Talk:Societal attitudes toward homosexuality

Coverage issues

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)

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)

"Globalizing"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Date re Constantine"

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)

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)

hHomosexuality and religion

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)

---

Christianity

Main article: Homosexuality and Christianity

Some religious groups consider homosexuality to be transgressive of divine law. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, such behavior is "intrisically disordered" and "contrary to natural law". As such, homosexual acts can be approved "under no circumstances". (CCC 2357) The Catholic Church recognizes that the numbers of people with homosexual tendencies is not negligible and urges Catholics to eschew unjust discrimination. The Church calls upon individuals inclined toward homosexuality to live lives of chastity. By way of counterpoint, John Boswell argued that church stance has varied over time, and that during several periods in European Christian history homosexuality was not repressed and was even celebrated. However, this view is generally not accepted by church historians.

On the other hand, a number of religious establishments welcome homosexual individuals, either on a footing of equality with heterosexuals (such as the Unitarian Universalist congregation or some Anglican congregations in North America) or even according them special status as possessing enhanced spiritual abilities (as in many Native American and aboriginal religions).

Acceptance or condemnation of homosexual behavior has led to strife within many religions denominations. In 2003, Gene Robinson was made a bishop of the Episcopal Church. His elevation has led to a rift in the Anglican communion which hovers on the brink of schism as a result (main article: Anglican views of homosexuality).

Islam

Main articles: Homosexuality and Islam and Pederasty in the Islamic world

There is no concept analogous to "homosexuality" in Islam, in the sense of an innate identity. Instead, same-sex sexual expression manifests in a number of separate forms, which are not treated alike, either socially or juridically.

Rather, Islam concerns itself with sexual behaviors, rather than desires. In particular Islam condemns anal intercourse — whether with males or females — as a major sin. The concept of sexual orientation is not recognized or accepted in Islam.

According to Khaled El-Rouayheb, masculine attraction towards handsome adolescents is considered normal and universal in Muslim cultures, a temptation to be resisted in the same way one resists attraction towards females not lawful to one. Fundamentalist groups advocated punishing sodomy with whipping and death.

The El-Rouayheb quote - thumbsucking?.

There is confusion here, which I would like to have some clarity on:

1. 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."
2. 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."
3. 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)

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)

Wow. So someone who does not become educated at Cambridge doesn't have the right to speak now? That's some great logic and reason...

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)

Native Americans

There's no information here about homosexuality or attitudes toward homosexuality among Native Americans. Has there been no research on this topic?

Don't overwrite my postings please

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)

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)

This is NOT sourced. Yuuta 14:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

A list of citations has been provided, per your request KarlBunker 13:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Societal attitudes towards homosexuality is of very poor quality. It has been rated B-Class which means it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) and considerable editing is still needed.

It is shoddy to allude to a significant proportion of adherents and not quantify that in any way. It is one-sided to say that equal rights are a threat to conservatives. The article should have a POV tag and was lucky to get a B-Class rating. It is truly awful. Yuuta 04:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Update the table

The new Gallop Poll table has come out recently.[1] Can anyone update the article's table?

Article on science of (alleged) gay/pedophilia association

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)

Thin majority?

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)

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)

Other taboos

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)

The same source is cited twice, and appears twice in the reference section - I don't know how to fix it

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)

Homosexuality and sports

This topic should be a natural subtopic in the present article, but the word sports isn't even mentioned. Of course, homosexuality and sports should be stand-alone article as well, but a beginning would be a section in this article. __meco (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuals are not pederasts

I have reduced the number of references to pederasty. This appears to confuse pederasts with homosexuals which is off-topic for the article.—Ash (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually the history of homosexuality includes pedophilia although it should be presented with due weight and without conflating. Haiduc may be able to help write some balanced content. -- Banjeboi 14:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would draw a comparison with heterosexuality which manages to discuss the topic without conflating heterosexuality with paedophilia. I would ask for a similar distinction to be made here.—Ash (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a societal attitudes toward heterosexuality? I'm not saying I don't find the stereotype a bit offensive but we should treat it encyclopedically whatever we do. -- Banjeboi 01:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

These were just references to pederasty as if it were a normal part of homosexuality and made no distinction between the two. The references were not part of a discussion of how societal attitudes may conflate homosexuality with pederasty which may have been a valid section (if sourced).

I appreciate that historians may have used the term "pederasty" in an older form of usage but I suggest we avoid confusion by sticking to modern English language usage. In the OED a pederast is: A man who has or desires sexual relations with a boy. Also in wider sense (chiefly derogatory): a man who practises anal intercourse; a male homosexual. As the OED distinguishes the use of the word in reference to homosexuals as chiefly derogatory, I believe it to be a valid objection to casual and unqualified use of "pederasty" in any Wikipedia article that defines an aspect or interpretation of homosexuality.—Ash (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The main section seems to be Societal attitudes toward homosexuality#Association with child abuse and pedophilia which is somewhat reasonable but does need some pruning. I'll ask Haiduc if they'll help. -- Banjeboi 11:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

LGBT civil rights movement

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)

UK law "banned promotion of homosexuality"

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)

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)

Yes that's true. Perhaps you can improve my rewording. Paul B (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsensical surveys asking people if homosexuality is "wrong" to see attitudes towards it.

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)

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)

Unexplained map

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)

Israel acceptance levels inflated

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)

Sparta

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)

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)

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)

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)