Talk:LGBT rights opposition/Archive 2

message: Alienus, this is another "common knowledge" truism that I often hear quoted, but have never seen factual information on. You cannot quote an anti-LDS article which quotes a "newsgroup" or forum as an authoritative source. Most of the many  organizations which support BSA, not just the LDS or Catholic churches, agree with the current policies of BSA, or they would support a program such as Camp Fire USA. Trying to isolate the views to a couple groups is POV and not accurate. DavidBailey 14:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That site is not being quoted on its own merits, but rather the merits of the links it offers to news sites.  As these point out, while many organizations contribute, a few are the largest contributors, and the LDS church is one of them.  Thank you for understanding. Al 18:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All that the sources you cite say is that LDS members are a disproportionately high percentage of BSA members and leadership and that they threatened to pull out. There is nothing there to support the claim that it's a direct reason for the BSA's policies on gay scouts or scoutmasters. That seems to be something you infer. Can you connect those dots for us with references? CovenantD 18:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No need.  Rather than making any inference, I changed it to simply state the facts and allow the reader to decide if there's any connection.  Speaking of the facts, Chooserr's latest round of edits includes adding the phrase "gay agenda", which is the homosexual equivalent of "nigger".  It's a deeply offensive term and I will not allow it in this article. Al 03:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in no way an equivalent of the N-word. It isn't applied to a person such as the word "faggot" may be but to their...what's the word again? Oh yeah, Agenda. Also you aren't solely in charge of wikipedia. Chooserr 03:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for proving my point. It is, as always, a pleasure to work with you towards the harmonious editing of articles. Al 03:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how I proved your point, but sure...Chooserr 03:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And anyone feel free to view wikipedia's article on the subject here (that is if Alienus doesn't decide to tear the article to shreads because he "won't stand for it"). Chooserr 03:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BSA and LDS and Catholic support as primary reason for not allowing homosexual leaders 

message: "When the German Nazi party came to power in 1933, one of their first acts was to burn down the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, and begin a process to send homosexuals to concentration camps."
What does "begin a process to send homosexuals to concentration camps" mean? Were gay people actually sent to concentration camps in the early 1930's? Were there anti-gay laws enacted? Was there anti-gay propaganda? Could use some clarification, IMHO. Martin 18:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concentration camps 

message: The public opinion section currently deals only with the question of whether gays and lesbians are viewed as child molesters or should be allowed to teach in elementary schools.  While the elementary school debate was and is important, it's a narrow issue and the molestation information is only indirectly relevant.  The section would be more informative if it focused on current and historical public opinion on a package of gay rights issues (hate crime laws, gay marriage, civil unions, sodomy laws, job and housing discrimination laws, military policy, etc.).  I'll rewrite this section if there're no serious objections and no one else jumps first. Fireplace 00:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely rewrite public opinion section? 

message: I agree with Jpgordon, ExplodingBoy, Alienus, and Hipocrite that this talk page isn't the place for a debate of gay rights issues, which has recently flooded the page.  I propose moving the entire current talk page to an archive for a breath of fresh air. Fireplace 19:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, of course. Al 19:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a challenge to people who understand the goals and purposes of the talk page to not respond to things that have nothing to do with the goals and purposes of the talk page, whatsoever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political debate overwhelming the page 

message: In accordance with LGBT rights movement, I'm moving this page to LGBT rights opposition.  Exploding Boy 20:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Even though i agree with the writer of this section, I have to say that it is VERY um... non-neutral. I don't know the big word. Anyways, someone should change it.--DaGrob 19:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Army 

message: I don't personally see Vegan Reich as anarchists, and I know many other anarchists don't either. They are a confusing mix of anarchist and fascist ideologies. There are definitely elements of anarchism in their ideas, but calling for a dictatorship to murder non-vegans, gays and such is in no way consistent with anarchism. It's like saying Marxists are anarchists because we want the same end goals (a stateless, classless society). The main difference between Marxists and anarchists is that Marxists believe in seizing and exercizing state power to do it, just like Vegan Reich wants to (and honestly, the end goals of Vegan Reich, which includes killing queers is not the same as any major modern anarchist's end goals AFAIK). Unless a source is provided that says Vegan Reich is specifically anarchist, I think that part should be removed. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 07:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one made any objections I took the liberty of removing the info on Vegan Reich and hardline. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegan Reich anarchists? 

message: I removed a section on "anarchists and other opposition." The article erroneously claims that anarchists oppose LGBTQ rights by opposing all marriage, heterosexual marriage as well. Apart from being an entirely un-cited claim, other than a link to anarchism as a philosophy, the article is misleading. It reduces queer liberation movements to marriage, and then it confuses many anarchists who oppose all marriage, as a coercive institution, with people who specifically oppose gay marriage as a homophobic stance. The anarchist movement includes some of the earliest supporters of queer rights, including Emma Goldman. The contemporary anarchist movement includes many queer individuals; it also overwhelmingly supports queer liberation. If anyone is going to make a claim to the contrary, it better be well-cited.--Begintheend (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchists and other Opposition 

message: I noticed Libertarians were included in this list as being somehow opposed to gays and lesbians...because they do not support ENDA. If you read the Libertarian party platform, you will see that they support gay marriage (which both major parties do not), support adoption by gays, support ending the don't ask don't tell policy, among other things.
If Libertarians are to be included in this list for political reasons (by partisan Democrats), then the Democrat Party belongs on this list for not supporting gay marriage.
It seems that marriage is a bigger issue and it would be hypocritical to leave the Dems out if the criteria for being on the list is not supporting 100% of gay rights issues.
I removed the Libertarians from this article because of the hypocrisy.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarian Party 

message: The court made Christian Horizons abolish their code of conduct.  This means as a Christian organization they cannot maintain any standard whatsoever.  This not only affects the gay employees, but straight and bi employees as well.  Allowing illicit heterosexual behavior is an indirect but important side affect of the gay rights movement. That is one of the big oppositions to the gay right movement. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Horizons 

message: I stumbled across Anti-LGBT slogans from another page and found several policy/guideline issues, as well as a general overlap of this page (this page being more actively developed), and simply listing off slogans would present non-neutral content fork neutrality issues.  Moreover, Anti-LGBT slogans is more poorly sourced and is basically a synthesis of original research, and it would appear that in several areas, neutrality in rebuttal found in LGBT rights opposition is omitted.  Thus, I suggest merging Anti-LGBT slogans into LGBT rights opposition. I'm not an expert in this area, though, so feel free to trout me if I'm missing something. --slakr\ talk / 02:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Anti-LGBT slogans]] to [[LGBT rights opposition]] 

message: Because this article is about LGBT rights opposition, I propose the sections on the Al-Fatiha Foundation and its accompanying rights activists either be moved to homosexuality and Islam and deleted from this one. Ejnogarb (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved these two sections verbatim to Homosexuality and Islam, which surprisingly didn't have this information. Ejnogarb (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like a good move. Aleta Sing 04:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT Rights Organization 

message: I understand that the government of Cuba has been very anti-gay. This should be mentioned in the article. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You understand incorrectly. Cuba has actually made progress on that issue. --Revolución hablar ver 05:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuba 

message: My apologies if I wiped out any work done on the article today. The first 5 edits for today, May 22, were complete section blankings of the article by an IP address, followed by a couple more from the same IP. The only way to fix it all was to revert to the last stable version. The IP also did the same to Matthew Shepard Act. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 03:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I appreciate that.  I don't have the energy to do the reworking of the poorly-constructed sections, the bits I moved around, and things inserted to complement and accuratize done earlier.  I wasn't quite aware what was going on with these previous edits, or that they were ongoing as I edited.  It is hard to know how to improve such a poor article while somebody is also vandalising it, because there is no way of getting a 'stable' version moving forward. Mish (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I think I have re-integrated most of the amendments I have made, a possibly tweaked it a bit more here and there.  I have moved all the US stuff down into its own section.  The other stuff from Canada and the UK embedded in the Rights conflict section could be moved down as well - a new section for Canada and into the revised UK section.  However, that would leave the rights conflict section a bit thin.  Looking at the material now, and the way it is organised, the tag about it being primarily a US view is less relevant now. Mish (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The article says that Section 28 was repealed by the "elected Labour government". To me, that implies that the previous Conservative government wasn't elected, which is untrue.
Normally I'd just edit the article to correct for this, but this is an emotive issue so I thought I'd mention it here first. NearlyDrNash (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words in 'Opposition to LGBT rights in the UK' 

message: How can we include this if there is no record of Baden-Powell being a homosexual? The circumstantial evidence used by two recent historians to imply that he may have been attracted to men is appropriate only in the Baden-Powell and Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell articles where it can be sourced and discussed in detail. Even those two sources indicate quite firmly that there is no evidence of Baden-Powell acting on homosexual desires; desires that he never openly voiced himself.
That said, it STILL doesn't matter what the founder's sexuality was in 1910, as it was not openly discussed and not part of the organization's charter. If it is a fact that he was a "repressed homosexual", how does that relate to the Scout's position on gays today? At best it is an amusing irony in a mildly sophomoric way.--Knulclunk (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that the Boys Scouts' founder would have been disbarred from membership of the organisation he founded because of his own homoerotic interests, yes, it is ironic.  I can understand why some might prefer that be excluded from an article which features the boy scouts' position. Mish (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boy Scouts founder 

message: The History section contains _one_ example of LGBT rights opposition and that is Hitler and Nazi Germany...
There are plenty of other less extreme examples, perhaps the Church for almost all of history? Seems like that example might be a little more fair to those who oppose LGBT rights? We aren't all as evil as Hitler, regardless of the gay rights radicals like to say.
I'm not familiar with Wikipedia policies or conventions--I'm not even sure this belongs here on the talk page--but when I read the page and there was no "the neutrality of this article is disputed" it bothered me. It is disputed. I'm disputing it. Whoever has the knowhow/power to get one of those little signs up there, please do it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.203.42 (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is biased 

message: There should maybe be a footnote somewhere on the alleged widespread presence of homosexuals within far-right or fascist organizations. It seems paradoxical because these are the same political movements that will typically oppose the advances of LGBT rights within modern society.  ADM (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gays within fascist movements 

message: "LGBT rights opposition refers to various homophobic movements or attitudes which oppose the extension of certain rights and privileges that are often taken for granted by many heterosexuals to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people."
This doesn't necessarily hold true for most people who oppose LGBT rights.  Some people simply oppose the separate codification of rights for any particular groups.  The need not necessarily be homophobic. 98.235.79.159 (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you cannot say somebody is homophobic when they express no such thing against lesbian and gay people, but subscribe to a moral belief system that is opposed to certain actions.  People who are anti-gay people because they are gay, that is homophobia; people who are opoosed to enshrining things they consider to be morally wrong, that is anti-gay practice, not anti-gay people.  The racism etc. you mention is directed against individuals people because of who they are, not some moral view about their practices.  Islam complicates this, as there are now groups who are anti-Islam, but say they are not anti-muslim; being ideologically or morally opposed to Islam is not Islamophobic, while being ant-muslim is.  It is a fine line, and some of these groups choose their words quite carefully to ensure they cannot be shown to have stepped over it (especially as doing so is punishable by law in some countries) - because we need to be able to validate allegations of homophobia, we cannot refer to groups that are homophobic whose arguments are predicated on morality and rights opposition, even if we do think they are homophobic.  If you look at archives connected with homophobia, we have had to work quite hard at describing this as accurately as possible to ensure it stands against any challenges - and we would be inconsistent if we did not apply that understanding in articles where it might appear.  That is how I see it, anyway. Mish (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition used in the opening is original research 

message: I just rmed two bits of this section, for not meeting the header description.
* The "voter intimidation" section (in addition to being sourced to references that weren't actually talking about voter intimidation per se) is not about any conflict with LGBT rights, as there has been no special right to LGBT voter intimidation called for. It may be a conflict between some LGBT supporters and opposition to LGBT rights. That's a different kettle of fish.
* The Ocean Grove case had no conflict preventing the Ocean Grove group from opposing LGBT rights. They weren't told to stop campaigning against LGBT rights.  For that matter, there was nothing particularly LGBT-rights oriented about the problem that Ocean Grove had, as the tax benefit they signed up for simply says public access; it didn't single out types of discrimination that may or may not occur. There's no protected class thing going on here.
- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these apply fine, but we can discuss here. Perhaps the header title should be modified?--Knulclunk (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Modified to what? "The self-styled martyrdom of gay rights opponents"? Or is it "Conflict between LGBT rights and the right to discriminate"? That just seems a little too obvious (and still doesn't really apply.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a better title would be Conflict between LGBT rights and other rights.  A commonly quoted reason for opposing LGBT rights is that it interferes with other rights.  Whether that is true or not is another question, but in an article about LGBT rights opposition I think we should discuss the reasons those that oppose LGBT rights give for the opposition.  Otherwise, the article doesn't really cover what it is supposed to cover. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The key is "a commonly quoted reason for opposing LGBT rights." Three sections (Natural law opposition to LGBT rights, Conflicts over education, conflict between LGBT rights and the right to oppose LGBT rights) should be combined unded the NPOV title "Reasons given for opposing LGBT rights." The titles involving "conflict" are all POV. Where one person sees conflicting rights, another sees bigotry cloaked in the language of reverse discrimination. --Dr.enh (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits to Conflict between LGBT rights and the right to oppose LGBT rights 

message: Repeated IP edits have replaced the "discriminate against" phrase in "Other outdoor-focused, youth-based organizations such as the 4-H club and Girl Scouts of the USA do not discriminate against  homosexuals" with "exclude". These edits have been made without explanation. This may at first seem to be a difference which makes no difference, but it is not - exclusion is a mere subset of discrimination. For example, the LDS church pre-1978 did not exclude black folks - they could become members - but they did discriminate, barring black folks from the priesthood and certain rites. Nothing I've seen indicates that the Girl Scouts or 4-H has any discriminatory policies, and the broader language should be reinstated, Thoughts? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclusion versus discrimination 

message: "Critics claim that political correctness has led to the association of sex between males and HIV being downplayed."
What does this have to do with LGBT rights opposition?
I have removed the information on blood donor services, as while I am sure people use such details in their opposition, it is not about LGBT rights opposition.  The NHS is not opposed to LGBT rights.  It does not allow a range of people to give blood for various reasons.  People from Africa who have had sex in the previous 12 months.  IV drug users. People on chemotherapy and other medications.  Unless there is a reference from a reliable source that specifically deals with blood transfusion services that are opposed to LGBT rights, or LGBT rights opposition that cites such details as part of its opposition.  Then the source would be cited, not the service and details they cite.  The way this was used suggests WP:SYNTH. Mish (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: there isn't even such a thing as "LGBT rights". There is legislation concerning homosexual acts, and there is legislation concerning recognition of homosexual partnerships, which you may call "LG rights". Then there is legislation concerning offical recognition of sex change, which you may call "T rights". I have yet to be shown any kind of legislation concerning bisexuality. The point is that these "rights" (these laws) aren't officially so called. Grouping the opposition to such legislation under an idiosyncratic term used by the proponents is a rather blatant violation of neutrality. --dab (𒁳) 21:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health section 

message: To whoever added that photo: thank you. I think the Nazi's ferocity truly demonstrates what opposition to equality looks like. 1933...not too long ago. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: thank god for reductio ad Hitlerum. It works every time, regardless of whether you have a case. --dab (𒁳) 21:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi photo 

message: The title, by use of the word "rights" instead of "social movement" like LGBT social movements, is biased. This page should be moved. Thoughts? NYyankees51 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased title 

message: An editor has deleted a ref here, mentioning on my talk page that it is pulling up a viagra ad; that user may want to check their computer for infection; it pulls up a MediaMouse.org page on " National Socialist Movement" for me. (Even if it didn't, the proper thing to do with a dead link is to mark it as "dead" or to replace it with a WayBackMachine link, not to delete it.) And he deleted material with a source to this page, saying that it says there was no death penalty for homosexuality. That is not what it says; while it says that homosexuals "were not systematically exterminated", it also says "In 1942, the death penalty was instituted for homosexuality." I am restoring the sourced material. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted sources 

message: This article should be renamed from LGBT rights opposition to LGBT social movements opposition to mirror LGBT social movements
:agreed. LGBT "rights" opposition is biased and is completely different from LGBT social movements opposition, which is what the article is about.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.229 (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT social movements opposition 

message: An anon editor has added "science" to motivations, including a set of random citations (some of which are reliable, some of which aren't.)  None of the reliable citations link scientific findings to LGBT rights opposition, which makes the addition a case of WP:SYNTH. AV3000 (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, there absolutely do need to be reliable sources that draw a connection between scientific findings and opposition; not doing so violates WP's SYNTH policy, and I'm not sure what's so difficult about this to understand. It's certainly not my responsibility to disprove your unsourced assertion of such a connection.  AV3000 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

text: "they describe scientific findings that motivate people to oppose LGBT rights" - sez who? That's the part which would need to be reliably sourced -- who claims they motivate people in that way? "If you can prove that the scientific findings are not valid reasons why people oppose homosexuality as wrong, then state so and cite them here." The general criteria for Wikipedia is that we are to incorporate things which are known to be true; we do not incorporate them merely because they are not known to be untrue. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition motived by science 

message: Okay, this officially the most ridiculous article in the Wikipedia universe. Who wrote this thing? Harry Hay?
No credibility. 66.30.240.233 (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section is stupid 

message: This section does not address any "rights opposition." It is a COATRACK for a discussion of the state of homosexual healthcare. Any objections to removal? – Lionel (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health section 

message: What do people think of organizing this by forms of opposition? Not rationales, I mean, but eg. campaigns for criminalization, opposition to equal protection laws, etc. I think any layout has the potential for some redundancy (people in the US definitely use the same arguments and shoddy research to argue against marriage and against adoption), but the geographical organization and historical section both have tons of holes that might not present as much of a problem if the article were organized differently. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: Just because there is a main article on Christianity and homosexuality (or, apparently, three... that is in itself not right, one of those should be considered the main article) doesn't mean that there should be no coverage here. Rather, the coverage here should be basically a summary of the relevant content from the main page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian section missing 

message: Just scanning the article right now however, does it strike anyone else that starting the body of the article with the Nazi German suppression of homosexuality suggests a rather biased approach to the subject?
:There's an issue with the scope of the article; we seem to waffle between general anti-gay laws and attitudes (eg. the "religious reasons" section) and movements that were specifically reactionary ("history" and "different countries"). The article identifies late 19thc. Germany as the earliest gay rights movement, meaning that moving from there into the repression of that movement isn't so unnatural, but I'm sure there were earlier movements and/or reactions that we could discuss if someone wanted to research. I do think we should limit the scope as much as possible to the reactionary stuff, though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue with the Nazis is more related to the intent of the article than its scope. This article isn't about the LGBT rights movement, therefore the origins of that movement aren't really relevant. The article is supposed to be about opposition to the LGBT rights movement. The organization of the article makes sense only if you view it as a promotion of the LGBT rights movement. Why not start with the historical opposition to LGBT rights? 98.201.194.69 (talk) 05:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting with the Nazis? 

message: The page says "Such opposition can be motivated by (ethics,) religion, moral beliefs, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, sexualism, bigotry, political ideologies, or other factors."
On looking again at this list of reasons, I can see a number of issues.
The reasons given for opposing LGBT rights fall into three categories: first, opposition by reference to external systems of thought - religious, moral, political (and ethical); second, opposition rooted in the character of the person who opposes: homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, sexualism, bigotry; and third, "other factors".
"Biphobia" - this neologism has its own Wikipedia page, but the word may appear only in a single primary source - Ref. 1 of that page.  This is the only evidence that biphobia is a separate phenomenon from homophobia.
"Sexualism" - this concept also has its own Wikipedia page, but a careful reading of the page shows that the second sense of the word (the one relevant here, "discrimination based on sexuality"), is a neologism that is not attributed to any of the page's references - the author might as well have made the word up.  Ref. 1 refers to "sexual prejudice", Refs. 2 and 3 to "heterosexism".  The content of Refs 1 and 2 can be searched on Amazon; Ref 3 is available in PDF form and can be searched; none of these includes the word "sexualism".
If we accept the term "sexualism", then homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia are examples of sexualism, rather than separate phenomena.
I expect most LGBT activists would also consider these phenomena to be examples of bigotry, rather than separate phenomena.
"Other reasons" seems to mean "anything I haven't thought of" rather than something that is documented.
The page was split out from Homosexuality and morality and deals almost exclusively with opposition to homosexual rights.  The addition of the terms "biphobia", "transphobia", and "sexualism" appears to be a half-hearted attempt to generalise the page to cover the full range of the "LGBT" label without adding any substantive new content.
The misuse of tautology, and of neologisms that are not in widespread use, make the list akin to "oak, beech, quasi-oak, trees, treeoids, and other things".
Please could someone with appropriate expertise amend the page.
212.159.102.166 (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I more or less agree, so I have boldly removed some of the terms. If another editor disagrees, they will likely restore them and hopefully join this discussion. - MrX 16:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for opposition 

message: Some pieces of text in the article seem to agree to certain types of opposition or at least use language that reads as if it does. Per example 'The driving force was the elimination of degeneracy at various levels' <- I added perceived in that sentence, or 'It is argued that the numbers of homosexuals eliminated was quite low' the word low makes it sound very troubling to me, it /could/ work if more text was to be added comparing the numbers to other WW2 statistics. But even then 10-30% of gays charged with being gay put into concentration camps seems /high/ to me!
The 'Religious reasons for opposition' sub states that Abrahamic religions do not support homosexual sex as if it where fact. Within the Christian churches there are opposing interpretations where homosexual sex is /not/ viewed as a sin. I'm unsure about Islam but I can imagine that it's mostly hadiths (='word' -> interpretations from Koran that are viewed as canon by most Muslims) that oppose homosexuality. I would propose making a clear separation of facts and interpretations (even if those are the most dominant interpretations)
GizahNL (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some thoughts... 

message: The core reason why parents oppose homosexuality is because they want their kids to have kids. Parents do not despise their lesbian daughters as much as they despise their gay sons. The reason for this is because a lesbian daughter can still have kids that are genetically theirs but gay males cannot have kids that are genetically theirs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.236.162 (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Many same-sex couples, including male couples, have children through surrogacy, adoption, etc. Please provide a source for your edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about parents wanting their kids to have kids? 

message: I think using the word "rights", especially in the title, is inherently biased. It implies that we already have all of these god-given rights and some angry people are trying to deny us those rights. Look at the second paragraph here: Abortion_debate#Terminology: "Appeals are often made in the abortion debate to the rights of the fetus, pregnant woman, or other parties. Such appeals can generate confusion if the type of rights is not specified (whether civil, natural, or otherwise) or if it is simply assumed that the right appealed to takes precedence over all other competing rights (an example of begging the question)." We have the same situation here, the existence of certain "rights" is already assumed in the article title. (Yes it's currently specified in the lead that we're talking about civil rights, but that's not the point.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, so what would you suggest in its place? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I had a suggestion I would have already offered it. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title