Talk:Homophobia/Archive 5

message: I don't think anyone has yet brought up the term sexual prejudice. Looking at the mess that Homophobia has turned into, it might be easier to scrap it, start again, and use Sexual prejudice instead with redirects. Thoughts? Yonmei 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried doing that - one sentence presenting the homophobic POV and one sentence presenting the anti-homophobic POV - but Mangoe kept reverting it, objecting to the anti-homophobic POV. I believe now it would be better to acknowledge the controversy without presenting the homophobic POV that causes the controversy. Homophobic activists appear to have infested this Talk page and this article, but Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral resource, and I have hopes that the neutral version will prevail rather than the homophobic POV. Yonmei 19:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite enough. Repeating accusations of "homophobia" as the chief component of your argument is a good example of why the accusation is controversial in the first place. CC80 19:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that the chief component of your argument appears to be an equation of being LGBT to pedophilia, and a presumption that only LGBT activists will object to having a pro-homophobic POV presented in an article on homophobia, I really don't think your criticism is warranted, CC80. Yonmei 19:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I said that your argument concerning "irrational prejudice" is similar to the rhetoric favored by pro-pedophilia activists.  CC80 19:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  the point is that it is not a settled fact that anyone who disapproves of homosexuality is irrational.  it's likely that gays believe it is irrational and that hard-core Christian conservatives do not.  i removed the text that associated the actual disapproval of gay behavior and "homophobe" to loaded language and left that to the political opposition to particular LGBT issues (such as legal gay marriage or inclusion of "sexual orientation" as a class in civil rights legislation).  there can be dozens of reasons that people might oppose legal gay marriage or the inclusion of "sexual orientation" as a class in civil rights legislation and not hold anything against homosexuals per se.  this inclusion of the religious/moral opposition to homosexuality with the misuse of the term "homophobe" was something i wanted to leave out in July but Mangoe and others resisted it.  now, i feel my discomfort with that was vindicated. (it says too much.) r b-j 19:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual prejudice 

message: I propose that we fork this article into two; one discussing the incidence and causes of anti-gay bigotry/prejudice/dislike and one discussing the term homophobia (word) What think ye? MPS 04:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, "This page is 32 kilobytes long." implies it's about time for forking anyways MPS 05:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the article would be helped in one sense (echoing a criticism I made months back) but that the argument over the word wouldn't let up at all. Mangoe 04:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion: move article to [[anti-gay bigotry]] 

message: I have protected the article due to the ongoing edit dispute. When a resolution is reached, request unprotection. --Slowking Man 14:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Since we have now reached the point where one of the editors (See RBJ's Talk page) is resorting to personal attacks rather than reasoned argument, and since mediators have already been called in, I will await their mediation and refrain from comment on this page until then. I suggest that Rbj do the same. Yonmei 19:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attacks 

message: 1. Given the controversy around homophobia and homosexuality, this page should take as a given the broadly accepted fact within the scientific/medical field that homosexuality is a normal sexual orientation: and that (whatever the cause of a person's sexual orientation) sexual orientation is not chosen. 
2. It follows from (1) that the appropriate model for the introductory 'graphs of the Homophobia article is the corresponding Racism article: which would describe without any detail or POV pushing how the word "homophobia" is used, with reference to dictionary definitions: fear and hatred of, and prejudice against, lesbians, gays, and bisexuals 
3. The introductory 'graphs should also briefly acknowledge, as the Racism article does, that the term homophobic, when used to describe someone who supports homophobia, has become a pejorative term, and the identification of a group or person as homophobic is nearly always controversial.
4. And that's all the introductory 'graphs should contain. (I'm aware that I have argued for and put forward slightly different versions of the introductory 'graphs, but having had some time to think without editing, 1,2, and 3 are what I think would be the best: modelled strongly on the Racism article.) 
5. I think that the rest of the article needs a major rewrite, to include (for example) the homophobic prejudice that leads to supporting denial of certain civil rights specifically to LGBT people, and an outline at least of how some people feel that their prejudice against LGBT people ought not to be described as homophobia because it comes from a "moral disapproval", or a judgement based on religious belief. It might be best if those of us involved in the dispute could agree on sections that we want in this page and divide them between ourselves for writing. 
: Yonmei 10:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yonmei's opinion as requested for [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-24_Homophobia#Mediation_Case:_2006-10-24_Homophobia|mediation]] 

message: The central dispute about this article involves the reality that homosexuality is now the subject of public moral and political dispute. In that wise the application of the word "normal" to it is already tendentious, since that word has moral connotations. And although Yonmei has carefully tiptoed around saying this outright, it seems to me that he wants to draw the additional conclusion that, if it is innate, homosexuality has no moral implications. This particular aspect, however, has not made its way into the introductory material.
What I've been following for some months prior, however, is another dispute about what exactly the word homophobia means. It is quite clear now what Weinberg (its acknowledged coiner) meant, becuse we can cite him on the matter. He was quite literal about the "-phobia" aspect, a point which I added to the article over the summer (including the quotation). However, it is clear that its meaning has escaped from this box, which is where we end up with the dictionary definitions.
This is where the disputes about the first paragraph arise, because the dictionary definitions cited in the first paragraph have consistently been resisted. One dictionary says "irrational"; another says "unreasoning". I've tried once or twice to put this in, only to have it reverted immediately. I think anyone who really checks the cites should wonder why this descrepancy not only persists but is being enforced.
(to be continued)
: I agree that homophobia is irrational/unreasoning. However, it's my general experience that people who hold homophobic beliefs will usually vehemently deny that their own beliefs are irrational/unreasoning. Yonmei 00:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mangoe's mediation statement 

message: The condemnation and moral indictment of homosexual relationships and desires, in the modern world, has gone through the same progression which racial discrimination underwent perhaps fifty years earlier. Racial discrimination went from being seen as normal, natural and supported by biblical scripture to being seen as a recidivistic aberration, and being forbidden by law. 
Likewise, the freedom to engage in homosexual relations at the present time is universally protected by regulations and legislation in the overwhelming majority of developed nations. Which is not to say that a vociferous minority is not still waving archaic texts from long-dead cultures to justify self-serving interpretations of these obscure materials, claiming them as a foundation for presuming to dictate to others how those should live their love lives. They are; just as there most certainly remains an active white supremacist movement in Europe as well as the US and even in Africa. But these remnants are just that, they are marginal and atavistic, and most certainly do not deserve pride of place or anything even approaching equality in an article on the modern meaning of homophobia.
When in all countries males and females are free to associate with others of their sex, when in many if not most countries they are free to enter into legal compacts with each other, the debate is over. All that is left are some malcontents railing at the progress of social evolution. They should be mentioned here as such, no more. Haiduc 13:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haiduc's completely uninvited opinion 

message: Since Haiduc added an unsolicited comment, I will likewise add one.
Some of the above statements are a good example of why this article has a POV dispute. It should be pointed out, by way of balance, that the arguments which gay activists use to try to silence all moral opposition are essentially the same as those used by supporters of prostitution or pedophilia. The revealed prohibitions in the Bible and the later mystical writings of the saints are dismissed as "archaic" or otherwise irrelevant. Any persons who cite such precepts of the Divine Law are automatically denounced as bigots. During the debate over this article, Rbj (a secular liberal, no less) was accused of homophobia merely for attempting to introduce some balance into the article.  In like manner, the issue of gay marriage has been distorted by dismissing any Biblically-based opposition as "homophobia".
Those who practice a given act (whether sodomy or incest or soliciting prostitution) will always reject any possible moral argument against that act, and will always attempt to change the focus of the debate by accusing their critics of intolerance, bigotry, or reactionary politics. But for Wikipedia's purposes, the issue is not whether the gay activists here will ever accept such moral arguments: Wikipedia is supposed to present a neutral point of view, not the gay activist point of view. CC80 14:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We live in a secular world, and we abide by secular law, those of us fortunate enough to live in the developed world. The fact that various religious sects, more or less populous, hold this or that view should certainly be noted, but as far as I know, the position of the Wikipedia is that of a secular rationalist platform, which evenhandedly describes both secular and religious points of view but does not take a position for or against. But it must note what the mainstream position is, and that mainstream position is indeed that we have reached the point where established law has extended state protection and support to interpersonal love relationships regardless of sex. Established science has likewise reached conclusions consistent with that position. The  struggle for legitimacy which various anti-same-sex doctrinary players are engaged in has failed on a state level and remains only as internecine warfare within those sects (whose followers are by no means of unanimous opinion, despite the claims of CC80). Whether the materials on which this struggle is based are revelations or relics is ultimately a personal issue for the followers of those religions to untangle and of no interest to anyone else. Thus this article cannot privilege these marginal arguments and raise them to a level of equality of importance with the consensus of law and science. What is pov about that?! Haiduc 15:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CC80's opinion 

message: It's rather obvious that this case is one of the most difficult on the mediation board, and I'd like to take a moment to thank Selmo for taking it.  I believe that Wikipedia should remain morally neutral on all matters.  I personally believe that the innate nature of homosexuality alone does not remove moral implications from it (plenty of things that are innate have moral implications).  There are much better arguments to use if I wanted to prove that there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality.  I'll be up front and say that I also believe that moral implications against homosexuality are, by definition, homophobic (this is using the dictionary definition, as well). However, I do not believe that this article should say that there are or are not moral implications to homosexuality.  I think it the article on Homosexuality should report that there people who think there are moral implications, but that isn't even the place of this article.  This article deals specifically with anti-LGBTQ prejudice.  The body of the article should mostly contain the history of homophobia (that is, anti-gay/LGBTQ discrimination).  It should also mention that some 'critics' of homosexuals are offended by the term and do not think that it applies to them.  However, it should not advocate whether they are wrong or right.  In the article for spade, we call spades 'spades'.  If enough 'spades' got together and started protesting that they don't like being called 'spades' for one reason or the other, I would advocate for including a paragraph within the article that talked about these spades who disliked being called spades.  However, that paragraph should not argue anything.  It should merely present the information on these spades who don't like being called spades and allow the reader to draw his/her/hir own conclusions. This article should not suggest that homosexuality is morally 'right' or morally 'wrong'.  It should only present the facts and history on homophobia, and allow the reader to draw the conclusions they will.  As it stands now, the article includes within its introduction a sentence that acts as a sort of disclaimer for those who hold anti-LGBTQ beliefs, but do not wish to be called homophobic.  It is THIS placement that is POV, not the placement WITHIN the article. CaveatLectorTalk 15:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, those parties interested should note that our mediator asked you to post the opinions on the mediation page as well.  Oh, and Haiduc's opinion WAS solicited, CC80. He was just being self-deprecating. CaveatLectorTalk 16:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CaveatLector's opinion 

message: ===Homophobic behavior in animals===
Homophobia too is observed among animals,an example with white-tailed deers 
*--Pixel ;-) 16:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last link, to the Salon article, makes the claim that deer exhibit homophobia, but doesn't provide any more detail than that.  I think we should cite the book directly, but unfortunately I don't have access to it.  bikeable (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The notion that white tailed deer are "homophobic" is nothing more than Salon's conceit. Bagemihl describes nothing of the sort. What he does describe is the behavior of ordinary white-tailed deer towards transgendered deer known as "velvet-horns." The latter are apparently seen as alien and are "harrassed and attacked by the other deer." Bagemihl reports that "Non-transgendered White-tails (both does and bucks of all ages, even fawns) threaten velvet-horns who try to aproach them - forcing themn to remain no less than ten feet away - while bucks may actively charge velvet-horns to drive them away." (Bagemihl, p.380) In consequence velvet-horns associate only among themselves, forming small groups and avoiding interaction with other deer. But "homophobia"? I don't think so. Haiduc 18:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the quote.  It definitely doesn't belong in here, then, although it might be an interesting mention in transphobia.  bikeable (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions i would like to make 

message: Homophobia too is observed among animals,an example with white-tailed deers 
*--Pixel ;-) 16:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last link, to the Salon article, makes the claim that deer exhibit homophobia, but doesn't provide any more detail than that.  I think we should cite the book directly, but unfortunately I don't have access to it.  bikeable (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The notion that white tailed deer are "homophobic" is nothing more than Salon's conceit. Bagemihl describes nothing of the sort. What he does describe is the behavior of ordinary white-tailed deer towards transgendered deer known as "velvet-horns." The latter are apparently seen as alien and are "harrassed and attacked by the other deer." Bagemihl reports that "Non-transgendered White-tails (both does and bucks of all ages, even fawns) threaten velvet-horns who try to aproach them - forcing themn to remain no less than ten feet away - while bucks may actively charge velvet-horns to drive them away." (Bagemihl, p.380) In consequence velvet-horns associate only among themselves, forming small groups and avoiding interaction with other deer. But "homophobia"? I don't think so. Haiduc 18:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the quote.  It definitely doesn't belong in here, then, although it might be an interesting mention in transphobia.  bikeable (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Homophobic behavior in animals

message: I have suggested that this article be broken into two subjects; one for the word "homophobia" and one for the concept of anti-gay ideology, possibly aligning with Slogans of anti-gay ideology. Most of the heated discussion in this article is over the use of the word "homophobia" rather than the notion that there are viruently anti-gay people out there.  The fact that there is disagreement (here and elsewhere) about the word usage is a subject of much cultural discussion regardless of the truth of anti-gay bigotry, and should be captured in as NPOV a way as possible. Nigger and Bigotry are articles that deal with relevant content -- Nobody wants to be called a bigot or a nigger but the article deal with the history of these words rather than listing "examples of bigots" or "examples of niggers." There is a deep thought here. reread and ponder MPS 19:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Racism is a better model to follow, at least for the introductory 'graphs. Acknowledge the controversy exists, without attempting to find examples - which examples are bound to be controversial. Yonmei 09:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MPS's totally unsolicited opinion 

message: Now that all parties' opinions have been aired, I would like to air my own.
:Well, actually I had just started, but as it turns out this isn't going to matter much. Mangoe 04:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation discussion 

message: Well, directly, on the same-sex marriage debate: but bearing strongly on homophobia.
:Two quotes on the same-sex marriage debate, which seems to have become somewhat entangled in the argument about what-is-homophobia:
::"In contrast, SSM opponents implicitly assume that it is acceptable to force queers to remain unequal, in order to “protect marriage as an institution” in an unproven and marginal fashion. In doing so, they endorse a devaluation of same-sex couples that they would never endorse were they talking about blacks, or Jews, or women. That assumption - unstated and not even consciously thought about - is homophobic. And anyone who opposes SSM but also considers themselves opposed to bigotry against queers, should seriously consider this contradiction in their views.
::Just as dispensing with women’s rights to protect marriage on the margins would be a misogynistic policy; and just as dispensing with racial equality to protect marriage on the margins would be racist; dispensing with equality for same-sex couples in order to protect marriage on the margins is a homophobic policy.
::It’s true that sometimes “homophobia” - like many other words - is misused as a way of “placing opponents beyond the pale of debate,” as my correspondent said. But - unfortunate as that is - it should not be used as a reason to put genuine and reasonable concerns about homophobia beyond the pale of debate, either." Bigotry and the opposition to same-sex marriage
:And another one from the same writer:
:: Anyhow, the thread is interesting for showing how many GNM (gender neutral marriage) opponents are opposed to the very concept of “homophobia”; peel their rationalizations away, and it’s clear that their real agenda is to erase the concept of “prejudice against homosexuals” from the language. It’s loathesome. A couple of gender-neutral marriage related links 
: Yonmei 19:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  to repeat, this is not the place to settle the relative merits of homosexuality (or bi- or trans-sexuality) vs. good, old-fashioned, American, man-on-top-get-it-over-with-quick heterosexuality.  it's not!  it is flawed reasoning (and a rat-hole to go down into) for either side to expect to score points or to settle the issue placed in front of us (the NPOV lead introduction to Homophobia) by arguing either the normality (or lack thereof) of homosexuality or the normative use (or lack thereof) of identifying some person or policy as either perverted or as homophobic.  there is NPOV for the intro even if this is not settled. r b-j 20:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, this article / this Talk page certainly shouldn't have had to become a place where we discuss the normal range of human sexual orientation. It should be a place where we discuss the word homophobia and how it is used. This entire argument has been started and fuelled by people who vehemently do not want their POV to be identified as homophobic. But since these people are participating in this argument, we are necessarily having that argument: though I agree that we shouldn't have to. We should simply be documenting how homophobia is used, and its range of meaning, rather than fighting people who believe that their beliefs should not be called homophobic.Yonmei 20:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Nicely put, Yonmei. Kukini 21:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two quotes on homophobia 

message: *"What you have to accept, Rbj, is that people who want LGBT people to be treated unequally (by excluding homophobic hate crime from hate crime legislation, or by excluding same-sex couples from marriage) are taking a homophobic position."
We are right back to the question: what does "homophobic" mean? And we are also at the point which is complained about, where you are conflating a whole list of subjects as if they weren't matters about which one could hold differing positions for different reasons.
And this also leads to a point we haven't really addressed yet, but which has been lying latent in the discussion for quite some time. I do not believe that for you that this is just a matter of civil rights. To take an example, this is about Wikipedia as expressing societal approval for same-sex marriage. Civil rights, after all, are in large part about being allowed to do things that other people disapprove of (see the first amendment). The position that you are trying to have Wikipedia portray is that society approves of such marriages, a point which one can go to Gallup to get a reading on-- and it isn't positive. As far as the world is concerned, it would not surprise me to find that what Euro-American approval there may be is drowned out by second and third world voices.
And the interesting thing is that the blog you quote, Yonmei, provides evidence for a lot of societal disagreement. The blogger is quite happy to follow a "slippery slope" into polyamorous marriages-- which may be approved of in Africa, perhaps, but not in much of the rest of the world (and I would think certainly not in the United States). The court-driven mandating of same-sex marriages is not a done deal; still less need it reflect general societal mores. The ontology of marriage is extremely deeply imbedded in Christianity, and it is hard to imagine that Roman Catholics or Southern Baptists are going to change their mind on this. And saying that religion doesn't get a say in public moral discourse-- which is pretty much what Haiduc is trying to argue-- puts one right in the middle of yet another controversy. Pretty soon we'll have all modern social controversy resolved, simply by Wikipedial fiat. Mangoe 21:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I can really say in response to this is that no, I do not believe that Wikipedia rules the world, or even the US. However, I do believe that when an individual (or an organisation) opposes equal civil rights for a specific group, it can be assumed as a default position that the individual/organisation is motivated by prejudice against that specific group: if you believe otherwise, the onus is on you to make that case by citing (as another editor has suggested) academic sources that support your argument. Yonmei 08:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem in a sentence 

message: The only way to get this issue out of limbo is to actually keep this NPOV. 
In order for it to be readable by both sides. Readers need to be allowed to come to their own conclusions.
I know of noone that would consider homophobe endearing. I think the state of the second paragraph is caused by the fact that people choose to use a word on the discussion page that is trying to determine it's meaning. like using a word in its own definition.
The reason for using "critics of this term" is clear. Anyone can call any person or group anything if the word is not firmly defined. I could say that every mailman is a homophobe if I wanted. My use does not justify it's meaning or appropriateness. There is a reason there are critics of this term and it's current usage. When used with a politician it implies that they hate lgbtq though they may just object to the implications of the bill. 
There is no way a npov can just say in for example the article for Faigot. Most faigots do not agree with the use of the term in refering to themselves. 
In the same way I think Homophobes reguardless of right or wrong deserve the same respect when it comes to a pejorative about them. --Igimaster 06:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: As DanBDan suggested: I commit to using only academic sources who publish on peer-reviewed journals for the Homophobia page. If others wish to make this commitment, please add your own name below.
1. Yonmei 08:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Committment to using academic sources / avoiding Wikipedian opinion 

message: Stop writing that.  The following is not a disagreement with the commitment to objective, verifiable facts.  On the contrary, it is an appeal to them.  No anti-gay statement has ever been verified by reputable academic thought or agencies.
If people write things that are not true and that are defamatory then I will question them.  If people say things that are clearly based on bigotry rather than research I will call them out.  Some people here have repeatedly tried to draw a logical connection between pedophilia or pederasty and homosexuality.  The connection does not exist.  NAMBLA has absolutely nothing to do with the mainstream gay and lesbian movement, and gays and lesbians are under no more obligation to answer for men who have sex with little boys than straight people are to answer for men who have sex with little girls.  This is not just a moral point of view, it is a logical and academic one.  If people can display some self-control and keep their misinformed and bigoted propoganda to themselves, and focus instead on facts, then there will be no reason to correct their erroneous statements.  A very valid point has been raised, which is that the word "homophobia" has come to mean "anti-gay" in common usage.  Its original clinical definition is rarely used anymore.  Rather, it is primarily used to identify bigots who harbor anti-gay beliefs.  Most people already understand the word to mean "anti-gay" and thus it can be justifiably applied to people who hold and express anti-gay beliefs, including some of the people who have posted here.  And that has everything to do with this article and the discussion of the word's usage. 24.196.83.29 08:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I do not disagree with the commitment to academic resources 

message: * The story about the minister's kid getting beat up at school. This story never mentions homophobia at all -- and the idea that the kid got beat up because his dad is an anti-gay crusader is pure speculation on the part of the writers. The bullies didn't call him a "dirty homophobe" or anything of that kind. Also, it's just not that notable. How important to the cultural meaning of the word "homophobia" is somebody's squabble with a local school board?
* The entire section "Excerpts from discussions of the term" Who are these people? Why would anybody care what they think?
: Agreed. Cut. Yonmei 11:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So, here are some things I'm sure should be cut:

message: * Most of the "Popular Culture" section: At the moment, it's pretty much editorial judgment that the songs listed here are examples of homophobia. However, some of the things listed (Eminem in particular) have in fact been the subject of prominent, culturally important media stories about the concept of "homophobia." We need to cite those stories, not just judge the artists as homophobic on our own behalf. Where notable sources can't be found for individual items, they should be cut.
::I think this whole section should be dropped. Mangoe 17:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Cut. Yonmei 11:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the other "discussion" material should likewise be moved to this section. Mangoe 17:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Here are things that seem iffy to me:

message: Much of this debate would be more on topic, althoguh still pointless and circular, on that article's talk page.
DanB†DanD 03:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existing article: [[LGBT_rights_opposition]] 

message: Some editors are having a heated debate on whether the Falun gong is homophobic.  The following quotes are from the leader of this group Master Li Hongzhi.  
   
According to Li homosexuality is the leading indicator of the depravity and regression of our society. Gays are more visible than ever and laws have been created to protect their evil life style. In Li’s poem “the World’s Ten Evils,” he states: “homosexuality, licentious desires—dark heart, turning demonic.”  Li’s strongest words against gays come from a lecture in Switzerland. Homosexuality was one of the factors that led to the collapse of the Greek civilization, he said. Furthermore, “Homosexuals not only violate the standards that gods set for mankind, but also damage human society’s moral code. In particular, the impression it gives children will turn future societies into something demonic.”  Li describes a special kind of suffering for homosexuals. They will be made to undergo a particularly slow and painful annihilation: “That person is annihilated layer after layer at a rate that seems pretty rapid to us, but in fact it’s extremely slow in that time field. Over and over again, one is annihilated in an extremely painful way.” 
It would be great if you could come to this page and vote your opinion here.
Thanks--Samuel Luo 04:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: besides being a little goofy, it's no more homophobic than the Westboro Baptist Church. r b-j 04:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia doesn't compile lists of who wikipedia editors think is homophobic... we instead cite sources about other people's POVs. If you can find a source that says "Falun Gong is homophobic" then we can include some sort of opinion attributed to a source. WP:NOR], ya ya ya. MPS 20:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Falun Gong homophobic 

message: Again, although I'm sure this has been discussed, I'm making a new section for ease of myself and, hopefully, those joining the discussion.
The following passage at the start of the article -
:The term homophobic, meaning "prejudiced against homosexual people"[3], is pejorative in the same manner that bigoted or prejudiced is pejorative. Critics of the term argue that when it is applied to political opposition to particular goals of LGBT social movements, it is a loaded term intended to associate such political opposition with bigotry.[4]
I propose a removal of this, being that there is already a "Critics of the term" section (Which I hope to expand, see ""Homophobia" as applied to political figures" section above), and re-iterating that there are critics here makes it appear this is a major part of the article. Also, I see no need for the definition to be stated twice (Once in the opening sentence, for all intents and purposes.)
Thoughts? Gekedo 18:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Wikipedians follow the style where the intro paragraph is an overview of the topic. Most of the reason that the discussion page is 362K long is over the controversial nature of this particular word. To eliminate this fact in the upfront 'graph would be considered by myself and many others to be sort of minimize the inhererntly controversial nature of this word. MPS 19:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course, if we had a separate article... ; )  MPS 19:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the lead is incorrect in that it presumes a perjorative instead of letting the reader make their own conclusion. CovenantD 20:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  but the reader must be informed. It's not wikipedia's opinion... If my memory serves me correctly, we have outside sources which corroborate that most people labeled "homophobes" bristle at this term and consider it pejorative. I used to argue (a whole year ago) that we should say "homophobia is a controversial term" but even that was nixed.  MPS 20:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  lot's of people have thoughts about this, Gekedo.  they pull in different directions.  even though some editors might not agree, that was a compromise wording, an attempt of mine to find some common ground between two polarized positions.  perhaps you should take a look at the previous conversation between all of us, particularly since the article was frozen.  and also take a look at the mediation page to see some of the staked out positions.  this has been discussed and discussed and i'm too busy/lazy to restate where it is that i'm coming from. r b-j 21:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. Think I'll pull out of changing that start then. No worries =) Any thoughts on the change I mentioned in "As Applied to political figures", though? Gekedo 16:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree strongly with your first preference. There's been an overload of information in the Homophobia article from people who object to having their false negative opinions and prejudices about LGBT people, and opposition to equal civil rights for LGBT people, described as homophobic. We clearly need to have some information about these people in the article, but for the intro, all that's necessary is an echo of a similar sentence in the Racism article: that identifying a person or an opinion as "homophobic" is controversial - see Critics of the term. Yonmei 17:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial parargraph clean-up