# Talk:Save Our Children

There seems to be an attempt to prevent this category from being added to the article. The homophobia category is for articles that relate to the topic of homophobia. It is not meant as a pejorative category. One of the editors trying to remove the category has used reasons such as "just because they (Save Our Children) oppose the gay agenda does not mean they are afraid of it". First of all, the dictionary definition of homophobia means "an intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality" (World English Dictionary) and "an irrational fear of, or aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Considering that the Save Our Children campaign's very purpose was to deny civil rights to homosexuals, and also for the perceived "threat" of homosexuals "recruiting" their children, they are pretty much a textbook example of homophobia. Right-wingers may not like this, but it doesn't stop it from being true. Furthermore, while the category currently stipulates that "it is not meant for persons, groups or media that are allegedly homophobic", Save Our Children self-identify as a group who wanted to deny civil rights to homosexuals. It was their sole purpose, and therefore there is nothing "alleged" about it. The article therefore meets the criteria to be included in the category. Particled (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion should take place at Category_talk:Homophobia. It's not about this article's contents, but the propriety of the category to this and similar topics. --Moni3 (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Moni3 beat me to it: the use/misuse of the category has been discussed at length, so please work to change consensus there if you wish. AV3000 (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that placing the article in this category is actually in accordance with the category's appropriate usage and purpose. Therefore, the discussion should take place right here. The consensus to avoid putting people and groups in the category who are "allegedly" homophobic was to avoid public figures/groups being put in when there was no solid evidence that they were homophobic (i.e. if somebody made a homophobic joke, would it really mean that they were homophobic, etc). In that respect, I can understand why inclusions to the category have to be carefully thought through. But, as already stated, the Save Our Children campaign actually self-identified as a group that aimed to deny cicil rights to homosexuals. Their "fear" of "homosexual recruitment" (a ridiculous term I know) was the premise behind the campaign. There is absolutely no question that this article fits the homophobia category, and it would seem to me that people who want to keep it out of the category are perhaps biased towards the article's subject. 82.26.42.174 (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
No, the discussion should take place at the category, not the article. --Moni3 (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
No, the discussion should be here. There has already been a discussion at the category, and consensus decided the boundaries that the category could be used for (pertaining to homophobia but not people or groups that are "allegedly" homophobic). It seems pretty clear to me that individual inclusions or exclusions to the category should be discussed on the individual article pages. The discussion at the category pages should be about the category itself, not individual article pages. Particled (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, sure. Let's all wait for a discussion on a category at the article talk page. I'm going to hold my breath. Whatever you do, don't bring this up at the category talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to provide the full text of the ordinance "that banned discrimination in areas of housing, employment, and public accommodation based on sexual orientation"? Was it really about discrimination? --A1 (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Since it has been awhile since the last assessment, I have had another look at the current version and noticed lots of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)


### Save Our Children