Talk:Scientology and homosexuality

NPOV dispute

To me, this article seems to be written far in favor of Scientology rather than presenting opposing viewpoints. It's almost a persuasive essay; indeed, the opening paragraph presents that if you read on the allegations are "unfounded." 06:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Offkilter

Piece by piece, Scientologists have been adding to this article. I replaced their puff piece with the original one, with a few edits. It's a struggle to get toward NPOV in articles like this, especially when someone biased thinks that they're actually writing from an NPOV.

The again, perhaps the best way to find out about Scientology is to examine source material such as a book written by L. Ron Hubbard, rather than rely on opinions of web surfers. -Esky

I am not for or against Scientology, but in wanting to research this issue found the article beneficial. Homosexuality as treated by Scientology in the 21st century sounds similar to the way it is treated in other churches. -MV

The Church takes no stance on the issue. You can be gay, straight, up, down, in, out, sideways or celibate, the Church could care less. The article parallels news reporting in placing controversial elements of Scientology Tech alongside other information as if there were some significance. There isn't. The Church could care less if you are gay, straight, up or down or celibate. The Church would treat you in exactly the same way, sell you exactly the same courses, treat you exactly the same way. It is a trivial non-issue, as important an issue within the Church as your race or eye color. There is a little bit of technology that includes information about homosexuality, and everyone reads it as they go along. oh hum. Terryeo 16:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

ambig

The link to WISE is ambiguous

Current view points

These should be chronological

Straight dope, my ...

Link was provided offering [quote]The Straight Dope[/quote] on this subject. It is nothing to do with the widely-respected straightdope.com, but instead goes to some kind of new age site with a page called "The straight dope on (etc)". Have provided a caveat to that effect.Garrick92 14:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Straight dope" is a popular phrase, and I don't think anyone would be confused, especially since all one has to do is hover their mouse and look at the status bar to see that the site is "liveandgrow.org". wikipediatrix 14:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The use of capitals certainly made me think "Ooh, I wonder what Mr Adams has to say on this one?", and I didn't realise till I clicked through (tending to believe that wikipedia is upfront about its links, I tend not to 'hover' on them). Would be interested to hear opinions. Glad to see you left the new scarequotes on, though, anyway. Garrick92 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I put "liveandgrow.org" in the link title so there can be no chance of confusion. wikipediatrix 15:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

'60s?

I recall that John McMaster was homosexual and that this was no problem for anyone. And I vaguely recall people who were in the CoS in the '60s saying that some regarded the CoS as a place that was safe to be gay in. I'm vague on that one, you understand. This present article is a mess, not a survey of the subject - David Gerard 22:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Reputable site?

Why isn't religioustolerance.org [1] a reputable site? Seems reasonably sane to me. Hope somebody has a good answer, because there are loads of BS critical sites and scientology hate group sites used ALL THE TIME in wikipedia as RS and they are no more reputable than this site. in fact, much much much much less so, since they are maintained by avowed critics that want the church outlawed, destroyed and/or fed to lions. ---Slightlyright 05:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of the current Scientology pages of religioustolerance.org are authored or co-authored by Al Buttnor, an official of the Church of Scientology, who appears to be cribbing his text directly from Scientology sites. That seems to be a break from the stated neutral policy of the site. As well, the particular page cited didn't list any author. AndroidCat 05:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK... I guess that is less than ideal...maybe. So, if I don't care for a single contributor to a website I get to then declare that site Non RS? Is that how it works? I 've been a scn for a long time I know for a fact the church doesn't give a darn about homosexuality unless it worries the person seeking services. Yet this article goes on for paragraph after paragraph about how Scn hates homosexuality or did in the 50s when it was considered perversion by darn near everyone. It is just an attack piece.

The whole article could be reduced to say:

The Church of Scientology doesn't care about the sexual orientation of its parishioners (source). There are several organizations of active Scientologists who are openly gay. (source,source) In the 50s Hubbard held the then almost universally widespread opinion that homosexuality was a sexual aberration and mentioned it in a few of his writings (source, source).

Everything beyond this is just blatantly using Wikipedia as a vehicle to heap ridicule and scorn on Scn.

I know this will seem like a stupid question to all the editors here that hate scientology, but why is the Church of Scientology not a valid information source for information about the CofS's position on homosexuality... it just staggers me, the hatred and bias I find here masked in sincere delusions of NPOV.

This article should somewhere and clearly state the truth: that Scn doesn't care about the sexual orientation of its parishioners. That is simply the truth. Call me crazy, but that should be readily apparent to a reader of the article and it isn't!

OK, I am done ranting now. Thanks for listening. ---Slightlyright 06:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Almost all of the current Scientology pages of religioustolerance.org are authored or co-authored by Al Buttnor, an official of the Church of Scientology"

Source?

What's more! how many singly-authored or co-authored "critical" sites of Scientology that have been used for source in WP can you think of ?---Jpierreg 06:45, 15 February 2007 (GMT)

It is not true that scientology "doesn't care about the sexual orientation of its parishioners". Go by a current "Dianetics" book.

Or become a Sea Org staffer, and tell another male that you think he's hot and see whats happening :-) (That would be "original research", however) --Tilman 07:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to replace critics claim that Hubbard never revised his basic premise that being gay was a perversion.{{who}} with a text that mentions a current dianetics book, with its exact publication date, and that the "pervert" text is still there, not even with a footnote. --Tilman 07:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If thats true (I dont have the book) I think it would be fine to say "the 200X edition of Dianetics continues to carry the statement from the original edition (insert the relevant quote)". BabyDweezil 16:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

religioustolerance.org is not a "reputable" site because its just a private website. These folks haven't been quoted in the media, no academics have written about them, etc. Even Anton Hein (has been written about in an academic article) is more reputable. --Tilman 07:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

religioustolerance.org indeed has real problems with reliability, particularly as concerns the Church of Scientology, which have been heavily discussed on Wikipedia before. This is in no way, shape or form a new issue that just cropped up. Now I myself believe RT.org can be trusted to a certain extent. If RT.org gives me a specific quote that was supposedly said by a particular individual, I can put a fair amount of faith that that quote was actually said by that individual. However, the claims that were being attributed to RT.org in this article require far more than simply the ability to reproduce a quote accurately, and RT.org has in fact shown serious problems in exactly those areas. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So are there any specific facts that you would dispute in this article The Church of Scientology® & homosexuality by religioustolerance.org -- Jpierreg 07:45, 16 February 2007 (GMT)

It doesn't change that it's not an RS. At a brief look,

• It uses this Wikipedia article as a reference. (There was a case of another Wiki article referencing that reference, a circular mess with curious timing.)
• The entry on the Dohring site www.scientologymyths.info is listed as 2005, but the site didn't exist until after 2006-09-20 and soon after that, the entry was back-added to the page. (There may be some good reason for blocking the Wayback archiving bot, but it's awkward not having a record of changes from a neutral third-party.)

If the references listed on that page are reliable sources, why not use them directly? AndroidCat 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should better use a direct source instead when possible. While 2005 instead of 2006 seams just a detail, the reference to WP articles seams only handy to point at other sources as per below quote from Religioustolerance.org"

2005: According to an article in Wikipedia: 7

"In 2005 an article in Source (an official magazine published by the Church of Scientology) featured a male and his 'partner' in a success story about their WISE consulting business."

"In 2005 an article in the New York Daily News suggested that the homophobic writings of Hubbard might have come from his own embarrassment over Quentin Hubbard, his gay son, who committed suicide in 1976. The article cites a spokeswoman for Scientology, 'Mr. Hubbard abhorred discrimination in all its forms,' and that the Church encouraged relationships that are 'ethical'. The spokeswoman said also that the Church had not taken an official position on gay marriage, and that members prefer not to talk about it."

"However, a 2004 article in the St. Petersburg Times claims that the Church defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. This also suggests that gays must remain celibate if they want to be part of the group's clergy." 8

I don't see how such reference to WP here would make the web site less reliable -- Jpierreg 18:25, 16 February 2007 (GMT)

"So are there any specific facts that you would dispute in this article" -- well, that's exactly the point. In the disputed text it is not "specific facts" that are being disputed but rather conclusions. The sentence segment cited to RT.org in the disputed text is "Hubbard's views in the mid-20th Century on homosexuality as a mental illness were consistent with the views of mainstream psychiatry and psychology of that period". We can't take RT.org as a reputable source for such a conclusion, obviously, if we can't take it as a reputable source for what "the views of mainstream psychiatry and psychology of that period" were -- and part of what brought RT.org's credibility as a "reputable site" into question in the first place was RT.org reporting the Church of Scientology's interpretation of the motivations and beliefs of people who were in conflict with the Church, rather than what those people would identify as their cause of action. Obviously given that the Church of Scientology has spent over fifty years publicly and vehemently opposed to "mainstream psychiatry and psychology" (and making frankly inaccurate representations of its beliefs such as the supposed belief that "man is an animal") we really just can't take RT.org as a reputable site for conclusions which require independent evaluation of the views of mainstream psychiatry and psychology, or anyone else the Church of Scientology considers an enemy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders a reliable source in expressing what we can consider the "views of mainstream psychiatry and psychology of a period" ?-- Jpierreg 10:35, 19 February 2007 (GMT)