Talk:Societal attitudes toward homosexuality/Archive 4

message: I came across this article, which might have usable material for later work here:
*Gay rights opposition
Feel free to add more stuff to the list if anyone finds anything.  -Smahoney 21:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes for future work 

message: I heard that Edward Gibbon cites sexual perversion and homosexuality as a cause for the fall of the Roman empire in his book "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". This book is cited as a source for this article. Is there a problem here? Perhaps the article should mention the anti-homosexuality argument that is based on that conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.173.126.153 (talk • contribs) 
:Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end, even if you don't have an account.  I have no objection, but I'd rather any such additions were made by someone who has actually read the book, not only heard about it.  -Smahoney 14:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Gibbon also says 

message: The Arbitration Committee has decided that Lou franklin is indefinitely banned from editing this page and related articles and discussion pages. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin for he ruling. KimvdLinde 22:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lou franklin banned from this page

message: I've edited the caption of the Achilles and Patroclus image, because although most Athenians of the 5th century BCE did understand the relationship between the two to be a sexual one, if you read Plato's Symposium you can see that the exact details of the relationship were problematic even at the time — for example, there was no consensus over which was the eromenos and which the erastes.  Clearly, although the 5th century Athenians were viewing the relationship through the lens of the pederastic relationships they were accustomed to, it was not easy to fit Achilles and Patroclus into that framework.  (The relationship is arguably ambiguous in Homer.)
Given that the Classical Greeks had so much difficulty fitting the relationship neatly into the pederastic mold, I'm not sure it's entirely accurate or appropriate to say the image is pederastic (despite the name the image has here).  I do think it's fair to say that the image reflects a sexual aspect to the relationship, but since the question is so complex I think that calling it pederastic in this context is a bit too simplistic.  I hope the current wording is acceptable.  (By the way, there's a page on the relationship of Achilles and Patroclus which anyone who's interested can come and improve.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concern, but I think that we need to balance here between two chasms of misconception. No, the Homeric version was not pederastic - but then neither was it sexual. And the time when the plate was produced, two to three centuries after Homer, at the cusp of the sixth and fifth centuries, a generation before the birth of Socrates and three generations before the birth of Plato, the period of full bloom of the pederastic tradition – was that a time when a non-pederastic same-sex sexual relationship would have been enshrined on a symposiac cup – and the symposium one of the main venues of pederastic practice?! Myths evolve to suit the needs of the evolving cultures, and it is apparent that this kylix reflects the understanding of the myth prevalent at the time of its making, a pederastic one, since any other would have received a grossly comical, mocking treatment - clearly not the case here. To not call this interpretation pederastic, intentionally so, is to mislead. Haiduc 11:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably fair — and given that the cup depicts Patroclus as bearded and Achilles as beardless, it's probably depicting Patroclus as the erastes.  I suppose I'm just concerned about the caption suggesting that any sexual interpretation of the Achilles/Patroclus relationship is necessarily a pederastic one, which is equally misleading.  Perhaps something like "In this image of Achilles and Patroclus, Patroclus' penis is exposed in reference to the sexual and pederastic interpretation of their relationship"?  That gives appropriate credit to the fact that the image probably does depict a pederastic reading, but allows the existence of other interpretations (even in the Classical period). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely! Or even, "A pederastic interpretation of the Achilles and Patroclus myth, a story given mutually contradictory interpretations in antiquity, in keeping with the evolution of Greek attitudes towards same-sex love. Patroclus' exposed penis is thought to be an allusion to the sexual aspect of their relationship"? Haiduc 23:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's OK, but I've just had another problem drawn to my attention.  In Greek art of the 5th century, the exposure of the genitals isn't necessarily a sexual cue.  In the context of a depiction of this relationship, it may well be, but can we actually say that is is or is thought to be a sexual reference?  I'm not an expert on classical art styles, but there are plenty of red-figure images which depict male nudity without being sexual references.  Perhaps we need a citation for this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was myself wondering where that came from. I have a hunch it is one of Apollomelos' edits, but he is no longer with the project, and while I expect he got it from a reliable source, I don't remember encountering it in the literature. While with most Greek art of the time nudity is not overtly sexual, this depiction of the penis is exagerated and the artist is seemingly trying to make a point. But we have no source. I would suggest putting a "fact" tag on it. Haiduc 02:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could just say "An image of Achilles and Patroclus, presenting the mythological figures in the pederastic context common to Greece of the 5th century BCE"?  That's a bit more concise, and avoids the entire issue of whether the exposure of the genitals is specifically a sexual cue.  Besides, the issue of the varying presentations of the Achilles/Patroclus relationship isn't all that relevant here, really. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty soon we will run out of room, with all these colons. It's fine, though I thought it was amusing that the changing constructions of the myth illuminated the evolving Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. But I do not mind removing the penis discussion - it always struck me as a bit over the top. Haiduc 03:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I also agree that those parallels are interesting, but I think they're better discussed at Achilles and Patroclus than here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patroclus caption 

message: Are you still disputing the neutrality of this page?  If so, it would be beneficial to start with sentence one and just go through the article and list your complaints, quoting each sentence you have an issue with and suggesting corrections.  Otherwise, I doubt this will ever get done.  As with the rest of you, your efforts here are appreciated.  -Smahoney 19:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If an editor isn't going to make any more substantive contribution than to check in once a week or so to give an article his "I'm ag'inst it" stamp of POV disapproval, then other editors would be justified in ignoring his insistence that the POV tag remain on the article. "Consensus" isn't supposed to be the same thing as "veto of one." The POV tag is supposed to serve as an initiator of discussion and improvements, not as an indicator that someone somewhere at some time read the article and didn't like it. KarlBunker 17:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hernando Cortez: Still disputed?

message: I am new to this discussion, but an interesting thought occured to me, reading through the archives, which may have been discussed already. I think it is important to recognize Lou's rhetoric in attacking the "vulgarity" of the article. It is a common tactic that when heterosexist activists talk about protecting children, they are really not talking about children at all. For instance, the Anita Bryant campaign, "Save Our Children," really had nothing to do with children; it was a means of using a rhetoric of childhood to police the lives of adults.
There is no means of protecting children from "vulgar" images. Not at the expense of open discussion of issues that affect us all. But I also question Lou's attack on the vulgarity of an article about homosexuality. Why is the word "cocksucker" so vulgar that we should feel morally obliged to censor this article? What about violence? Is that not vulgar? Should we censor the wikipedia article on the holocaust? For some reason, and I don't think it will require much of a strech of imagination by most readers to guess that reason, Lou seems to only be concerned with attacking vulgarity that is associated with homosexuality. 
Rhetoric of "protecting" children is not really about protecting children. Our society is built around fear. We are afraid of each other and we are terrified of corrupting young people. Moreover, we are afraid of TRUSTING young people. If children themselves had their voices heard in our society, the last thing they would be calling for is censorship. It is only through LISTENING and actually HEARING the voice of children themselves, and trusting them to make responsible decisions that adults can really educate and empower children. Sheltering them from the world around them will not help them deal with that world when they finally do. Furthermore, I think that the way a society treats children is emblematic of the way groups are oppressed and marginalized in that society. For instance, most forms of oppression in our society are formed through metaphors of childhood. Consider paternalism, for instance... it is a form of racism mediated through a metaphor of white males as "adult" and blacks as "child." A similar argument goes for patriarchy.
Most adult Americans have a romanticized vision of what their childhood was like. It is difficult to remember. Many Americans remember simplistic visions of childhood... drinking hot cocoa on a snowy day, getting christmas presants, playing in the dirt... and we construct an image of childhood as idyllic and simple. Children are, in fact, complex human beings. Especially by the age of 12 or 14, children are not as simple as we remember ourselves being. It is through systemic disempowerment of children that we create a culture in which children are not trusted, and therefore do not have to be trustworthy.
As we can see here, this lack of trust, this disempowerment, can then be used as a weapon against a despised group, such as gay people.
on the other hand, I want to emphasize that there IS harm done to children, AND ADULTS, by media images. Although I contend that "vulgarity" is a tool for right-wing fundamentalists to thwart liberation efforts of queer people, we must recognize that media representations DO have a powerful impact on the ways in which people concieve of themselves and others. Consider images of masculinity that are portrayed through the military. Why are Americans so violent? Could it have to do with violent representations of masculinity? When George W. Bush says "bring 'em on," without any concern for the lives of Americans or Iraqis, what could be the consequences of that on a young boy's conception of masculinity? Consider the portrayal of black men in movies. They are always portrayed as violent, criminals, uncontrolable. What could the consequences of this be on the developing mind of white children? Something tells me Lou is not standing on a soapbox against these forms of representation. Perhaps that is a bold assumption.
24.250.22.226 05:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Vulgarity" Issue 

message: Looks like User:Hernando Cortez has reached his 3RR for the day.  Anyone care to block him?  -Smahoney 20:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm pretty sure what User:Hernando Cortez has done here,  goes beyond a 3RR violation and into the realm of vandalism. Danielross40 06:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tags and 3RR 

message: So... what's with this article, anyway? I was trying to research this subject, and I'm a little disappointed to find nothing but China, Israel, the USA, Greece, and three variants of Rome. Oh, and 'the Bedami people of New Guinea.' Plus, I think Sulla (who hid his homosexuality his entire life until retirement) and Julius Caesar (constantly and angrily denied being homosexual) would be surprised to hear that Rome was accepting of homosexuals during the late Republic/early Emperor phase. Come to think of it, the individual articles on those two would seem to agree with me...  24.130.61.61 19:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What more do you want?  You do realize that you're welcome to make contributions if you want, and have sources.  As for the Rome issue, I haven't read the article in a while and it may have changed, but last I recall it by no means makes easy statements like "Rome was accepting of homosexuals" or its converse.  -Smahoney 19:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coverage issues

message: A tag has been added to the article indicating that, in the opinion of that editor, the article should be more global and less U.S.-centric. I think the article could use some improvement in that department, but I don't personally think it's "off" enough to warrant the tag. For an English-language article, I think this one probably does a better than average job of looking at non-U.S. attitudes.
Anyway, this section can be used to discuss this issue. KarlBunker 13:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that is does relatively better is not an excuse not to fix the problem, and I actually happen to agree with the editor. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the tag is fine.  Hopefully it will encourage some of us to continue working on the article.  -Smahoney 15:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not simply move the US section to its own article and leave a short summary here? If there was an equivalent amount of information on each country in the world, the page would be too long. ntennis 00:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not opposed to that idea, but as it stands I don't really think there is enough in the US section to warrant its own article - anyone care to add some content?  -Smahoney 01:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Globalizing"

message: Under the heading "VIOLENCE" -- "The earliest state recorded to punish anti-gay violence with death was the Roman Empire under Constantine, around 400 AD." As Constantine died in 337 AD, perhaps this line should be amended to read " ... under Constantine, in the 4th century CE." But the notion itself seems strange to me, and must certainly require some citation. Constantine was the first of the Christian emperors: it's hardly likely such legislation was brought in under his aegis. Perhaps it was his nephew, Julian the Apostate? One of Constantine's sons, if I remember my Gibbon, was actually murdered on the pretext of illicit sexual encounters. And anyway, what would "anti-gay violence" have meant in C4 Constantinople? And the use of the phrase "earliest state recorded" would logically indicate that other states followed suit. But the death penalty for anti-gay violence is not a common thread in the jurisprudence of nations. The entire sentence, to my mind, is problematical. I fear to edit it myself, because, as it lacks a citation, I can't properly work out what it means. By the way, congratulations to you, Mr Mahoney, on your perseverence and patience with this article. Jamie O'Neill --194.165.160.159 15:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think O'Neill is right, and there's something mighty fishy about that sentence. Many authors date the inception of oppression of gays in western society to the reign of Constantine, and indeed, according to this source Constantine "condemned" homosexuality, and it was made punishable by death during the  reign of his son. I can't find any reference that supports the point made in the article, and it seems unlikely to say the least. I've removed it. KarlBunker 17:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Date re Constantine"

message: I moved the content below the line from the article and replaced it with a summary. I don't think we can devote sections to each religion, because
* 1) it's content forking with the homosexuality and religion page, which already has a summary for the major religions
* 2) it covers only christianity and islam, and I don't see that there's room to have a separate section for buddhism, hinduism, jainism, judaism, animism, afro-american religions, etc. etc.
ntennis 05:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hHomosexuality and religion 

message: There is confusion here, which I would like to have some clarity on:
#Quoting the reference (El-Rouayheb, Khaled, Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, Chicago, 2005), this article says: "In many non-Western post-colonial countries, homosexual orientation is still considered to be a mental disorder and illness. In Moslem areas, this position is ascribed to the earlier adoption of European Victorian attitudes by the westernized elite, in areas where previously native traditions embraced same-sex relations."
#In an earlier paragraph, the author(s) say: "Abrahamic religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, traditionally forbid sexual relations between people of the same sex and teach that such behaviour is sinful."
#In the article Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered, there appears: "Sexual relations between individuals of the same sex have frequently been repressed by the state under pain of mutilation and death. Such events (represented as buggery or sodomy) took place in Europe from the fifth to the twentieth centuries, and in Muslim countries from the beginning of the Muslim era up to and including the present day."
With reference to Islam, (1) and (2 and 3) cannot all be true. Since (2) and (3) has not been disputed elsewhere, that leaves El-Rouayheb as a doubtful "authority", coming across as blaming "European Victorians" for something which was in place centuries before. I have not seen his book, but as a source it seems to be simply wrong and non-authoritative. Should it even be in WikiPedia? Does anyone know on what the quoted author bases his assertion? Fact or fantasy? --Seejyb 23:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a reasonable, logical world you would be right. However there are many historians who have written about the tradition of same-sex relations in Islamic countries, which have been at odds with dogmatic and fundamentalist forces since the beginning of Islam. Witness the conflict between Muhammad al-Amin, friend of Abu Nuwas and well known sodomite (greater liwat, with an eunuch if I am not mistaken) and his brother, al-Mamoun, straight-laced puritan. As for el-Rouayheb, he is a post-doctoral research fellow at Cambridge, and the book was published by the University of Chicago Press. What are your credentials? Haiduc 23:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think your missing the point. Seejyb has the right to speak. However s/he is questioning an authority who apparently has ample authority in the subject in question. Haiduc has responded to the issues raised and pointed out that there is no reason that we know of to doubt El-Rouyheb as an authority on the subject. Remember that wikipedia is not a soapbox and talkpages are only for discussing improvements to an article. Unless seejyb can establish that there is a good reason why we can't quote El-Rouayheb then his or her opionion of El-Rouyheb is irrelevant and definitely doesn't count much even from an intrinsic sense if s/he lacks qualifications or experience in the subject matter. Nil Einne 21:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The El-Rouayheb quote - thumbsucking?. 

message: This entry is POV.  This is one of the worst parts:
[conservatism] has a significant proportion of adherents who consider homosexuals, and especially the efforts of homosexuals to achieve equal rights and recognition, to be a threat to valued traditions, institutions and freedoms.
Yuuta 13:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is sourced, and presents a well documented phenomenon. What do you find unbalanced about the way it is presented in the article? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is NOT sourced. Yuuta 14:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An example of this type of conservative reasoning is given in the article itself, in the passage from the Alliance Defense Fund. Statements like "a significant proportion of adherents" are difficult to document with a single citation, but in this case it's a statement that's well documented. Browse a few conservative websites that deal with the issue of homosexuality if you don't believe it. And BTW, if you want to support your POV tag edit, you need to present arguments and suggest alternative wordings, not simply make pronouncements like "this is POV" and "this is not sourced." If you can't do this, then the POV tag is an unconstructive edit and will be removed. KarlBunker 14:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not how Wikipedia works.  If it's a statement that's well documented then simply provide a citation. Yuuta 03:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A list of citations has been provided, per your request KarlBunker 13:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: User:Yuuta is a probable confirmed sockpuppet of the permanently banned user Lou franklin, and in any case he is undoubtedly a troll. There is no need to respond to any of his postings here. KarlBunker 12:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for deciding what everybody else needs to do.  This Wikipedia entry was rated as B-Class because it is crap.  I am telling you how to fix it but you would rather maintain the status quo.  Yuuta 16:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't overwrite my postings please 

message: I have added a relevant article on that topic.  I thought it appropriate to point out that I am also the author of that article.  Although the article is published in a newsletter, I have made it available on the web and cited the web-source for easier download.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 14:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on science of (alleged) gay/pedophilia association 

message: Americans are divided – a thin majority (49%) believes homosexuality should be accepted, while 41% disagree."
This makes no sense. First, the difference between 49% and 41% is divisive, but not exactly "thin". Secondly, how can 49%(less that half) be a majority? This only makes sense if the only options were "agree" and "disagree". However, according to the given statistics, 10% of the population is undecided. We should change 49% of Americans to 54% decided Americans, or else include the missing 10%.--76.16.75.236 (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the word "majority" to "plurality", which fixes the sense of the passage without creating an OR mess. CaveatLector  Talk Contrib 05:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thin majority? 

message: It would be interesting if other articles could be written on similar taboos, such as societal attitudes toward abortion, societal attitudes toward divorce, societal attitudes toward rape, societal attitudes toward pedophilia, societal attitudes toward euthanasia, etc. ADM (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Other taboos

message: An article on USA today. It occurs at least once, in the area about association with pedophilia. I presume that the ideal would be that the second passage had a link pointing to the same line on the references section used earlier. But I don't know how to fix it. --Extremophile (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The same source is cited twice, and appears twice in the reference section - I don't know how to fix it 

message: I found a red link (dead link) for "Category: LGBT civil rights." The closest thing I could find was a page for LGBT civil rights. I replaced the dead link with a link to the LGBT civil rights page. Perhaps there should be a category for LGBT civil rights. Juri Koll (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: LGBT civil rights movement

message: This sentence is wholly inaccurate. There was never any law banning the "public promotion of homosexuality" in the UK. It could be promoted publicly by anyone who wished to promote it. The law was a local government act which banned the "promotion of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" by local government employees in the course of their duties (they could promote it as much as they liked in their free time). It was aimed essentially at school teachers and was designed to curb what was thought by conservatives to be a propagandistic pro-Gay approach in schools. Nominally it did not not affect the discussion or even promotion of the acceptance of homosexuality, but the wording was so bizarre and ambiguous that teachers were afraid to address the subject at all. It arose from a moral panic about books being given to young children about gay relationships. The law was, IMO, mad and bad, but it did not do what this article claims. Paul B (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a slight refinement to the issue; as well as schools, the act was a problem for all local government organizations. Consequently any document or action that might be claimed to promote homosexuality as a "normal" family relationship (such as a local government staff employment policy intended to provide equal opportunities) tended to be parked even though no actual case law existed in order to interpret how the act should apply in practice.—Ash (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that's true. Perhaps you can improve my rewording. Paul B (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: UK law "banned promotion of homosexuality"

message: I have to say that's an extremely inefficient way to go on asking people. The reason is acceptance is completely different from asking if something is "wrong". A perfectly accepting individual that is gay himself and has no problem with other gays may think it's "technically irregular according to the norm of the homo sapiens DNA or behavior" but that doesn't mean it's "bad".
Maybe they should be asking if they think it's "bad" or they are "disgusted" or something. Because if they just say "wrong" it can be easily confused with zoological references.
To not be misunderstood as off topic, I meant this as a remark towards several sources used here, this is from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8479624.stm asking if it's "wrong". Partly non-sensical, a lot of people (maybe a minority but still a lot) will think "wrong" as "technically irregular" and not "bad". 
PS. Of course there are the very respected studies portraying homosexuality in the animal kingdom as something that (satisfies functions and therefore) can be very "regular" (as in non-irregular in the 'non-wrong' sense) but that doesn't mean it has to be universally accepted or it's "bad" if it's not like that or one should be "disgusted" if it's not like that.
--Leladax (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to me a rather pedantic, pseudo-legalistic argument. A survey asking whether homosexuality is "wrong" will by and large elicit the kind of information about people's attitudes it is no doubt intended to elicit. Yes, it is possible to think up other interpretations of "wrong", and it is plausible that a small minority of participants in the survey will give misleading answers for that reason, but I know of no reason to think this will be a significant effect. In fact it seems to me that asking people if it is "bad" is at least as likely to elicit an unintended response: someone may, for example, feel it is "bad" in the sense of "bad for the species", but not "wrong", in the sense that there is no moral culpability. As for asking people if they are "disgusted", that is a completely different issue: I may feel disgust, but recognise that as a personal feeling, and think there is nothing objectively wrong; conversely I may believe that it is objectively wrong, but not feel personally disgusted. In fact "wrong" and "disgusted" are so different that I am surprised anyone would even consider the one as a possible replacement for the other. Finally, I am not sure what the point of raising this is: is it a criticism of the people conducting the surveys, or of this Wikipedia article? Wikipedia seeks to report what actually exists in the world: not what we might wish existed: if these surveys exist and are notable, then mentioning them in the article is reasonable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsensical surveys asking people if homosexuality is "wrong" to see attitudes towards it. 

message: The article contained a map captioned "World Map based on the Pew Survey -- see chart at right". This map had sections in different colours. Unfortunately there was no key to explain what the colours represented, so it was meaningless. I have removed it, but if someone would like to go to the trouble of finding a colour-key and restoring the map with it, that would be fine. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained map 

message: The table on countries' levels of acceptance of homosexuality, which is based on a Pew Research paper, shows Israel's acceptance level at 65% of total population; rejection, at 35%. However, the actual table on the paper - Page 39 - reports some very different numbers: 38% of acceptance, and 50% of rejection. Now, for some time I have been trying to correct the numbers, but my edits are always reverted. Guinsberg (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel acceptance levels inflated 

message: My edit has been undone for three times, and for the third time a misleading line is being posted in the article that "Athens and Spatra encouraged sama-sex relationships", whereas in Athens pederasty was normal, but in Sparta it was opposed and punishable by death and exile, as is correctly written on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece#Sparta and backed in the footnotes with concrete historical sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.13.89 (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to quoting very selectively, since the same section also has citations for the text "Sparta ... is thought to be the first city to practice athletic nudity, and one of the first to formalize pederasty. The Spartans believed that the love of an older, accomplished aristocrat for an adolescent was essential to his formation as a free citizen. The agoge, the education of the ruling class, was thus founded on pederastic relationships required of each citizen."  See also footnote 7: "there is a certain kind of sexual relationship which was considered by many Greeks to be very important for the cohesion of the city: sexual relations between men and youths. Such relationships were taken to play such an important role in fostering cohesion where it mattered — among the male population — that Lycurgus even gave them official recognition in his constitution for Sparta" AV3000 (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, I do quote selectively, I select genuine historic sources and not quotes from books written by "experets" that are simply in contradiction with the aforementioned direct historic sources. the footnote 7, that is, the "data" in Dawsons book is an outright lie, I read the whole Constitution of the Lacedaemonians and there is nothing of the sorts in it, just the opposite, as quoted in the footnote 74, which provides a link to the book itself so everyone can see for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.13.89 (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia policies before editing. You've already been WP:WELCOMEd; see WP:FIVE, noting in particular WP:RS/WP:V, and please sign your comments using four tildes ("~"). AV3000 (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sparta 

message: A discussion regarding recent mass-renamings which included this article can be found here--Nat Gertler (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  renaming discussion 

message: I think it should probably be rephrased to include Muslim countries that have secular constitutions but still criminalize homosexiuality (Algeria, Syria and the West Bank, for example). Some countries that do not impose Sharia (Lebanon, for example) are included in the section, as if Sharia is the only reason a Muslim-majority country would refrain from legalizing same-sex relations. And why not also mention non-Muslim countries in the same situation (not uncommon in Africa and Asia)? Anyway, whoever wrote the section doesn't seem to know this subject -- homosexuality in the Muslim world -- from more than hearsay, as it firstly alleged that Indonesia was the sole Muslim country that doesn't penalize homosexuality, when there are in fact a number of them -- Turkey, Albania, some Central Asian countries -- that are in the same situation (I've altered the paragraph to reflect this fact). Guinsberg (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic law section 

message: Which 3 states voted to legalize same sex marriage? I'm from Minnesota, and it seems to be a common misconception that we legalized gay marriage, when in reality, we just voted down a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as inherently heterosexual. I can't say for sure that three other states didn't legalize it, but that part definitely needs to be sourced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Young14 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maine, Maryland and Washington.--В и к и T  16:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: Does anyone here think following "Conservatism" with "Violence" is appropriate?--v/r - TP 19:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Conservative commentators and political pundits have been fomenting violence against the LGBTQ communities whipped up since Anita Bryant. There is a long history of suggesting LGBT people should be prayed away, cleansed, cured, fixed, destroyed, all bolstered by an increasingly extremist conservative movement. Insomesia (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So you confirm, the location of Conservatism is intended to give a POV that conservatives are violent?--v/r - TP 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that Insomesia was not the editor who placed it there (he's been editing only since 2012, and that has been the placement since at least 2007), no, he is not able to confirm an intent. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

text: I just wouldn't put violence as the next section below conservatism.  You're causing the reader to put the two ideas next to each other as you have done in the article.  Maybe just move violence down a couple of sections or order that section alphabetically.--v/r - TP 15:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some changes. Is it better now?--В и к и T  16:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank you.--v/r - TP 16:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservatism