Talk:LGBT rights opposition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Conservatism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Bias against conservatives[edit]

Hello there, I have noticed an extreme bias against conservatism in this article. It makes anyone on the right look like the bad guy. Wikipedia:Neutrality.

MJWilliams1998 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I am shocked that this comment has gone four months without notice. The bias in this article is so thick, you could cut it with a knife! Just in the lead section alone, "Such opposition can be motivated by heterosexism, homophobia, sexualism, transphobia, bigotry, prejudice, extreme political ideologies, or other factors." All moderate or reasonable objections are shoved off as "other factors" while prejudice and bigotry are portrayed as the main motives for such opinions. "The human rights and civil rights that LGBT rights opponents actively work towards the denial of recognition for may include..." Whether or not the things listed there can even be considered human or civil rights at all are at the forefront of the debate!
He who Geezes (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Please offer specific proposals for edits that make the article less biased. Remember though, that we follow reliable sources, and simply reflect what they say with the same relative weight. - MrX 02:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is a disaster. It has a strong bias not just against conservatives, but against everyone who doesn't agree with all the goals of the LGBT rights movement. This article does not give a neutral or encyclopedic description of opposition to the LGBT rights movement, it parrots the views of a small group of very passionate and dedicated LGBT activist editors. I just want to read about opposition to the LGBT rights movement, I don't want to read the political views of the editors! Parthian Scribe 02:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
And what do you suggest it say, for instance? Teammm talk
03:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't consider myself "conservative" in general,but strongly oppose much of what is advocated under the banner of "LGBT rights"...and consider this article unbelievably biased.It assumes that the presumptions on which advocates for acceptance of homo- and transsexual activities base their arguments are necessarily valid and leaves no space for those of us who regard them as absurd fallacies.I believe that it is in the best interests of the "gay" to learn to identify as ex-gay and reject the contention that this is "bigotry" against them rather than opposition to lies that might comfort them.The thesis that there are "rights" involved,or that "equality" of persons involves different decisions being treated as equally wise,or that desire to engage in an activity should exempt one from public policy granting preference to other activities...none of these are approached with NPOV.--L.E./ (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the principle issue is one of tone and word choice, and the very name of the article is an example of what people are taking issue with. The inability to strike a neutral tone leads to some strange phrases, for example, from the intro: "The human rights and civil rights that LGBT rights opponents actively work towards the denial of recognition for." The wording is awkward because it is trying to keep the underlying premise that to oppose this particular movement is to deny fundamental rights. The reality is that because LGBT rights have been heretofore unknown as a technical matter they're not actually rights yet, though they do seem to be in a sort of legal no-mans-land between rights and non-rights. As a result this article seems to be more a history and promotion of the LGBT rights movement rather than an informatory article regarding the LGBT movement's opponents.

A deeper issue is the inability of the article to recognize the philosophical and ideological differences between the LGBT rights movement and other civil rights movements. This is partly because the LGBT movement, for obvious political reasons, has adopted the language of the prior successful movement. By using the older civil rights language in the article it creates the automatic bias against principled opposition. Each of the listed issues in the introduction could be opposed for principled reasons completely unrelated to discrimination. For example, devout and sincere religious belief leads to the logical opposition to many of the LGBT movement's goals. Anti-discrimination and bullying legislation could be opposed on the grounds that they could be abused because LGBT status is not always obvious to the alleged discriminator. Generalized opposition to social programs explains opposition to government funded access to sex-reassignment surgeries. The list could go on. I think finding a better name and/or description of the LGBT movement's opponents would be a great help.

Finally, as noted previously, current opposition to LGBT proposed rights needs to be distinguished from active government or individual persecution and/or suppression. The western "LGBT rights opposition," as the article calls it, generally does not condone the type of legal treatment seen in Nazi Germany or modern Russia and Iran for example. I think a good start would be to divide the article in to two general categories: Historic Discrimination and Current Opposition. Alternatively one could approach the subject by issue, i.e. Same-sex marriage, anti-bullying laws, etc. At the least this would approach the subject in a logical way making it easier to find proper neutrality. (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this article is laughably biased. The introduction has no citations and the sections with citations often cite unreliably sources. (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The introduction (WP:LEDE) does not need to have citations because it simply summarizes content already in the article (and presumably cited). Please offer specifics about the sources that you believe are unreliable, and why you think they are unreliable. - MrX 22:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


Lincean (talk · contribs) has inserted Ethics as a reason for opposition to LGBT rights. The user claims that it is implied in the sources, which contravenes our policy on original research. I invite Lincean to present their case for adding this novel content. - MrX 20:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

MrX, thank you for the invitation.
A few sources I found:
There are many more sources, including published ones, that make ethical arguments. How many would you like?
Lincean (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Not a single one of those sources qualifies as reliable for your proposed edit. Most of the sources are individual opnions, and representing them in this article would violate WP:DUE. The rest of the sources would require synthesis to arrive at the conclusion that ethics is a motivation for opposing LGBT rights. Perhaps you can produce some scholarly or mainstream media sources that unambiguously state that ethics is a motivation for opposing LGBT rights. - MrX 23:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
In the SEP article that I linked to says this: “Today natural law theory offers the most common intellectual defense for differential treatment of gays and lesbians, and as such it merits attention." This clearly mentions an ethical theory that is opposed to ‘LGBT rights’ as understood in this article. Is the SEP not a reliable source? Finding invocations of ethics or morality for opposition is common in news sources:
What more is needed?
Lincean (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a difference between what someone claims to be a reason for their opposition versus and the actual motivation for their opposition. I don't dispute that many people who oppose LGBT rights on do so moral grounds. I would agree to write "moral beliefs" in place of "ethics". Does that seem like reasonable compromise? I would also be in favor of rewriting that entire sentence to remove some of the more obscure reasons like "cissexism" and "heterosexism". Here is a draft proposal:
"Such opposition can be motivated by religion, moral beliefs, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, sexualism, bigotry, political ideologies, or other factors."
I think this would be little more neutral and more clear. What do you think? - MrX 02:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your proposed sentence. It is an improvement.Lincean (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I have reviewed a number of revisions made by this editor, after my own contribution to a different page was reverted. I must say I don't understand Mr X's modus operandi. None of the reasons in the list "Such opposition can be motivated by religion, moral beliefs, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, sexualism, bigotry, political ideologies, or other factors." is referenced, although some are discussed later in the article. If the addition of the word "ethics" is unjustified original research, then so presumably is the presence of such nebulous categories as "biphobia" and "other factors". If the editor has the courage of his convictions he should delete the lot, or add one of the catch-alls such as "reference needed".
It seems to me that tools such as Wikipedia:TW have made it too easy to simply revert contributions made by others. This editor took about 60 seconds to decide to revert this page during a long session of reversions and nominations for deletion. I admit that in many cases this work may be necessary, but even if the editor is right 90% of the time, if he makes more than 100 changes a day, 10 of them will be unhelpful. As I have said elsewhere, Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes warns us against failing to be bold. "Yes, you might mess things up a little. But someone else will probably clean up after you. Really, go ahead and change it." Reversion is the enemy of this approach. I don't care if my text is ruthlessly edited, removed from its own section, etc etc, because that is the whole point of Wikipedia; but if it is reverted, no one else gets the chance to improve it. At the very least, hold the existing text to the same standards that you expect of revisions, and spend a little time actually reading the article. Keep your finger away from the "revert" button - better still, uninstall TW. (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC) KJN

Reasons for opposition[edit]

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. (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC) KJN

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)

Some thoughts...[edit]

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)

What about parents wanting their kids to have kids?[edit]

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 (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Many same-sex couples, including male couples, have children through surrogacy, adoption, etc. Please provide a source for your edit. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Article title[edit]

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)

Er, so what would you suggest in its place? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
If I had a suggestion I would have already offered it. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)