Talk:LGBTQ rights opposition/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

NPOV

Generally speaking, a VfD for POV reasons should follow an attempt to fix the POV. It seems in this case to have preceded it. Can this article be cleaned up? TreyHarris 23:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the dispute centers not around the ability to fix the page but around the fact that the article's title is itself POV (and, thus, unfixable) and that it is an attractor for POV that could be more neutrally discussed on other pages. --Axon 09:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobody can deny that there is in fact opposition to "gay rights." It's not necessarily POV to document it. Perhaps some "refutations" can also be provided in order to make the article feel more NPOV.

The title itself is not POV. If the title, for instance, read "fag rights opposition" instead, etc., then it would be POV. =) There is an article called "Criticisms of Wal-Mart." Is that article also inherently POV because of its title? Tyler Heart 09:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted passage

"Most experts believe that there is no demonstrable link between pedophilia and homosexuality, and that the once-popular connection between the two in the public mind is a product of ignorance and bigotry." second clause is POV

First clause is conclusion needs to be cited and supported. Please discuss this point, this is my opinion.

Please sign your posts, anon. The second is not POV as it is an opinion attributed to a group of indiviudals: it may well be true that experts do believe the link is a product of bigorty and ignorance. Further more, here are some quotes backing up the former statement:

"Concerns that children of gay or lesbian parents are more likely than children of heterosexual parents to be sexually abused have also been addressed. Results of work in this area reveal that the great majority of adults who perpetrate sexual abuse are male; sexual abuse of children by adult women is extremely rare (Finkelhor & Russell, 1984; Jones & MacFarlane, 1980; Sarafino, 1979). Moreover, the overwhelming majority of child sexual abuse cases involve an adult male abusing a young female (Jenny, Roesler, & Poyer, 1994; Jones & MacFarlane, 1980). Available evidence reveals that gay men are no more likely than heterosexual men to perpetrate child sexual abuse (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978; Jenny et al., 1994; Sarafino, 1979). Fears that children in custody of gay or lesbian parents might be at heightened risk for sexual abuse are thus without basis in the research literature." - APA Public Interest Directorate on Lesbian and Gay Parenting

"Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support." APA Briefing Sheet on Same-Sex Families and Relationships

"The number of Americans who believe the myth that gay people are child molesters has declined substantially. In a 1970 national survey, more than 70% of respondents agreed with the assertions that "Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children" or that "Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner."1

By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer – 9% of men and 6% of women – regarded most lesbians as child molesters." Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children. Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Some more research is probably needed to find the original sources for the above remarks. --Axon 09:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, the edit up there might have been mine, but I forgot to sign. I can't remember >.> I consider the above to be adequate citation for first clause, I am still skeptical about the second clause, especailly since bigotry, to me, implies intent.--Tznkai 04:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree: I merely stated that exoperts might say it, in which case it would not be POV. However, my (shallow) research didn't uncover any such statements. The former is sufficient, IMHO, anyway. Axon 09:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, barring further objection, restore first sentance, second is easly an article in itself (the nature of negative views of homosexuality) --Tznkai 04:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Pedophilia and sexual orientation

A number of voters on this article's VfD, myself included, suggested that the article be renamed to pedophilia and sexual orientation. Unless there are any objections, I think that the move should definitely be made. -Sean Curtin 03:45, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think it's a wise move. The article is about pedophilia and homosexuality. There's not much to say about pedophilia and any other sexual orientation.LizardWizard 04:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Pedophilia and homosexuality have been linked repetedly by various people with various crediblity. A more general discussion is secondary to this, but additional information is always desired.--Tznkai 04:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be moved: the proposed title is more neutral, there are actually plenty of things that can be said about pedophila and other sexual orientations. What is moer, this page can redirect to the new page. I also think many of the people who voted for Delete on the VfD, myself included, would've voted for a redirect second so there does exist a consensus for this. Axon 09:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with moving the article, unless someone can provide a valid link between paedophilia and another sexual orientation. Even then, a proposed section should probably be added to this talk page, to convince people that other links exist. -- Ec5618 00:52, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Those who wish to move to pedophilia and sexual orientation should probably start that article. if there is sufficient information, we can then merge the two articles. The title should be accurate, as well as NPOV--Tznkai 04:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The studies on pedophillia and homosexuality cited in the article also compare these results against heterosexuality. Hence, the link between pedopihllia and heterosexuality is formed. This link seems quite clear. Axon 10:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Not really. Heterosexuality, is considered for better or worse, the norm. Until we see something on how heterosexuality may cause pedophilia, or what not, we're not getting anywhere. The only persons I am aware of that take heterosexuality as anything but normal or social and biological scientists.--Tznkai 15:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think discussion of whether heterosexuality is considered the norm or not is irrelevant: my point was that studies that compare homosexuality to pedophillia frequently compare it to heterosexuality. An article like this would naturally discuss the incidence of pedophillia in both groups. If you hold that incidence pedophillia is higher in homosexuals than heterosexuals you naturally hold the opposing view that in heterosexuality it is lower and vice versa. Remember, this article is not about proving some link between pedophillia and homosexuality, it is a discussion of the issues linking both which also includes heterosexuality. Also, this article compares pedophillia with sexual orientations like homosexuality and heterosexuality, not exclusively with homosexuality.

It is also worth noting that many studies have found heterosexuals to be as likely to abuse children sexually:

• "Moreover, the overwhelming majority of child sexual abuse cases involve an adult male abusing a young female (Jenny, Roesler, & Poyer, 1994; Jones & MacFarlane, 1980). Available evidence reveals that gay men are no more likely than heterosexual men to perpetrate child sexual abuse (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978; Jenny et al., 1994; Sarafino, 1979). Fears that children in custody of gay or lesbian parents might be at heightened risk for sexual abuse are thus without basis in the research literature." - APA Public Interest Directorate on Lesbian and Gay Parenting Axon 15:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I really am not certain if this merits it to being moved. my point about the "norm" was that it seems ridiculous to ask someone "does heterosexuality cause pedophilia?" this is why it is more useful and equally NPOV in my opinion to call it homosexuality and pedophilia, as we are discussing the history and evidence and counter evidence surrounding that question.--Tznkai 15:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why the question "does heterosexuality cause pedophilia?" seems ridiculous to you, given the equivalent question "does homosexuality cause pedophilia?" can be asked. Also, this article is not exclusively about the question "does homosexuality cause pedophilia?" - it is about wider topics about homosexuality and pedophillia and is not just about cause. Axon 16:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

As the relation between peadophilia and heterosexuality is basically the difference between peadophilia and the norm, it should be, and is, discussed in the paedophilia article. The relation between homosexuality is however an often quoted relation, and deserves an article. Please, read the article, and see if similar content written to link peadophilia and heterosexuality could fill a page. -- Ec5618 16:21, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

As I have elaborated above, discussion of pedophilia and homosexuality involves discussion and comparison with heterosexuality (please do not refer to this as the "norm" - this is POV and is a derailment of the discussion) so the discusssion can never be exclusively about homosexuality and pedophilia - it will inevitably discuss heterosexuality so it seems misleading to title this page "homosexuality and pedophilia". Without attempting to do so neither you nor I can say how long or short a hypothetical argument on "peadophilia and heterosexuality" would be. I am arguing that this page's content be merged with pedophilia and sexual orientation. I have also demonstrated, at your request, that there is as strong a link between homosexuality and pedophilia as with heterosexuality in the link above. Axon 16:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Axon on the name change. Given the lack of evidence supporting a factual relation between homosexuality and paedophilia, it is normative to refuse to broaden the question and ask whether there is any correlation between paedophilia and sexual orientation in general or otherwise to maintain that the question should only be asked in such a fashion. The article does generalise the question — that the assumption of a relation between the former terms is deeply ingrained makes a title that does preserve this assumption not "ridiculous" but deeply counterintuitive vis-à-vis a perspective of prejudice. There may be more to be said about wider pernicious effects of such enduring prejudice, but at that point this is a general discussion about gender and minority status in sexual object preference in terms of the predisposition or tendency of any orientation less specific than "paedophile" to engage in paedophilia. Buffyg 00:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Axon is completely correct, Pedophilia and sexual orientation is a valid title and opens the door to further treatment on the subject. I don't have time to search this out right now (sorry, sorry!) but the gender of the abused child does NOT necessarily have anything to do with the sexual orientation of the adult. Most of the studies I've seen show that most pedophiles are male, most of their victims are male, yet most of the perpetrators are heterosexual - they are attracted to children, not same-gender per se. I vote title "Pedophilia and sexual orientation" and expand to treat the issue more fully. This would also help remove the PoV issues with homosexuality and pedophelia, which as far as I know are only "connected" in that certain religions and cultures have included both in lists of "abominations" which usually also include masturbation or intercourse during menses as well. --KillerChihuahua 19:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Time for a NPOV reality check. There is a growing body of evidence that shows a very strong link between homosexuality and pedophilia (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431). Also, the statement "gender of the abused child does NOT necessarily have anything to do with the sexual orientation of the adult" is hogwash. If you are going to have a section about this, show both evidence, not one. Otherwise you have a propaganda piece instead of an Wiki article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.220.98.116 (talk • contribs) 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can cite something from a news source that isn't widely understood to have a conservative bent, maybe you're on to something. But the introduction to the WorldNetDaily article here reads, "WorldNetDaily, also known as WND, is a conservative online news site. The webpage links to mainstream media stories that are viewed as beneficial to conservatives and articles authored by the WND staff are generally of conservative political bent. The reliablity of facts appearing in WND-authored stories has been repeatedly questioned by journalists in the mainstream media." -- I don't think that an article from that site can be considered a reliable source. Hbackman 22:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

'Disputed' template

I removed the 'disputed' template, since there seems to be no-one actually disputing anything specific. -- Ec5618 08:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Surely the above section on the "deleted passage" is a clear dispute of content. Axon 09:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. But I felt that since the passage had been deleted, without any objection, that the matter had been resolved. -- Ec5618 09:53, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

The passage was only deleted a couple of days ago: Generally, it's considered appropriate to wait a bit longer before removing a dispute tag especially on an obscure page like this. Axon 10:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I am restoring disputed tag. Give it time and wait for consensus that it is not disputed before taking action (IMO)--Tznkai 14:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Since over a month has elapsed, with no dispute, I would suggest that the disputed tag be removed. I also don't see where cleanup is necessary, and I'm not so sure the article needs attention. LizardWizard July 3, 2005 21:18 (UTC)

Sudden Move

Would you care to justify the move, Ril? It was discussed above, and no consensus reached. By my count 3 supported the move and 3 opposed. When something is being dicussed it is impolite to enact the change discussed, particularly when you leave no explanation whatsoever. I am inclined to move the article back so you don't get your way through such rude behavior, but I will give you a chance to explain yourself. LizardWizard July 3, 2005 21:15 (UTC)

First, Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, it's a paraphilia. Second, Pedophilia has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Search paraphilias in there and you might find that they're pretty common equivalently throught both orientations.

Changes

I rearranged/rewrote parts of the article. Please leave your comments/suggestions/criticisms with the changes here. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk) 8 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)

Please put back something along the lines of "This article deals with the societal and historical connections and perceived connections between pedophilia and homosexuality.". Right now, the article starts of by mentioning that 'many people' believe the connection exists, which is misleading as it suggests such a link might exist. That homosexuals are also pedophiles. -- Ec5618 July 9, 2005 01:38 (UTC)

I didn't remove that line, but I did remove the line at the end of the first section "Though pedophilia and homosexuality are clearly distinct, they are also clearly connected in several ways," as it did not seem to add to the article. It also sounds like "homosexuals are obviously inherently pedophiles, but they have a lot in common with them" BMIComp (talk)

Rant and Suggestion

This article has improved, and kudos to everyone who has worked on it. I'd like to ask that everyone take a giant step back and look clearly at this article. Look at the title. Look at the content. It is NOT about Pedophilia and sexual orientation. It is about Homophobia and pedophilia. Look at the history section. If it were about Pedophilia and sexual orientation, it would begin with something like "throughout recorded history, there has been Pedophilia." Instead, the very first sentence brings up how homosexuality became less taboo in the sexual revolution. This is not germane to the subject, people. It is germane to the subject of how homophobia gave rise to a 20th-century urban legend type "all gays are child molesters" mindset, and Anita Bryant would be a good topic in that article. She is not germane to this article. I suggest we move the entire article to Homophobia and pedophilia and start a brand new article here, and if there is a History section start it in the distant past, with cave paintings if we can find any of pedophilia, and with the earliest mention of pedophilia if we cannot find cave paintings. We can add how different cultures view pedophilia differently, and have throughout history - feudal Japan comes to mind, for example. We might mention that the age of consent has varied through the years, tossing in Shakespeare's Juliet. Then on to the purported actual subject! There are at least eight possible permutations or categories:

• Hetersexual men abusing male children
• Hetersexual men abusing female children
• Hetersexual women abusing male children
• Hetersexual women abusing female children
• Homosexual men abusing male children
• Homosexual men abusing female children
• Homosexual women abusing male children
• Homosexual women abusing female children

It is obvious that category 2, hetero male adult on female juvenile, will probably be largest. What is second largest? Can we find statistics anywhere? Why do men who are heterosexual with adult relationships abuse male children? Can we get enough data on the psychology of each category? We must include all eight categories for this to be an article which matches the title. Currently ONLY the homophobic gay-bashing late 20th century meme is being addressed. I welcome comments, discussion, feedback - I think this article should be written. I also think it should be written from scratch, because nothing here relates to the darn title. KillerChihuahua 04:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• An alternate title to move this article to: Gay rights counter-movement 24.73.237.226 10:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag - 2-20-06

The article repeatedly uses the term "fundamentalist" in a stereotypical, pejorative way, with little or no understanding of what a fundamentalist is. Also see Associated Press guidelines for recommendations on use of the term without offensiveness. Pollinator 18:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Libertarians

"Some organizations oppose some, but not all, gay rights issues"

how can one oppose an issue? This is simply not coherent.

Also, the rest of the section is blatantly POV. No libertarian would say that he was opposed to gay rights. Rather, they would argue that what the movement is advocating is not the advancement of rights for gays, but rather the infringement of the rights of e.g. employers.

Will take steps to address.

Ncsaint 18:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your last change was reasonable, but please don't forget that the libertarian POV is yet another POV. Consider that Phelps might say he just does God's will, yet he is still opposing gay rights. In the same way, Libertarians can insist that they're maximizing freedom, but that changes nothing. Alienus 18:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

well, of course libertarian POV is just another POV, as you say. The point I was making is that when things are phrased as they were: libertarians oppose xyz rights, the implication is that xyz constitutes rights, beyond question, and that the libertarian view is that these rights should be denied. This is patently false. My complaint and edit were simply trying to correct that problem with the text, not to establish libertarian ideology as sacred and beyond POV. If only....

Ncsaint 21:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to say that the libertarian view of gay rights is limited to protections from government intrusion, that's entirely factual and worth mentioning. However, the gay rights movement is, on the whole, not libertarian in nature, and it includes a number of rights that libertarians necessarily oppose. Therefore, it's important to let the gay rights movement define what it considers to be the rights it's fighting for, rather than using libertarian definitions.

To be very clear, the libertarian view is that some of the rights that the gay rights movement demands should be supported and others should be opposed. This makes libertarianism both pro and con gay rights, as seen by the gay rights movement. As seen by libertarians, libertarianism is pro gay rights (using the limited, libertarian definition). This article has to avoid taking the libertarian POV, though it's certainly allowed to state it.

By the way, the Libertarian perspectives on gay rights article goes into this topic in more detail. Alienus 21:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"the gay rights movement is, on the whole, not libertarian in nature, and it includes a number of rights that libertarians necessarily oppose"

This is where I think you are mistaken. Libertarians don't 'oppose' these rights, they simply don't acknowledge that they are rights to begin with. If you assume that they are rights, and say libertarians oppose them and gay rights activists endorse them, you are already taking up the cause of the latter. But I think that on the whole we agree here. In any case, we aren't disputing the content of an actual edit, so it's neither here nor there. On the other hand, I think the other article you mention shouldn't exist. But that's an argument for another day... - Ncsaint 22:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That's like saying that Fred Phelps doesn't oppose gay rights, he just doesn't acknowledge that these are rights to begin with. :-)

Take away the spin: The gay rights movements wants certain things to be legal rights, and the libertarian movement agrees about some of these things, not others. So far, you haven't injected any POV so there's no dispute about article content. However, your reasoning shows that you do have some POV that could be injected, so I'm talking to you about it now to prevent rather than cure.

As for the Libertarian perspectives on gay rights article, feel free to discuss its contents on its Talk page. Alienus 23:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel plenty free, thanks. But first and foremost, I feel tired. So Ima sleep. Ncsaint 01:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If I may jump in, I think it is fair to say that some acknowledge that there are "rights" but not "gay rights". That is distinctly different than opposing the "rights of gays" Is there any evidence that libertarians believe that gays are not entitled to the same rights as everyone else? AED 07:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Two things about the libertarian view:

1) Putting aside the basis for a moment, the bottom line is that libertarians oppose many of the rights that the gay rights movement is fighting for. Therefore, they necessarily oppose a big part of the gay rights movement.

2) The basis is that libertarians consider the right of a minority to be protected from discrimination in the private sector to be a "special right". It's special in that it applies to whatever consistutes a minority in a given context. Because initial societal conditions are unequal, blind neutrality actually amounts to siding with whoever's already on top. To quote Elie Wiesel, "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

Now, the second point is my POV about libertarianism, and I wouldn't think to insert it into an article except as a citation of a relevant person who happens to agree. The first point, however, stands on its own and is neutral. On that basis, I must oppose any attempt to recast libertarianism as neutral towards homosexuality. Instead, I want to make sure that articles properly show it to be a mixed bag; both friendly and hostile, but never neutral. Alienus 07:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, there is no doubt that libs oppose a big part of the gay rights movement. Still, I would add that opposing the "gay rights movement" is not the same as opposing the "rights of gays". On the second point, some people use "special right" but I think most libs would say its not a right at all. Here I would add that "hostile towards homosexuality" and "unsupportive of the gay right movement" are not one and the same. AED 08:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say that opposing a big part of the gay rights movement in itself constitutes opposing gay rights. In fact, I would say that gay rights consist of whatever the gay rights movement says they do. I can't think of any excuse to allow some other group to redefine gay rights in a more limited fashion.

As for the second point, both groups agree that discrimination against gays is bad, which is why both oppose government discrimination. The distinction is that libertarians do not recognize human and civil rights as being distinct from -- and generally more important than --property rights. This limited view of rights leads them to oppose a significant portion of gay rights (as defined by the gay rights movement).

On a side note that doesn't directly relate to this article, but is quite relevant to Ayn Rand, I do want to point out that Rand was both "hostile towards homosexuality" and "unsupportive of the gay rights movement", which means that -- no matter how you slice it -- she opposed gay rights. Alienus 09:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"I would say that opposing a big part of the gay rights movement in itself constitutes opposing gay rights"

What a remarkable thing to say. - Ncsaint 22:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Statements such as the one you quoted are a big part of why I'm considered a master of the obvious. Do you disagree with that statement or do you simply want to share how remarkable you find it? Alienus 01:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he possibly finds that repitition and redundancy is extraordinary and remarkable, in his opinion. ColdSalad 22:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly plausible. Alienus 04:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)