Talk:Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric

Article Title

This article does more than catalogue anti-LGBT slogans; it explores the rationale behind homophobia and other arguments against homosexual behavior. As such, I believe the article should be "Anti-LGBT Arguments" or "Anti-LGBT campaigns," or should be merged with an article relating to homophobia or something more general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VelaenOscuridad (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's Not Discrimination

This shouldn't be part of discrimination. Would you say a child molestor is being discriminated against? The recent rejection of pro-gay agendas by Latinos and African Americans clearly show true minorities do not consider gays to be a minority but rater an illness. If you want to put it in a category it should be with other mentally ill diseases like Bi-polar depression 63.26.91.175 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Barack Obama

Except it clearly is discrimination. If I went to a synagogue and held up signs with things like "How do you bake cookies without being reminded of the ovens?" I'm obviously being a cunt. So are these people, and quite frankly, your POV is just as obvious as my own, and just as offensive.

Rebuttals bad for NPOV

This article contains a rebuttal for several of the examples. In the interests of neutrality, this article should not state who is right so directly.

Should Wikipedia really catalog hate speech at all? Such listings are extremely difficult to make without inserting any bias, and they aren't particularly valuable. --66.185.71.156 02:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"The Irony in this image is clear. (A guy wearing sleeveless shirts and shorts as a gay-hater)" Clear to who? who says so? POV? POV. 65.127.223.98 (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No citation

• Recent work by biologists has shown same-sex sexuality to be widespread in nature (see: animal sexuality) as well as in human society, leading gay rights advocates to assert that opposition to same-sex desire would itself be against nature.

• The Roman Catholic Church, among others, uses 'nature' to refer to natural law, which, in their view excludes same-sex sex, along with other actions it sees as immoral.

Love the sinner, but hate the sin?

How does the statement "I love the sinner, but hate the sin" - in other words, "I love homosexuals but hate homosexuality," differ from "I love Jews, but hate Judaism." "I love Liberals, but hate Liberalism." "I love Roman Catholics, but hate Roman Catholicism." This is a trite and disingenuous claim. What it really means is "I hate you because you're gay, but will love you when you convert to complete heterosexuality or at least kill the part of your nature or being that is homosexual." What a bunch of nonsense. Let's deal with reality. There are L/G/B/T people in this world. They are organized communities with their own institutions, clubs, groups, churches, resorts, businesses, etc. Worldwide they are seeking to reverse prejudice and discrimination. If you are against civil rights for gay folk, then just admit it and wear the badge of "Anti-Gay" with pride. At least Fred Phelps is honest. Don't say you love homosexuals when you want abridge their rights, refuse to recognize their relationships, ban books by them or about them, perpetuate stereotypes. Besides why must all these pro-gay and anti-gay arguments be framed either from a religious or psychiatric perspective? Where is all the knowledge and research from anthropological and ethnographic data? In my view, such data would abundantly shed light on the naturalness and universality of L/G/B/T people. Buddmar 18:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)buddmar

No, it's like having a brother who's snorting crack and robbing banks. I love you, but I hate what you're doing. Dissentor (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that homosexuals aren't harming others/themselves,so your example doesn't work unlike-no,nevermind, this really isn't the place to discuss this.Kairos (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(How do you indent?) I think that example is exactly the sort of situation that the phrase ("love the sinner, hate the sin") is meant to refer to. In the case where it is applied to homosexuality, the person who uses that phrase probably does believe that homosexuality is a sin, similar to the example where one's brother robs banks and uses drugs. The fact is that we are merely assuming that one is bad and the other isn't, or vice versa- one might not see anything ethically wrong with robbing banks any more than another would see with homosexuality, just as yet another person may see both as being morally wrong. As in the below discussion on the "Adam and Steve" phrase, a person who "loves the sinner and hates the sin" may simultaneously be opposed to homosexual acts as well as homophobic acts of violence (as in the case of Matthew Shepard). Geomike99 (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[Indent using colon(s)]And since we can prove that people can stop robbing banks, but there is no evidence of that people can stop being homosexual. So the comparison IS dishonest, at best.Kairos (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Kairos.

I personally would not compare robbing a bank to having sexual relation with someone of the same sex, but I can understand that someone else might have that belief, while simultaneously bearing no ill will to the practitioner themself.

As for the dishonest comparison, I suppose you would first have to prove to these people that you can begin being homosexual in the first place. I know, I know, it sounds so completely foreign, but following that logic ("no one can feel naturally homosexual") it would make sense to say that the behavior should not continue.

I think this is just boiling down to the differences and relativity between the precepts held by different people.Geomike99 (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, You wouldn't have to prove anything. The comparison only works if gays can stop being gay. However, I'm not sure if this topic has anything to do with the article at hand? If it doesn't then we should just drop it. The person who brought up this topic just sounds like they are ranting, rather than tring to improve th article.Kairos (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Kairos, you missed the point I was trying to make: say someone did say that "gays can stop being gay." How can you prove or disprove a feeling if you yourself are not feeling it? It seems sort of like saying "there is a god" or "there is no god" in that it is completely subjective either way.Geomike99 (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

By monitoring someones Brain Chemistry, and physiological reactions, genius. Feelings, unlike string theory, don't exist in a magically unprovable jar somewhere in unprovableville.Kairos (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"

This was used by "mainstream" evangelicals long before anybody outside of Kansas had ever heard of Westboro Baptist (since the late 1970's, at least), and is not mainly associated with Westboro Baptist. There are many conservative Christians who would accept "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", while simultaneously rejecting "God hates fags"... AnonMoos 07:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but didn't God make Adam & Steve too? Knitting them together in their mothers' wombs. -James comment added by 65.28.6.199 (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, if you can find something to verify that, then edit the article accordingly. Until then, Youmight at least edit the section to what you thin kit should say, then put a needs citation tag on it.

Kairos (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I'm a little confused as to this article's intent. Some people have speculated it is a homophobic article in disguise, claiming that there is no reason to include a list of anti-slogans anywhere.
Others have continually questioned the article's motive's when it comes to debunking the claims that it posits.
I think that the introduction is effectively nonpartisan, but starts to slip when it begins referring to unsupported counter-arguments as holding greater weight than the slogan it is reporting. This article should be absorbed into another article about homosexuality under a sub-heading. I don't see any articles on Anti-Asian slogans or Anti-African slogans or Anti-Muslim slogans so why is this an exception. It's disguised homophobia. Let that other loony religious encyclopedia have it, but not Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.35.144 (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to Conservapedia, and I'd have to agree. Even if it does remind you how stupid some people are, the article really shouldn't be here.