Talk:Societal attitudes toward homosexuality/Archive 4

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


 * Gay rights opposition

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 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 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)

Hernando Cortez 12:46, 24 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.


 * 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:, and another related one: Nationalists in Russia claiming that homosexuality is "damaging to Russia": .  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:  and .  -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.

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, goes beyond a 3RR violation and into the realm of vandalism. Danielross40 06:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

"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)

"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)

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 ntennis 05:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.

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. 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).

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).

Islam
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. Fundamentalist groups advocated punishing sodomy with whipping and death.

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)

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

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)

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

Article on science of (alleged) gay/pedophilia association
I have added a relevant article on that topic. I thought it appropriate to point out that I am also the author of that article. Although the article is published in a newsletter, I have made it available on the web and cited the web-source for easier download. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 14:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thin majority?
Americans are divided – a thin majority (49%) believes homosexuality should be accepted, while 41% disagree." This makes no sense. First, the difference between 49% and 41% is divisive, but not exactly "thin". Secondly, how can 49%(less that half) be a majority? This only makes sense if the only options were "agree" and "disagree". However, according to the given statistics, 10% of the population is undecided. We should change 49% of Americans to 54% decided Americans, or else include the missing 10%.--76.16.75.236 (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed the word "majority" to "plurality", which fixes the sense of the passage without creating an OR mess. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 05:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Other taboos
It would be interesting if other articles could be written on similar taboos, such as societal attitudes toward abortion, societal attitudes toward divorce, societal attitudes toward rape, societal attitudes toward pedophilia, societal attitudes toward euthanasia, etc. ADM (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The same source is cited twice, and appears twice in the reference section - I don't know how to fix it
An article on USA today. It occurs at least once, in the area about association with pedophilia. I presume that the ideal would be that the second passage had a link pointing to the same line on the references section used earlier. But I don't know how to fix it. --Extremophile (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality and sports
This topic should be a natural subtopic in the present article, but the word sports isn't even mentioned. Of course, homosexuality and sports should be stand-alone article as well, but a beginning would be a section in this article. __meco (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Major league sports isn't waiting for this article to catch up them:


 * The New York Times: "Major Sports Leagues Prepare for the ‘I’m Gay’ Disclosure"
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/sports/hockey/nhl-announces-initiative-in-support-of-gay-athletes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


 * Sports Illustrated NHL announces initiative supporting gay athletes
 * http://tracking.si.com/2013/04/11/nhl-initiative-support-gay-athletes/


 * Thanks for your time, Wordreader (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuals are not pederasts
I have reduced the number of references to pederasty. This appears to confuse pederasts with homosexuals which is off-topic for the article.—Ash (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the history of homosexuality includes pedophilia although it should be presented with due weight and without conflating. Haiduc may be able to help write some balanced content. -- Banj e  b oi   14:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would draw a comparison with heterosexuality which manages to discuss the topic without conflating heterosexuality with paedophilia. I would ask for a similar distinction to be made here.—Ash (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a societal attitudes toward heterosexuality? I'm not saying I don't find the stereotype a bit offensive but we should treat it encyclopedically whatever we do. -- Banj e  b oi   01:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * These were just references to pederasty as if it were a normal part of homosexuality and made no distinction between the two. The references were not part of a discussion of how societal attitudes may conflate homosexuality with pederasty which may have been a valid section (if sourced).
 * I appreciate that historians may have used the term "pederasty" in an older form of usage but I suggest we avoid confusion by sticking to modern English language usage. In the OED a pederast is: A man who has or desires sexual relations with a boy. Also in wider sense (chiefly derogatory): a man who practises anal intercourse; a male homosexual. As the OED distinguishes the use of the word in reference to homosexuals as chiefly derogatory, I believe it to be a valid objection to casual and unqualified use of "pederasty" in any Wikipedia article that defines an aspect or interpretation of homosexuality.—Ash (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The main section seems to be Societal attitudes toward homosexuality which is somewhat reasonable but does need some pruning. I'll ask Haiduc if they'll help. -- Banj e  b oi   11:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

LGBT civil rights movement
I found a red link (dead link) for "Category: LGBT civil rights." The closest thing I could find was a page for LGBT civil rights. I replaced the dead link with a link to the LGBT civil rights page. Perhaps there should be a category for LGBT civil rights. Juri Koll (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

UK law "banned promotion of homosexuality"
This sentence is wholly inaccurate. There was never any law banning the "public promotion of homosexuality" in the UK. It could be promoted publicly by anyone who wished to promote it. The law was a local government act which banned the "promotion of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" by local government employees in the course of their duties (they could promote it as much as they liked in their free time). It was aimed essentially at school teachers and was designed to curb what was thought by conservatives to be a propagandistic pro-Gay approach in schools. Nominally it did not not affect the discussion or even promotion of the acceptance of homosexuality, but the wording was so bizarre and ambiguous that teachers were afraid to address the subject at all. It arose from a moral panic about books being given to young children about gay relationships. The law was, IMO, mad and bad, but it did not do what this article claims. Paul B (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a slight refinement to the issue; as well as schools, the act was a problem for all local government organizations. Consequently any document or action that might be claimed to promote homosexuality as a "normal" family relationship (such as a local government staff employment policy intended to provide equal opportunities) tended to be parked even though no actual case law existed in order to interpret how the act should apply in practice.—Ash (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes that's true. Perhaps you can improve my rewording. Paul B (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsensical surveys asking people if homosexuality is "wrong" to see attitudes towards it.
I have to say that's an extremely inefficient way to go on asking people. The reason is acceptance is completely different from asking if something is "wrong". A perfectly accepting individual that is gay himself and has no problem with other gays may think it's "technically irregular according to the norm of the homo sapiens DNA or behavior" but that doesn't mean it's "bad".

Maybe they should be asking if they think it's "bad" or they are "disgusted" or something. Because if they just say "wrong" it can be easily confused with zoological references.

To not be misunderstood as off topic, I meant this as a remark towards several sources used here, this is from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8479624.stm asking if it's "wrong". Partly non-sensical, a lot of people (maybe a minority but still a lot) will think "wrong" as "technically irregular" and not "bad".

PS. Of course there are the very respected studies portraying homosexuality in the animal kingdom as something that (satisfies functions and therefore) can be very "regular" (as in non-irregular in the 'non-wrong' sense) but that doesn't mean it has to be universally accepted or it's "bad" if it's not like that or one should be "disgusted" if it's not like that. --Leladax (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems to me a rather pedantic, pseudo-legalistic argument. A survey asking whether homosexuality is "wrong" will by and large elicit the kind of information about people's attitudes it is no doubt intended to elicit. Yes, it is possible to think up other interpretations of "wrong", and it is plausible that a small minority of participants in the survey will give misleading answers for that reason, but I know of no reason to think this will be a significant effect. In fact it seems to me that asking people if it is "bad" is at least as likely to elicit an unintended response: someone may, for example, feel it is "bad" in the sense of "bad for the species", but not "wrong", in the sense that there is no moral culpability. As for asking people if they are "disgusted", that is a completely different issue: I may feel disgust, but recognise that as a personal feeling, and think there is nothing objectively wrong; conversely I may believe that it is objectively wrong, but not feel personally disgusted. In fact "wrong" and "disgusted" are so different that I am surprised anyone would even consider the one as a possible replacement for the other. Finally, I am not sure what the point of raising this is: is it a criticism of the people conducting the surveys, or of this Wikipedia article? Wikipedia seeks to report what actually exists in the world: not what we might wish existed: if these surveys exist and are notable, then mentioning them in the article is reasonable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained map
The article contained a map captioned "World Map based on the Pew Survey -- see chart at right". This map had sections in different colours. Unfortunately there was no key to explain what the colours represented, so it was meaningless. I have removed it, but if someone would like to go to the trouble of finding a colour-key and restoring the map with it, that would be fine. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Israel acceptance levels inflated
The table on countries' levels of acceptance of homosexuality, which is based on a Pew Research paper, shows Israel's acceptance level at 65% of total population; rejection, at 35%. However, the actual table on the paper - Page 39 - reports some very different numbers: 38% of acceptance, and 50% of rejection. Now, for some time I have been trying to correct the numbers, but my edits are always reverted. Guinsberg (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sparta
My edit has been undone for three times, and for the third time a misleading line is being posted in the article that "Athens and Spatra encouraged sama-sex relationships", whereas in Athens pederasty was normal, but in Sparta it was opposed and punishable by death and exile, as is correctly written on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece#Sparta and backed in the footnotes with concrete historical sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.13.89 (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You appear to quoting very selectively, since the same section also has citations for the text "Sparta ... is thought to be the first city to practice athletic nudity, and one of the first to formalize pederasty. The Spartans believed that the love of an older, accomplished aristocrat for an adolescent was essential to his formation as a free citizen. The agoge, the education of the ruling class, was thus founded on pederastic relationships required of each citizen." See also footnote 7: "there is a certain kind of sexual relationship which was considered by many Greeks to be very important for the cohesion of the city: sexual relations between men and youths. Such relationships were taken to play such an important role in fostering cohesion where it mattered — among the male population — that Lycurgus even gave them official recognition in his constitution for Sparta" AV3000 (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * yes, I do quote selectively, I select genuine historic sources and not quotes from books written by "experets" that are simply in contradiction with the aforementioned direct historic sources. the footnote 7, that is, the "data" in Dawsons book is an outright lie, I read the whole Constitution of the Lacedaemonians and there is nothing of the sorts in it, just the opposite, as quoted in the footnote 74, which provides a link to the book itself so everyone can see for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.13.89 (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia policies before editing. You've already been WP:WELCOMEd; see WP:FIVE, noting in particular WP:RS/WP:V, and please sign your comments using four tildes ("~"). AV3000 (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

renaming discussion
A discussion regarding recent mass-renamings which included this article can be found here--Nat Gertler (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Islamic law section
I think it should probably be rephrased to include Muslim countries that have secular constitutions but still criminalize homosexiuality (Algeria, Syria and the West Bank, for example). Some countries that do not impose Sharia (Lebanon, for example) are included in the section, as if Sharia is the only reason a Muslim-majority country would refrain from legalizing same-sex relations. And why not also mention non-Muslim countries in the same situation (not uncommon in Africa and Asia)? Anyway, whoever wrote the section doesn't seem to know this subject -- homosexuality in the Muslim world -- from more than hearsay, as it firstly alleged that Indonesia was the sole Muslim country that doesn't penalize homosexuality, when there are in fact a number of them -- Turkey, Albania, some Central Asian countries -- that are in the same situation (I've altered the paragraph to reflect this fact). Guinsberg (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Statistics
Which 3 states voted to legalize same sex marriage? I'm from Minnesota, and it seems to be a common misconception that we legalized gay marriage, when in reality, we just voted down a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as inherently heterosexual. I can't say for sure that three other states didn't legalize it, but that part definitely needs to be sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Young14 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maine, Maryland and Washington.-- В и к и  T  16:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Conservatism
Does anyone here think following "Conservatism" with "Violence" is appropriate?--v/r - TP 19:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. Conservative commentators and political pundits have been fomenting violence against the LGBTQ communities whipped up since Anita Bryant. There is a long history of suggesting LGBT people should be prayed away, cleansed, cured, fixed, destroyed, all bolstered by an increasingly extremist conservative movement. Insomesia (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So you confirm, the location of Conservatism is intended to give a POV that conservatives are violent?--v/r - TP 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that Insomesia was not the editor who placed it there (he's been editing only since 2012, and that has been the placement since at least 2007), no, he is not able to confirm an intent. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the section "Conservatism" and I don′t see nothing wrong with it. It does not link Conservatism with violence. Do you have better suggestion for article structure?-- В и к и  T  12:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I just wouldn't put violence as the next section below conservatism. You're causing the reader to put the two ideas next to each other as you have done in the article.  Maybe just move violence down a couple of sections or order that section alphabetically.--v/r - TP 15:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I made some changes. Is it better now?-- В и к и  T  16:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you.--v/r - TP 16:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)