Talk:Societal attitudes toward homosexuality/Archive 2

message: The section entitled "The Pacific basin" says that "heterosexual activities are seen as leading to decay and death".  No citation was provided, so I added .  But it was reverted.  Why?  Lou franklin 03:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't have been.  It was probably a reflex revert or something.  I'll add it back.  Um...  Its still right there, in the article, right where you left it.  -Seth Mahoney 03:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake.  Sorry about that.  Why was the POV tag removed? Lou franklin 03:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno.  Wasn't me, and we're hardly the organized group of gay extremists you make us out to be (or, at least, we're not organized).  -Seth Mahoney 03:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacific basin citation needed 

message: :I strongly believe that the discussion of the "Sambia boys in New Guinea" should be removed.  I say that for several reasons.
:Since "it is disputed whether this is best understood as a sexual act at all", it is not relevant to the topic of "societal attitudes towards homosexuality".
:Also, it is non-notable.  The Sambia is an obscure tribe from the remote regions of New Guinea.  Of all of the societies that could have been selected, why was such a unknown one picked?
:Additionally, Wikipedia should not be used to spread word about practices that involve the sexual abuse of children. Lou franklin 04:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly disagree on all counts.  This topic illustrates the 180-degree differences in societal norms.  It is notable for that sole reason, if no others.  Yes, it might be troubling to some,  but then the easily offended probably shouldn't be reading up on sexually-oriented subject matter (and the word "sex" is in the title).  I would also note that "sexual abuse of children" is a subjective matter -- people as young as 12 are old enough to marry in some parts of the world.  And finally, once again, Wikipedia is not censored.  Cleduc 08:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, but is this topic "sexually-oriented subject matter"?  Take a look at this section of the talk page .    Chesaguy bemoans the link that "some people see between mentioning orientation and same-gender relationships and intimate details of the sex lives of gay people".  It is really necessary to discuss these details in an article about "societal attutudes"?   Are the details of homosexual sex really essential to the article?  Lou franklin 13:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am generally against the removal of accurate information. This material is a germane example of sexual behavior and its native interpretation. The contention about "sexual abuse of children" is really a kind of cultural aggression which does not belong here. Haiduc 14:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "cultural aggression"?  How are examples of "sexual behavior" germane to this topic?  Lou franklin 17:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sambia boys in New Guinea 

message: I developed the "Measuring attitudes toward homosexuality" paragraph but am concerned that the wikitext now looks very dense with the new referencing system and a large table, and some may be discouraged from editing the text. I moved the table to a template, so the text just shows a friendlier . I don't know if this is acceptable wikipractice or if there is a better solution? BTW, I'm not particularly attached to formatting the list of stats as a sidebar; I just thought it may be a more interesting layout. - ntennis 15:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Templates shouldn't really be used to contain text that only appears in a single article. From Wikipedia:Template namespace: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article". I don't think it makes the wikitext that crowded. Section editing avoids the need to scroll through huge amounts of text to find a particular part of the article. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm. In that case I'll leave it as it is for my part, since I don't mind either way. It's not like it would need to be changed very often. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I just moved the figures here from the sexual orientation page; I didn't check them. Here is the link to the Pew Global Attitudes Project if you would like to do so. ntennis 05:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They appear to be correct.  The direct link is http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/185.pdf . Lou franklin 06:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for checking that :) ntennis 14:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, adding a reference within a template is not possible using the REF tag (and, really, this should be referenced), so that is out of the question.  Does anyone know if the REF tag works inside a DIV?  If so, it seems like we could put the text at the top of the template in a DIV with a reference to the actual study, and then just keep the data inside the template.  -Seth Mahoney 02:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  arcane wikitext 

message: Islam was listed under Regions and historical periods, though Islam is neither of these.  Confusion results -- are we talking about the middle east, Shari'a, or what?  As a result, there's an attempt to say what "Islam" "says" about homosexuality -- though it is certainly as complex a subject as what "Christianity" "says" -- there are many voices and interpretations.  I have moved the Islam section to lie under Religion and morality where it more properly belongs -- although it is the only subsection (and the rest of that section seems to concern itself with Christianity with minor mentions of everything else).  Perhaps a Middle East section should be created under Regions and historical periods.  Cleduc 20:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  Anything about a specific region and historical period should go under "Regions and historical periods", and anything specific to Islam should go under the new section.  Although, now that I think about it, isn't there a homosexuality and Islam?  (Yes!  Hurrah!)  Maybe the Islam section in this article should just paraphrase what's in that article, and anything else should be used to beef up homosexuality and Islam.  -Seth Mahoney 21:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam 

message: This has been chagned back and forth a couple of times so i'll share my thoughts. Firstly, I am wary of any blanket statements about "all cultures". Some cultures did not "consider procreative sex within recognised relationships a sexual norm", eg the Skoptzy (there are others). I would be happy with "all" if it was qualified, e.g. "all national cultures" or something. But why not leave it simply as "most"? ntennis 05:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense.  Lou franklin 02:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This may be tricky ground to walk.  Without sounding too much like a first year philosophy student (I hope), the validity of that statement depends to a great degree on how terms like 'norm' are used.  In many cultures it seems that while it may be perfectly accurate to say that procreative sex was considered the norm, the attitude toward nonprocreative sex was indifferent or, using certain periods of the Ottoman empire as an example, even encouraged within the right context.  These attitudes are compatible enough, so long as "consider procreative sex the norm" isn't taken to mean "consider nonprocreative sex deviant/sinful/wrong/unhealthy/etc."  To complicate matters further, what counts as procreative sex can vary from culture to culture.  Among certain groups in the West, only sex with procreation (not pleasure) as its goal counts as procreative sex (in official discourse - likely, lives were lived according to different standards), and among many other groups sex between a male and female where procreation is impossible still fell under the umbrella of "procreative sex" (for the purposes of determining norms, anyway).  -Seth Mahoney 02:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procreative sex as a sexual norm - all cultures or most cultures? 

message: I am bringing in the last para of the intro, since in its present form it is ethnocentric and punitive.  I appreciate Ntennis' motives for attempting to balance things, but I think we need to polish this brick a bit more. 
New Version: Most of the world's cultures have considered procreative sex within a recognised relationship to be a sexual norm — sometimes exclusively so. Some religions, especially those influenced by the Abrahamic tradition, have long considered homosexual acts and relationships undesirable. Throughout the history of the Christian-dominated West, a range of practises have attempted to prevent same-sex sexuality, including execution for offenders.Crompton, Louis, Homosexuality and Civilization, Harvard University, 2003 Since the 1970s, the dominant culture in the West has become more tolerant of same-sex sexuality between partners of legal age.
Old version: All of the world's cultures have considered procreative sex within a recognised relationship to be a sexual norm, often in parallel with customs that facilitated same-sex relations. Some religious traditions have long considered sodomy undesirable, and, acting through their own institutions or those of the state, have even carried out or supported the death penalty for those who engage in same-sex sexual behaviour. Since the 1970s, the dominant culture in the West has become more tolerant of same-sex sexuality between partners of legal age.
Critique of new version: It privileges procreative sex, and it ignores the experience of the other four fifths of the world. Haiduc 00:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The new version also ignores those (admittedly rare) instances in Christian history where homosexual sex was acceptable-ish.  It seems like something like the new version belongs in a section on the Christian west(s), and some brief mention about Christian attitudes toward homosexuality should be added to the old version.  -Seth Mahoney 01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed for repairs 

message: Lets see, all but one editor is in favour of leaving things as they are and that is Same-Sex Marriage without quotes around it. Clear! --KimvdLinde 05:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you can count to a billion. Lou franklin 05:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is that a threat of meatpuppetry?  As much as I'd love to have a billion editors on Wikipedia, that doesn't seem likely anytime soon.  Cleduc 05:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Counting

message: Only one editor (Lou franklin) wants this tag, which he now bases solely on scare quotes around the term "same-sex marriage". He has been unable to convince any other editors that this change is necessary. In his own edit summary when adding the scare quotes he said "In preparation to remove POV tag - see discussion page" -- which indicates that this is the last issue that concerns him. Since his retaliatory and self-referential new section has been removed from the article, I see no reason to humour him by leaving the POV tag on any longer. Cleduc 03:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to remove POV tag