, philosophical, military, or educational" reasons. I guess in this Golden Era that men got their reproductive obligation out of the way quickly, so they could get on with the fun and important business with male youths?
Then you claim that those who disapproved of homosexuality "never disapproved of much beyond ass-fucking - whether it was of a man or of a woman or of a goat". This will come as news to millions of women who have been persecuted for loving each other throughout history — women are, yet again, absent from the world you describe. Not to mention the ample evidence from history that dominant social institutions like the church have disapproved of any sex between same-gender partners for many hundreds of years.
Also, your simplistic account of the origins of anti-homosexual attitudes does not reflect the scholarship on this topic. See, for example, Gayle Rubin's "Traffic in Women: Notes on the 'Political Economy' of Sex", or even any of Gregory Herek's work which is referenced in the footnotes.
All that aside, I do agree that societies can be not simply be divided into two camps of sanction and disapproval. I thought this point was clearly made in the sentence following that one. Would it be clearer if we move the full stop? e.g. All cultures have their own values regarding appropriate and inappropriate sexuality. Many have sanctioned same-sex love and sexuality, while others have disapproved of such activities, and as with heterosexual behaviour, different sets of prescriptions and proscriptions may be given to individuals according to their gender, age, social status and/or class. I don't strongly object to your "more open to"/"more restrictive of" except that it seems to underplay the real breadth of societal attitudes on this subject. ntennis 02:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"Vulgarity" Issue

I am new to this discussion, but an interesting thought occured to me, reading through the archives, which may have been discussed already. I think it is important to recognize Lou's rhetoric in attacking the "vulgarity" of the article. It is a common tactic that when heterosexist activists talk about protecting children, they are really not talking about children at all. For instance, the Anita Bryant campaign, "Save Our Children," really had nothing to do with children; it was a means of using a rhetoric of childhood to police the lives of adults.

There is no means of protecting children from "vulgar" images. Not at the expense of open discussion of issues that affect us all. But I also question Lou's attack on the vulgarity of an article about homosexuality. Why is the word "cocksucker" so vulgar that we should feel morally obliged to censor this article? What about violence? Is that not vulgar? Should we censor the wikipedia article on the holocaust? For some reason, and I don't think it will require much of a strech of imagination by most readers to guess that reason, Lou seems to only be concerned with attacking vulgarity that is associated with homosexuality.

Rhetoric of "protecting" children is not really about protecting children. Our society is built around fear. We are afraid of each other and we are terrified of corrupting young people. Moreover, we are afraid of TRUSTING young people. If children themselves had their voices heard in our society, the last thing they would be calling for is censorship. It is only through LISTENING and actually HEARING the voice of children themselves, and trusting them to make responsible decisions that adults can really educate and empower children. Sheltering them from the world around them will not help them deal with that world when they finally do. Furthermore, I think that the way a society treats children is emblematic of the way groups are oppressed and marginalized in that society. For instance, most forms of oppression in our society are formed through metaphors of childhood. Consider paternalism, for instance... it is a form of racism mediated through a metaphor of white males as "adult" and blacks as "child." A similar argument goes for patriarchy.

Most adult Americans have a romanticized vision of what their childhood was like. It is difficult to remember. Many Americans remember simplistic visions of childhood... drinking hot cocoa on a snowy day, getting christmas presants, playing in the dirt... and we construct an image of childhood as idyllic and simple. Children are, in fact, complex human beings. Especially by the age of 12 or 14, children are not as simple as we remember ourselves being. It is through systemic disempowerment of children that we create a culture in which children are not trusted, and therefore do not have to be trustworthy.

As we can see here, this lack of trust, this disempowerment, can then be used as a weapon against a despised group, such as gay people.

on the other hand, I want to emphasize that there IS harm done to children, AND ADULTS, by media images. Although I contend that "vulgarity" is a tool for right-wing fundamentalists to thwart liberation efforts of queer people, we must recognize that media representations DO have a powerful impact on the ways in which people concieve of themselves and others. Consider images of masculinity that are portrayed through the military. Why are Americans so violent? Could it have to do with violent representations of masculinity? When George W. Bush says "bring 'em on," without any concern for the lives of Americans or Iraqis, what could be the consequences of that on a young boy's conception of masculinity? Consider the portrayal of black men in movies. They are always portrayed as violent, criminals, uncontrolable. What could the consequences of this be on the developing mind of white children? Something tells me Lou is not standing on a soapbox against these forms of representation. Perhaps that is a bold assumption.

24.250.22.226 05:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Fokion

Conservatism Section

For example, a document released by the conservative Christian organization Alliance Defense Fund states:

The homosexual activist movement are driving an agenda that will severely limit the ability to live and practice the Gospel, whether it is in the boardroom, the classroom, halls of government, private organizations, and even in places of worship.

Isn't this more of a Christian attitude against homosexuality than a conservative one? It's incorrect to conflate conservative ideas with Christian ones. As such, it's in the wrong section of the article. Given the disputed nature of the topic, I'd like to hear some thoughts from other editors before simply moving it over, however. --163.1.136.97 03:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a conservative Christian attitude, and while it certainly isn't to be confused with either a liberal Christian attitude or a secular conservative attitude, it is one type of conservative attitude. Maybe further explanation, rather than moving, is in order? -Smahoney 03:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Better yet, maybe a secular opinion to go with it. --163.1.136.97 03:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Expansion is always the best option. Got any sources? -Smahoney 03:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

See Homosexual recruitment as main article for that section. And yes.... provided you can define "conservatism" and its accurate and categorizes the objecting group well, and isn't a POV term then yes... a subsection's good. FT2 (Talk) 10:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


  1. Do not say homophobia (hostility toward lesbians and gays). Say hostility toward lesbians and gays. Phobia means fear.
  2. Do not talk about bisexuality here. Inapplicable.
  3. Do not say during several periods in European Christian history homosexuality was not repressed and was even celebrated. Wrong.
  4. Do not say what some conservatives call the homosexual agenda. Say homosexual agenda. Slanted.
  5. Do not say THOSE WHO REGARD HOMOSEXUALITY AS A SIN OR PERVERSION CAN BELIEVE THAT acceptance of homosexual parents and homosexual marriage will redefine and diminish the institutions of family and marriage. Homosexual marriage DOES redefine marriage. Marriage was man&woman then became man&man woman&woman. That means marriage redefined.
  6. There is no cause increasing legal rights of homosexuals. Do not say increasing the cultural acceptance and legal rights of homosexuals.
  7. Do not say Phelps has little if any support among the wider religious community. Take down the perverted pictures. Take down the perverted swear words. Sick.
  8. Do not say This perceived connection between homosexuality and antinationalism was present in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia as well, and APPEARS IN CONTEMPORARY POLITICS TO THIS DAY. Wrong.

Hernando Cortez 12:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, is this you way of contructive working towards a better article? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
We've been through all that before. I've removed the POV tag for the moment until there's some productive discussion worth alerting readers to. Is anyone else getting déjà vu? --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Re. #1: Homophobia is a well established word, defined as an aversion to, and hostility towards, homosexuals and homosexuality.
Re. #2: You present no argument to support this opinion.
Re. #3: This is a cited reference--something that an author has said. It is referred to as such, not as an accepted fact.
Re. #4: Already discussed above. I grant you that saying "what some conservatives call" adds an element of slant. Unfortunately using "homosexual agenda" without some such qualifier would add even more slant. The phrase has been popularized and defined exclusively by conservatives; to repeat it without a note to that effect would be to suggest that it exists, and that the conservative definition is valid.
Re. #5: The only reason the word "redefined" is used in this sentence is that the word is often used by conservatives in this context. In fact, the word is irrelevant to the issue. The point is not that marriage is "redefined"; both words and institutions are redefined all the time in any living culture. The point is that, in the opinion of some, the institution of marriage is diminished by homosexual marriage. If you have a better, neutral way to express that point in a sentence, please suggest it.
Re. #6: The right to marry a person of one's choice is one example of a legal right which most homosexuals do not currently enjoy. There are others. So the phrase "increasing the [...] legal rights of homosexuals" is valid.
Re. #7: With regard to Phelps, this may be a point that should be better documented, but it's difficult to document an absence of support. On the other hand, to remove the note about his lack of support would be to suggest that his view is more-or-less widely accepted among conservative Christians, and that would be inaccurate, POV, and insulting to many conservative Christians. With regards to the "perverted" words and pictures, by the standards of Wikipedia and contemporary western adults, there are none in the article. That's a subjective judgement, and can't be argued logically; I can only refer you to the opinions of other, previously uninvolved parties who have previously looked into this charge against this article; here for example.
Re. #8: With regards to saying that this connection between homosexuality and anti-nationalism continues to the present, I agree that this is a case where there should be some sort of quote and citation. I've added the citation-needed tag.
KarlBunker 18:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: #8: I was able to find the following two sources after about 10 minutes of searching. The obvious one: Falwell, on gays being responsible for the 9/11 attacks: [1], and another related one: Nationalists in Russia claiming that homosexuality is "damaging to Russia": [2]. Does that adequately cover the claim, or do I need to keep searching? -Smahoney 22:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not take out the POV tag please. Changes are happening!!!! Do not say homophobia (hostility toward lesbians and gays). homophobia does not mean hostility toward lesbians and gays. Say homosexual agenda. The phrase has NOT been popularized and defined exclusively by conservatives. Slanted. Do not say acceptance of homosexual parents and homosexual marriage will redefine and diminish the institutions of family and marriage. Homosexual marriage redefines marriage. Acceptance does not redefines marriage. Marriage was man&woman then became man&man woman&woman. That means marriage redefined. Take down the perverted pictures. Take down the perverted swear words. Sick in the head. Do not say This perceived connection between homosexuality and antinationalism was present in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia as well, and APPEARS IN CONTEMPORARY POLITICS TO THIS DAY. Where does this appear. Hernando Cortez 22:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this sounds like a old vinyl disk with a scratch. There has been substantial rebuttal to your objections, please provide additional arguments to that before reinserting the tag. I think it is not fair to just reinsert the tag, to repeat your objections without responding to the responses of others who want to solve the issues. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Substantial rebuttal my ass. You say what some conservatives call the homosexual agenda but I say MANY call it the homosexual agenda. You say The phrase has been popularized and defined exclusively by conservatives. But I say The phrase has NOT been popularized and defined exclusively by conservatives. You say you responded to my points but you responded wrong! You did cheating. You say phobia does not mean fear. That's a subjective judgement, and can't be argued logically. You say by the standards of contemporary western adults perverted words and picture is ok. That's a subjective judgement, and can't be argued logically. You added the citation-needed tag. So what. It still means wrong and needs POV tag. Do not be a crook. Do not take down POV tag!!!!!!! 20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, "Where does this appear?", I provided two links above. To avoid confusion, I'll add them again here. This time, read them before voicing the same objection: [3] and [4]. -Smahoney 05:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not say I did not read. You do not know. Where does this appear IN THE ARTICLE. THE ARTICLE says [citation needed]. You read. Hernando Cortez 20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No additional arguments needed. Do not be cheat. Hernando Cortez 22:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I do not need additional arguments to say the article is perfect NPOV and will feel free to remove the tag. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If article is perfect NPOV then why it is still being change? Do not take away POV tag. Do not be cheat. Hernando Cortez 22:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hernando, I have to concur with Kim. You made some points, and I and others responded to your points. Your counter-response is to repeat your original points--verbatim in some cases--with almost no indication that you even read the responses. That is not a dialog, and "consensus" does not mean "veto of one". KarlBunker 22:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
NPOV does not say things can be changed, things can be added etc. You have objections, and if you only voice those without engaging in discussion, it is pointless and I think it is completely fair in that context that the POV tag is removed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This is discussion. Do not take away POV tag. Hernando Cortez 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not discussion. This is a declaration of points of view, without arguments. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Head. Wall. <bang> <bang> <bang> <bang> <thud>

I know this article pushes social conservatives buttons, but... argh. Georgewilliamherbert 03:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been quietly keeping an eye on this article. It seems pretty NPOV and there seems to be consensus about this by everyone except Hernando Cortez. Accusing people of "cheating" certainly isn't an assumption of good faith. Either contribute to a meaningful dialouge or drop the argument. Danielross40 02:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and if there are good arguments, I do not think anybody will remove the POV tag. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Even the presence of a "POV" tag is a matter for editorial consensus, obviously. Since otherwise its clear that every article where (for example) there might be 999 editors in agreement and one radical fanatic, would be tagged "POV". FT2 (Talk) 03:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

POV tags and 3RR

Looks like User:Hernando Cortez has reached his 3RR for the day. Anyone care to block him? -Smahoney 20:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure what User:Hernando Cortez has done here, [5] goes beyond a 3RR violation and into the realm of vandalism. Danielross40 06:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)