Talk:Anti-LGBT rhetoric/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Pro-Gay Slogans

I think we need to start a page for pro-lgbtq slogans as well, just to balance things out. There are just as many slogans on our side as their are on the anti-lgbtq side, so I suggest they come out (ha, ha, horrible word play). I like "Gays Bash Back". (August 10, 2005)

Homophobic hate speech

Homophobic hate speech (Revision as of 18:01, 20 Feb 2004)

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Homophobic hate speech is hate speech or is thoughtcrime directed against homosexuals which is taken to be homophobic.

This hate speech may refer to homosexuality in general, such as queer, fag, or poof. In an effort to neutralise homophobia, these words began to be adopted and redefined by the homosexual community in the 1980s, especially the word queer. All these words, though widely used by the homosexual community as a positive affirmation of their sexuality, can still be taken as hate speech in some contexts. One such context is within phrases or anti-gay slogans used by groups with a homophobic agenda, another common form of hate speech.

Hate speech directed at homosexuals may also refer to specific sexual acts that the speaker associates with homosexuals (e.g., fudgepacker, which refers to anal sex).

Occasionally, entire books which attack homosexuals and attempt to justify anti-homosexual views have been described as hate speech. A recent example was Sexual Revolution in South Africa: The Pink Agenda: The Ruin of the Family (2001) by Christine McCafferty and Peter Hammond, a South African book. In 2002, the sale of this was restricted to individuals aged 18 and over, though many were calling for it to be banned outright, accusing it of inciting hatred. Homophobic hate speech is now a criminal offence in many countries.

See also: homosexuality, anti-homosexual views, homophobia, homosexuality and morality, religion and homosexuality, List of sexual slurs

External links The South African Film and Publication Board on The Pink Agenda

--User:24.45.99.191, 21:26, 20 Feb 2004

The term "thoughtcrime" seems a tad absurd. As though this is 1984, and the "Queer Squad" is rushing to stop anyone who dares think against them. --AWF

Too generic phrasing

Not everyone would agree with both:

1. Homosexuality is wrong is an "anti-gay slogan", and
2. Every anti-gay slogan is hate speech

There is a small, but significant contingent of "love the sinner, hate the sin" folks who merely object to homosexual behavior on religious grounds and who believe themselves to be free of "hate" towards homosexual persons.

The article should reflect this, rather than endorse the idea that all opposition to homosexuality is an expression of hate. --Uncle Ed 20:16 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm... How about... Homosexuality is wrong is an "anti-gayness slogan"? If you hate homosexual behaviour, and express opposition to it as a result, could that not still be considered hate speech, albeit directed towards a behaviour rather than a person? Incidentally, I think we should be more careful to distinguish between homosexual orientation (not all homosexuals engage in homosexual behaviour) and homosexual behaviour (not all homosexual behaviour is acted out by homosexuals). So in fact, there is a distinction to be made not only between the people and the activity, but also between thoughts and actions. From what you write, it's not always entirely clear (to me, at least) what you are referring to. -- Oliver P. 13:39 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

---

I think "Homosexuality is wrong" is not an anti-gay slogan since it isn't even a slogan; it is just an expression of opinion. AxelBoldt 19:14 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

Sebastian Bach's web

What the point of the external links "Sebastian Bach's official website"? --Ann O'nyme 06:23, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree. The article discussing his wearing of the t-shirt is interesting, but the web page doesn't have anything obvious about this matter and is horrendously ugly at times. The first link should be removed. --Shallot 20:58, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"AIDS kills fags dead"

originally from Talk:Homophobic hate speech

Aids kills fags dead is not, imo, "homophobic hate speech". Here is the wiki definition of "homophobia" : "Homophobia" is an irrational hatred and fear of homosexuals or a similar feeling towards homosexual practices or homosexuality itself. I can't see any way in which anyone can say, honestly, that the quote "AIDS kills fags dead" is ALWAYS homophobic. In fact, in my experience, and certainly in the case of MR. Bach, it is used in a comedic fashion, without hatred or fear being the motivation. Additionally, I can't see how this quote can be viewed as irrational, being that it is technically accurate. The fact that it is harsh and profoundly un-p.c. does not make it irrational, hateful, or inspired by fear. That's my 2 cents. JackLynch

Well, it may not always be technically homophobic, but the term "homophobic" is regularly applied to any attitude in opposition to or disagreement with homosexuality advocates and supporters. I've even heard it applied to, for example, males who avoid public showers, so I don't see why this is any different. The term is used pretty loosely. Anyway, is there a better place to place the information? Maybe anti-gay slogan would be better. I can put the information there and change the redirects if people agree. Daniel Quinlan 18:44, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

Talk:AKFD/merge has some discussion by people who agree with JackLynch, as well as people who disagree with him. When considering whether people agree, it would be useful if the views of these people were taken into account. Martin 19:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think "anti-gay" slogan is prob the best place for it, but only if it can be linked to by typing "aids kills fags dead" into search. Thats how I came across all this stuff anyways. I like to type wild and wooly stuff into the search, and find scholorly explanations and talk page debates on the random and perverse subjects of my desiring. And I would like to think I am not alone, among the lurking public. JackLynch

Okay, I'll move the redirects and current text later tonight unless someone beats me to it. Daniel Quinlan 00:22, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

Done. Daniel Quinlan 04:14, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

---

(to Martin) My plan is to merge the information into anti-gay slogan (which seems like a better location than homophobic hate speech in retrospect) and then move all of the discussion into a series of numbered articles, probably Talk:anti-gay slogan/Archive-AKFD-1 or something like that. Daniel Quinlan 02:59, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

Why numbered archives? I understand the desire for "AKFD", but I'd prefer AKFD-Redirect, AKFD-Merge, etc. Martin 18:37, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Because there are a lot of articles to get moved. If you want to take a shot at categorizing it all, be my guest. I'm tempted to seriously push for them to be simply deleted. Daniel Quinlan 07:38, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

I'm just saying, I'd rather move talk:AKFD/Redirect to Talk:anti-gay slogan/Archive-AKFD-Redirect rather than Talk:anti-gay slogan/Archive-AKFD-1. I don't expect anyone to spend time categorising, but where they're already categorised, might as well not keep that. IMO.

If you don't do this, I probably will, but I want to hang off to make sure this article is stable at this new location. This will be the third episode of attempted merging, so I don't want to prematurely assume that it'll be successful. Martin 18:44, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

• There is more to gay- bashing than one man; and anti- gay slogans are not merely used by "a handful" of people, nor only in the USA. Andy Mabbett 11:33, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • If this one is actually used by more than the people mentioned, we haven't found many instances of it. It's an unimportant slogan that would be virtually unknown were it not for the attempts of Fred Phelps (and now Wikipedia's continuing efforts) to publicize it. -- Someone else 11:35, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Phelps must use a lot of Usenet sock pupets, then. [1]. And, funnily enough, not every occurence of hate- speech is doucmented, let alone occurs, on-line. Andy Mabbett 11:39, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Yes, I suspect he does, and he certainly succeeds in getting people talking about his words. A usenet post about Phelps or about Bach is hardly a new use. Actual figures would be nice, but I know of no polls. Do you? I think it's evident that most recognize the phrase as ignorant and mean-spirited, don't like to be seen that way, and so its use is limited. -- Someone else 11:48, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • [2] is not about Phelps; and offers evidence that the slogan has been seen on a bumper sticker. Andy Mabbett 12:51, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• • • I can personally verify that it is (or was) a common saying. I personally wrote it as grafitti more than once, and have likewise seen it written by others more than once. I have read a couple of articles on the Sebastian Bach incident, but to be honest I don't think its terribly relevant. I didn't learn of it from him or his circumstances, not do I for a moment assume that he invented it. To be perfectly honest, I am positive that he bought the T-shirt from a vender, probably at an "alternative" clothing store. Oh, and can anybody explain to me in what way "AIDS kills fags dead" is an ignorant phrase? I can't disagree more, as it certainly is not rooted in lack of information or education JackLynch 07:51, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • To answer your last point: when taken at face value, of course, it is quite correct. But two implications that could easily be drawn from it are a) that all gays get AIDs and b) that it's only gays that get AIDs. Both of which are, naturally, ignorant statements. Foolish Mortal 19:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Child molestation

From text:

Statistical evidence shows that homosexuals are less likely than the general population to commit offences of child molestation.

The claim that "evidence shows" really needs to be backed up with at least a web link to a study. --Uncle Ed 19:30, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is gonna find any. Sexual orientation is practically impossible to measure (or at least seems to be, since nobody does a very good job of it) and child molestation rates are even harder. Trying to cross reference the two... would you like to take part in such a scholorly enterprise? I'll help you write your grant request ;) JackLynch 19:33, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Here is one of them from the Archives of Sexual Behavior by Groth and Birnbaum: [Adult Sexual Attraction and Attraction to Underage Persons]. Also there is a device designed to determine sexual orientation called the penile plethysmograph altough it's accuracy is debatable. Generally, though, sexual orientation is determined by survey or by a person's choice of partner. Samantha D 22:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This reference says just the opposite: male homosexuals are MORE LIKELY to commit child molestation offences. --Uncle Ed 19:35, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is an article and NOT a research. Moreover an article published by the Family Research Council whose declared aim is (from the same website): champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization [...] Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.

Let's compare scientific studies, shall we?--Dia^ 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am IMPRESSED! Perhaps the idea that homosexuals are less likely than the general population to commit offences of child molestation should be placed on a page titled pro-gay slogan with an explanation that it is a myth invented by homosexuals, and those who support them :) JackLynch 19:39, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The reference of Uncle Ed is the Family Research Council, a conservative christian think tank. The FRC is known for its flawed methods of research: they gather their data from newspapers and use them to conclude for example that 60% of the child molestations are done by homosexuals. [Here] is a study I quickly grabbed from the internet using PubMed. It clearly contradicts Uncle Ed's study. The study I looked up was published in Paediatrics (impact factor 2,71, ranking third in the area of Paediatrics in 2000), the study from FRC are mainly published in Psychological Reports (impact factor 0.277). (The impact factor is the average frequency that an average article is cited in another article in a period of time, say one year.) [Here] is an interesting article about Paul Cameron, the scientist that published the studies that show that homosexuals are more likely to abuse children. - Thorin 0:44, 1 Dec 2004 [CET]

Also it's worth noting that the Family Research Council does not publish in peer reviewed journals. The Archives of Sexual Behavior and Pediatrics, on the other hand, are. The FRC even admits to promoting their agenda on their [about page]: "[...] FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society." Samantha D 22:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I dispute this passage

"Many slogans, including the above, have been used by religious opponents of homosexuality. These have also included "God Hates Fags," "Fear God Not Fags", and "Matthew Shepard Rots In Hell"."

I looked it up, and I can't find any citation of anybody other than mr. phelps using these, and that only on the wikipedia. is this original research, or what? Jack 08:23, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Come now, do you honestly think these slogans aren't used? If you want one succinct and recent example, there's this BBC article regarding the controversy brewing in the Anglican church:

"Demonstrators gathered outside the venue, some carrying placards with slogans such as God Hates Fags."

Nowhere does the article say this was Phelps' brigade, so it's fairly safe to assume that (gasp!) other people also use these slogans. And if you question the use of the slogan by Phelps himself, I question whether you've done any research at all. Hadal 08:43, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh, of course some of them are used. I was actually looking hardest at "Matthew Shepard Rots In Hell", since it seems a bit... non-standard. I will remove it if there are no objections with citations. Jack 08:46, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I don't know why you're doing this, but hopefully this will appease you:

They held signs that read "Fags Die, God Laughs" and "Matthew Shepard Burns in Hell."

So, to be pedantically correct, the slogan should read "Burns" and not "Rots." If such a trivial discrepancy burdens you so, go ahead and amend it. Amend, not remove. Why not add that new one to the list while you're at it too, eh? (And if you think the slogan as is has never been uttered, I don't know what else to tell you.)

Anyway, this has been a thoroughly depressing exercise. I won't be returning to it. Hadal 09:32, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind assistance, you've helped improve article quality Jack 10:02, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Richards Gere's painful pastime?

I hope WP has a good lawyer for when Richard Gere sees this article. He has sued before. Adam 09:45, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, I thought I made it overly biased that he didn't do it, to address just such a concern, when I put it in there. Jack 09:59, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The mere mention of it is defamatory, as any lawyer will tell you. Anyway the article says it is "almost certainly" an urban legend. WP would not have a leg to stand on if he sued. Adam 10:03, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thats worrisome... stating the possibility of a documented rumor being accurate is illegal? If your right, the wiki should move to vanuatu, or some place which refuses to extradite or enforce international laws ;) Jack 10:25, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's not illegal, it's defamatory - don't you know the difference? In any case it's irrelevant to the topic of the article whether anyone puts gerbils up their ass or not. What anti-gay slogan has this got to do with? Adam 10:29, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

hahahaha... it could be seen as a slogan of some kind, but your prob right, its just a generally rude topic. I suppose you did the right thing deleting it, IMO it could go either way, but I'm ok w doing it your way. Jack 10:42, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Do you know if there is any actual documentation of ANYONE doing this? Is there a name for it? It seems a bit far fetched that anybody, even mr. gere, gay or whatever, would do THAT.... Jack 10:44, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No but there is documentation of the rumor at straightdope

63.205.41.128 04:41, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In about 1994 a gay journalist rang every emergency department in the eastern US and asked them if they had ever had a case of a man with a gerbil or other animal in his ass. None of them had. I can probably find the reference somewhere. Adam 11:02, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

right, so thats the anti-gay slogan angle, that this is something horrid invented to pin on gay folks. I've had gay friends and aquaintences over the years, and while none struck me as the type to mistreat a gerbil so, if I somehow became convinced that was a standard homosexual practice they likely engaged in, my friendliness towards them (and homosexuals in general) would likely decline rather dramatically ;) Jack 11:17, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

yes but the article isn't Nasty things said about gay men, it is Anti-gay slogan, so you have to be able cite where and when a slogan about gerbil-sex has been used against gay men. Adam 11:31, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I take it lesbians are not rumored to stuff forest creatures into their orifices in search of the theoretical pleasures of such horrific sado-mascochistic beastiality? This might be a good entry on the urban legend page, but I'm not gonna put it there after what you said about lawsuits... Jack 11:46, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:LGBT notice board for a discussion about merging and renaming some LGBT articles, including this one. -- Beland 03:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Obviously Biased

The neutrality of this article is disputed. I am offended by the implication that opposition to homosexual behaviour neccesitates hatred, fear, or contempt directed at homosexuals. Additionally, I have noted the consistent use of the term "same-sex love," certainly an impediment to objectivity and to truth. Finally, the description of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction as "mythical" is a crass fallacy, which shall undoubtedly cause some degree of offence among Christians, Jews, and, conceivably, Muslims.- Thomas Aquinas

For the record, I'm offended by the implication in your post that homosexuality can be reduced to behavoir. But I am interested in where you see the bias in this article. Could you pull up some passages that you think especially imply that opposition to "homosexual behavior" necessitates hatred, fear, or contempt? As far as your second concern, I believe that consistently referring to homosexuality as if it were pure behavior, with no elements of love, etc. is an impediment to objectivity and truth. Any ideas on how we can reconcile these POVs? Finally, mythical doesn't necessarily mean false, though I can understand that this is how it is often used. It can also refer to a story, true or false, that helps a community to form a collective identity, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah certainly qualifies as myth in that sense. -Seth Mahoney 01:20, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I admit to an inability to produce any direct, explicit statement that equates opposition to the homosexual perversion to hatred of homosexuals; it was thus that I referred to this phenomenon as an "implication." However, the declaration that homosexuality is unnatural was included as an anti-gay solgan, as was promulgating the obvious interpretation of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Considering that the subject of the article is prejudice directed against gays and lesbians rather than their condition, I conclude that the author believes these positions are not exempt from the animosity expressed by Fred Phelps.

Saying that homosexuality is unnatural is used as an anti-gay slogan. I've heard it in that connotation more times than I can count. I personally not only find it offensive, but factually inaccurate, so long as the word 'natural' is used with its generally understood meaning. I understand that it has other meanings, including "against God's wishes", "against the dictates of society", and so on, but there are other, clearer words that can be used if that is the intended meaning, and regardless, even those two meanings are also often used as anti-gay slogans.

On a side note, if it makes you in any way more comfortable, I have heard that there is talk of renaming this page, though I haven't participated in the discussion yet.

• With respect to your final statement, I thank you for mentioning this and it does, indeed, ameliorate the bias I have found here.

However, I find it once more neccesary to debate other points you have stated. Firstly, I do not doubt that certain men, indeed, even Christians, have abused the statement "homosexuality is unnatural" as a sign of contempt for homosexuals (once more, I mention Fred Phelps, a man I believe we can concede spreads error and evil). My complaint is that the article, in its present condition, isolates the statement from context and equates it with general animosity. This is an injustice; if I may be granted a personal appeal, I do not harbour any dislike, hatred, fear, or contempt of homosexuals generally or specifically, but I hate homosexual acts. This is the sole connotation intrinsic to the statement in question, though I apologise on behalf of those who have abused it. Finally, I request a definition of "natural" as you use it in your declaring that homosexuality is natural in the most common usage, for I believe that we suffer from a difference in terminology.-Thomas Aquinas

I agree that the phrase "homosexuality is unnatural" is used by people who claim not hate homosexuals per se (though I somewhat disagree that this position is possible to maintain in practice), and I would be perfectly happy to see some clarification on that point on this page, though I would request that any editors hoping to do so follow certain guidelines:

1. Avoid weasel words - no "some say, others reply" kinda stuff. Better yet, use explicit references and wiki links to the people who make the arguments.

2. It must contain some working definition of the word 'natural'. See below for reasons why.

As far as my view on what the word natural means, I think that it is generally an empty term - its like a bucket just waiting for some meaning to be plopped in. So, generally, when encountered, 'natural' means something like 'good', 'preferred', 'privileged', "in accord with our societal rules and taboos", and so on - whatever the speaker wants us to like and doesn't want to explicitely tell us to like. Any meaning then can only be derived from context. The problem is that it has some connection to the "natural" world - the world of animals and plants supposedly devoid of technology, and as such carries with it some of the Romantic preference for the natural over the man made/artificial. So, starting in the 18th-19th centuries it had begun to be used to replace religious arguments over the rightness of certain things (among them same-sex sex and love), but it actually has none of the force of the old arguments because there is no "natural" world to prefer or whatever (and, as far as the arguments against homosexuality go, same-sex sexual behavior occurs in the "natural" world). The reason is that just as these arguments based in "nature" appeared, a belief in strict determinism appeared alongside them, and alongside that Darwinism. So this "artificial" world that we human beings have constructed is just another environment for life to adapt to, and at the same time, it could not have been otherwise according to the laws of nature. So, generally, I don't accept the word 'natural' at face value.

Secondly, merely because homosexual desires are sexual does not imply that they are characterised by erotic love. I do not find it neccesary to promulgate the argument of a Catholic philsoopher-theologian in favour of my position (unless I am specifically asked). Nonetheless, I shall reiterate the principles which has guided my Wikipedia activity: neutrality is the inferior of truth in the hierarchy of intellectual virtues, and objectivity does not incorporate it. Rather, objectivity is concerned with that which is actual, and neturality, with that which would not offend. Considering that this encyclopedia is intended for the common good, it is a duty of the editors to preserve all intellectual integrity, rather than a bipartisan presentation which obscures the truth.

You're right, sexual does not equal romantic love, but just because a certain group of people disapproves of homosexuality doesn't mean that homosexual desires are not characterized by or never include romantic love. In the name of both truth and NPOV, I think the best way to go regarding this (and I'm not saying we should use the phrase "same-sex love" - there are other phrases that lie between characterizing homosexuality as exclusively behavior and as exclusively love-oriented) is to actually ask people who experience same-sex desire whether or not they experience love toward their partners. I can answer in the affirmative.

As far as invoking the arguments of Catholic philosopher-theologians, there are several other pages where that would be appropriate in the article, including the page for that philosopher, maybe homosexuality, and so on. Here, not so much. Finally, even philosophers, and even philosopher-theologians can be wrong.

• It is indeed true that merely because one is opposed to homosexuality does not imply that homosexuality is devoid of erotic love. Yet it is apparent that, while I intend to you no offence, such love occurs between men and women alone, i.e., it occurs heterosexually. As you have not requested my arguments, I shall not give them, though if you so request, I shall be glad to do so. Finally, I do not find it appropriate to ask homosexuals whether they are in love with their partners, as it is possible for the mind of man to be deceived, or to confuse fraternal love with marital (erotic) love. Were it impossible or unlikely to err here, could we not ask a pedophile if he loves his victims, and judge his act based on the response?

Apparent to who? It is apparent to me that such love occurs between all sorts of people, and all this talk of dividing love between romantic and otherwise is self-delusion. But yeah, sure, share your arguments, or, for brevity if you'd prefer, link to them.

It is, of course, possible for people to be self-deceived, just as it is possible for people to be deceived by others. But who has epistemological privilege here? What position are you in to argue that you have better access to a person's emotional states than they?

I am guessing based on your phrasing that your arguments aren't going to work with me (especially the "marital (erotic) love part - as if all eros is love in the sense that we mean today, as if eros is always connected to marriage).

Finally, I never said that love validates a relationship. I have seen plenty of relationships that I would characterize as loving that I also think it would be better for all involved if they were ended. Yes, we could as a pedophile if he or she loves their victims, and yes, we could take that as an honest response, but that does not, in the end, lead to any sort of necessary judgment of the acts involved.

Moreover, I am quite aware that philosophers and philosopher-theologians are capable of error. I very much thrive on detecting such error, and, considering what I have read on your personal page, I assume that you are my "brother" in the sciences of discernment, compelling me to suggest that you share my desire to detect and refute error. Yet if an argument is found by faith and reason to be impeccable, it would be dishonesty to deny its conclusions; to reiterate, if you wish to view the arguments I intend to present, then please ask, for I shall consider it an honour to present them to you.-Thomas Aquinas

I quite agree that we have to accept the conclusions of arguments that are sound, but I highly doubt that you'll be starting from premises I accept as true (which is not to dismiss your arguments before you state them, but to make it clear where I'm coming from). -Seth Mahoney 19:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

As a final point, I concede that the term "mythical" has numerous connotations and definitions which are not especially negative, demeaning, etc. Though the negative and demeaning usage is common, and I consequently requested a clarification, e.g., the story be described as "biblical" rather than "mythical."- Thomas Aquinas

I'd be fine with that change. -Seth Mahoney 19:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should avoid asking heterosexual couples if they love each other. After all, they might be mistaken. Foolish Mortal 19:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Homophobic Article in disguise?

I came across this article through random page, and (call be a liberal) it appears offensive. I would first of all like to question the need for an article which lists all of the different ways homosexuals have been, are being, and will be attacked for their orientation, and I would secondly like to propose that it simply an anti-homosexual article posing as an intellectual article on anti-gay slogans.

Sorry if I have read it wrong, but it appears to me that this article could offend a great many people. --Sclaydonuk 7 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia is not about not offending people, just presenting information in an NPOV manner. If that information happens to be offensive, well, too bad.

That said, I think your concern is valid, if misplaced. I don't think that this article is anti-gay (I'm fairly certain its authors didn't intend it to be either), but I'd be interested in any particular wordings or areas (other than just the whole article) that stand out to you as particularly offensive. Maybe we can work together to improve them.

Finally, I think pages like this, though unpleasant, are useful, at least as useful as the article nigger. Documenting the ways gay people have been slandered is an incredibly pertinent activity given the recent political situation in the United States. -Seth Mahoney July 7, 2005 18:10 (UTC)

I think we need to make an article for pro-lgbtq slogans. I'm too tired to think of many right now, but some of the ones I like include "Gays Bash Back" and...and...and, well, like I said, I can't think of many right now ;) I am going to suggest this at the top of the talk page so more people see it. (August 10, 2005)

This article takes a pro-gay stand

The narrative continuously takes the position of debunking these slogans. A particularly good example is Anti-gay_slogan#Conflation_with_child_abuse, which at no time addresses contrary informations, such as presented @ Talk:Anti-gay_slogan#Child_molestation. This article needs editing by neutral editors, or at least by a balance of POV's. I have disputed the neutrality, but would like to see repairs made promptly, rather than the header remain. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 14:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no such evidence presented in the section mentioned; and years and decades of research have failed to show such a connection. If that is your only concern, you won't mind if I remove the NPOV notice, since it is obviously baseless. If you have other concerns, mention them. If you are just on your usual crusade against "these horrors", take it elsewhere. -- AlexR 01:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thats odd, it seems like we don't agree. I have placed a note of RfC, lets hear what some other editors think. For those who are interested, the link is [3]. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I saw the RFC, but I don't share your concerns. That the article allegedly takes a "pro-gay stand" is largely unavoidable since the topic is the gay community's response to outside attack. Surely you're not suggesting that the gay community as a whole should adopt your personal stance, which some have alleged is anti-gay? For what it's worth, my opinion is that the article's tone is acceptable and that the NPOV template should come down, though I'll wait for additional consensus. FeloniousMonk 01:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I ran to open the link provided by Sam, only to end up at the "Family Research Council." Sam, be serious. These people are not neutral advocates, as I need not point out. Can't you provide a link to some academic institution or a professional journal? Most of your arguments in the past were of a much higher quality. However, I see no problem pointing out that anti-gay groups continue to accuse gays of being over-represented in child abuse case, and providing this link in the article. Haiduc 02:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I see no problem with this article. Rhobite 02:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I also see no problem with the current article. The definition of anything which fails to condemn gay folks as thus pro-gay is ridiculous. Hyacinth 06:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree: the evidence cited in the section above is from Paul Cameron, a discredited psychiatrist who has been successfully charged with perjury directly related to giving false "scientific" evidence in a court of law. The non-peer reviewed journal these studies are published in certainly does not meet the criteria of reputable source. Axon 09:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Please, spare us your homophobia. The Family Research Council (I notice you cutely hid the name of that link) is hardly a neutral or credible source. Exploding Boy 19:46, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, the concensus is against the dispute header, I accept that. But the link, or a better one ([4] is another) should be included. "Neutral and credible" should be up to the reader to judge, not those who oppose a particular organisation. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

homosexual writer and AIDS activist Larry Kramer has a very different take on childhood experiences of homosexual men with older persons:

"In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it, either because of a natural curiosity that will or will not develop along these lines, or because he or she is homosexual and innately knows it. This is far from "recruitment." Obviously, there are instances in which the child is unwilling, and is a victim of sexual abuse, homo- or heterosexual. But, as with straight children anxious for the experience with someone of the opposite sex, these are kids who seek solicit, and consent willingly to sex with someone of the same sex. And unlike girls or women forced into rape and traumatized, most gay men have warm memories of their earliest and early sexual encounters; when we share these stories with each other, they are invariably positive ones."(Kramer, p.234)

Yeah, right, that's a much better link. Fathers for life.org is hardly a neutral, credible or scholarly source; all one need to do is read their "Gay Issues" section [5] to see that. Stop foisting your pov off as problems with articles. FeloniousMonk 00:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I notice your not bothering to discuss the merits of the studies they site. This isn't a usenet, it is an encyclopedia. This article is about Anti-gay slogans. Providing references based on the subject is hardly good cause for your crappy one-liners. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

That's simple: their studies have no merit. They're inherently biased, as are you. Why on earth do you persist in editing articles about for which you have a clear distaste? Don't bother suggesting that you're on a crusade to elimiate POV; all you're doing is introducing it. Exploding Boy 00:44, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

EBs got it. Biased studies are only useful as background on biased studies. FeloniousMonk

I agree: it's quite clear what is and isn't a reputable source as defined by WP:CITE, WP:NOR and WP:V. I don't think FRC, FFL and certainanly Paul Cameron's studies and those who cite him can really be considered to be authoritative or reputable by even the most generous of editors. I think that is the general consensus here. Axon 10:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Clarification

It would appear that some editors here feel the Family research council and Fathers for life are too disreputable of sources for usage on this page. I disagree. I further feel that these:

• Abel, G., Becker, J., Cunningham-Rather, J., Mittelman, M, Rouleau, J. (1988) Multiple paraphilic diagnosis among sex offenders. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatric Law. 16:153-168.)

• Bell, A., Weinberg, M. (1978) Homosexualities: A Study in Diversity Among Men and Women. Simon & Schuster: New York.

• Doll, L., Joy, D., Batholow, B., Harrison, J., Bolan, G., Douglas, J., Saltzman, L., Moss, P., Delgado, W. (1992) Self-Reported Childhood and Adolescent Sexual Abuse among Adult Homosexual and Bisexual men. Child Abuse & Neglect. 18:825-864.

• Finkelhor, D., Araji,S., Baron, L., Browne, A., Peters, S., Wyatt, G. (1993) A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse. Sage:Newbury Park.

• Johnson, R., Shrier, D. (1985) Sexual Victimization of Boys: Experience at an Adolescent Medicine Clinic. Journal of Adolescent Health Care. 6:372 -376.

• Kramer, L (1981) Reports from the Holocaust. NY: St. Martin's Press

• Lemp, G., Hirozawa, A., Givertz, D., Nieri, G., Anderson, L., Linegren, M., Janssen, R., Katx, M. (1994) Seroprevalence of HIV and Risk Behaviors Among Young Homosexual and Bisexual Men. Journal of the American Medical Association. 272, 6: 449:454.

• McWhirter, D., Mattison, A. (19 ) The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

• Osmond, D., Page, K., Wiley, J., Garrett, K.., Sheppard, H., Moss, A., Schrager, L., Winkelsteing, W. (1994) HIV infection in homosexual and bisexual men 18 to 19 years of age: The San Francisco Young Men's Health Study. American Journal of Public Health. 84, 12: 1933-1937.

• Remafedi, G.(1994) Predictors of Unprotected Intercourse Among Gay and Bisexual Youth: Knowledge, Belief, and Behavior. Pediatrics. 94:163-165.

• Rekers, G. (1995) Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexual Problems. NY: Lexington Books

are also acceptable references.

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You've just taken the non-Psychological Reports references from both sources and listed them here. Taken by themselves, these references do not necesarily add up to your thesis and there is no evidence that all the above citations are themselves from reputable sources, i.e. peer-reviewed journals. Some actually seem to contradict it (e.g. Bell: "no support for the notion that homosexual males are likely to have been "seduced" by older men."), some are just personal accounts and annecdotal evidence (e.g. Kramer), some are completely unrelated (Lemp, Osmond). The Rekers citation is certainly not reputable at all being a "handbook" and not a jounral and is itself based on Cameron's studies having been written by a known anti-gay campaigner and founder of the FRC[6].

Furthermore, using them together to "recreate" the original reports FRC and FFL you crib would be original research (WP:NOR), as well as being beyond the scope of this article. Axon 15:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Axon's right, of course. And if that's your support, you should just give it a rest; continued insistance on this taken with your use of stilted misinterpreted and misrepresented studies from biased sources only confirms the concerns voiced by others that you are pushing an anti-gay agenda. FeloniousMonk 16:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I certainly am not drawing my own conclusions, rather I am pointing out that the conclusions reached by fathersforlife are backed up by a great deal of evidence. No one has yet explained why excluding the POV of organisations who advocate or utilize "anti-gay slogans" is in accordance w NPOV. That is because it isn't. Even if their research were substandard (as it is alleged the research of the Family research Council is) it is still notable on this page. The research cited by fathersforlife is not however sub-standard, and is "authoratative and reputable" enough to appear on any applicable page. I won't bother responding to ad hominems and crude rhetoric of course, and would ask everyone to focus on the issues in a rigourous and impartial manner. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe not, but both of your sources misinterpreted and misrepresented the studies, several of which I have just read through. The conclusions drawn by fathersforlife are not supported by the studies I read. FeloniousMonk 20:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you can produce some verification of this claim? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

That's so, um, Sam Spade of you. You're the one making a claim here, not I, it's up to you to make your case. Which you haven't yet. Do your own homework. I suggest starting with ERIC, as did I.

Primary writings = objective, scholarly, credible, peer reviewed.

Fathersforlife = agenda-driven, unprofessional, biased.

At least take the time to read or at a minimum skim the primary writings before making a big stink next time. FeloniousMonk 20:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Anything written on homosexuality in the 70s or 80s is suspect and likely to be biased and unreliable; any scientific writing that's more than a few years old is open to debate; writings on AIDS that are 10 years old are hopelessly out of date. Our aim here isn't to give a summary of thought--any and all thought, no matter how biased and incorrect--on the subject. Exploding Boy 21:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is going on here but, despite the fact that most people on this page seem to agreet that Sam Spade's citations are flawed, he has ignored this and unilaterally modified the article despite widespread objection to his sources. He certainly has not responded to legitimate concerns raised and seems to have spawned an edit war through his actions. Should we raise an RfC on this matter? Axon 08:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4