Talk:Heterosexism

Neutral Language

CJ, as you seem to be a major editor on this page, can you offer more neutral language for this section?

Creating parallel institutions to marriage, such civil unions, or opening them to gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals only as stopgap measures to avoid granting same-sex couples the privileges, protection, respect, and symbolism that only a legally and socially accepted marriage can confer.

Original research?

Does this article contain massive amounts of WP:OR? The following sections have few or no citations:

The lead

Individual and group level

Explicit or open discrimination

Implicit or hidden discrimination

Effects

Marginalization

Ragazz (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Love and Marriage

Recently, there's been a mini-edit war over the statement "...in most jurisdictions, only heterosexual couples can legally marry the person they love." While I totally support same-sex marriage, I have to object to this sentence, because...it's just poorly worded. The way it's currently written, the sentence is actually describing a polygamous relationship wherein a couple (2 people) "marry the person (1 person) they [the couple] love". This describes a union of three people: the heterosexual couple (2) + "the person (1) they love". 2 + 1 = 3. I'm pretty sure the sentence was intended to point out that in most jurisdictions, only opposite-sex couples can legally marry. Two people get married and form a couple. 1 + 1 = 2. The couple does not then go on to marry a third party, "the person they love." In fact, the part about "the person they love" should be omitted all together, because, as far as I know, there's no legal requirement that two people actually love each other in order to wed. The only legal requirement is that they be consenting adults of opposite gender. For the sake of accuracy and clarity, I believe the sentence should read as follows: For example, in most jurisdictions, only opposite-sex couples can legally marry. Is that not correct?--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. Rivertorch (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well said, I like your sentence and have changed it accordingly -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Which interestingly enough, was exactly what I put, but you reverted. [1] Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The original reversion was because I preferred the wording that user:A8UDI had used. CurtisSwain then made his case (on the current version as it stands) and I agreed, because he made a reasonable argument. I then reverted your 2nd edit because that isnt "exactly what you had". It's very simple logic, if I prefer X over Y, but someone convinces me of why Y fits, I will go with the latter. I don't let my pride get in the way of believing I'm always right, that's how we grow and learn. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Gay people can't marry who they love

While I agree that many gay people can't marry who they love in places where same-sex marriages are illegal, it is incorrect to say that no gay person can marry who they love. Love is not just based on sexual attraction and sexual attraction is not just based on sexual orientation. Many gay people fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. Joe Kort, who specializes in gay men who marry women, said of his gay patients: "These men genuinely love their wives." [2] Saying LGBT people can't marry who they love in some places is simply not true, discriminatory, and denies the existence of those, such as myself, who have married someone of the opposite sex. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, generally speaking 'marrying the one you love' and 'marrying someone you love' is different. The words "the one" implies the attraction commonly associated with relationships. Nonethless I've reverted to the consensus reach in Talk:Heterosexism#Love and Marriage -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think love is the same thing as sexual attraction. You can be sexually attracted to someone you don't even like. You can be sexually attracted to someone you don't even know. Love is much more encompassing than mere sexual attraction. My source says that these gay men "genuinely love their wives". I don't understand your argument. Why are you questioning whether these gay men truly love their wives or not? Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said love was equivalent to sexual attraction, as a matter of fact I'm saying the complete opposite. I'm not saying that repressed gay men don't indeed love their wives, it's just their wives are not 'the one' anymore than a mother is 'the one' to her child. All I'm suggesting is in our lexicon, saying things like "I've found the one" or "he's the one" or "did you find the lucky one?" are typically associated with physical attraction. Lastly, you said "You can be sexually attracted to someone you don't even like" - oh absolutely, but they're not "the one", that's the point I'm making -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Who are you to decide who "the one" is for someone else? I have met many gay men who consider their wives "the one". Not everyone bases who their "one" is off of physical attraction. For many gay men, their sexual attraction to their wives develops after they have discovered that their wife is the one, not from physical attraction, like you say. In my culture, those phrases like "I've found the one" or "he's the one" or "did you find the lucky one?" are NOT typically associated with physical attraction. Not everyone thinks like you Historyguy. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just stating how those words are interpreted, that isn't any fault of mine but the fault of the progression of the English language. I am no more impressed by what a repressed homosexual says about his "wife" anymore than I am about a flat-earther claiming the earth is flat, they may very well believe it but facts are not based on anecdotal evidence. Just because a child grows up with his mother and considers her "the one" that wouldn't mean such a case overrides the typical meaning derived from such phrases. We don't say Tree's are not applicable to being defined as "perennial woody plants" just because a select view consider them a thing of worship, do we? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the great things about Wikipedia is we don't have to rely on editor's personal opinion but we can rely on outside sources. The source says that these gay men "genuinely love their wives". Whether that means that they love their wives like "the one" is irrelevant unless you can find a reliable source to back your claims. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, though not all sources are created equal. And like I said, the argument is moot because it doesn't really matter whether or not these gay men "love" their wives, does it? Love is an ambiguous term, so I don't doubt that these repressed people love their wives. I have this beautiful vase at home, I love it, though it'll never be "the one" - you can debate that if you like, but (at least to me) it's getting nowhere. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) With all respect, this is a bit silly. You both make valid points. I think Historyguy has the stronger case, in theory, because the distinction he draws between loving someone and being in love with someone is clearly relevant when it comes to the question of marriage. The latter is clearly what is meant, and what most people would think, when encountering a phrase like "marry the people they love", and there's no doubt that the overwhelming majority of gay people are currently barred from marrying the people they love in most jurisdictions. However, since marriage and love (whether the Eros type or another) don't necessarily go hand in hand, it's all rather beside the point. The sentence in question is fine without the word love in it. It's verifiably factual, neutral, and grammatical. Rivertorch (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not silly at all. One argument used by opponents of same-sex marriage is that even without same-sex marriage, gays and lesbians can marry opposite-sex persons, just like everyone else. Therefore, they argue, same-sex marriage is not necessary. This argument is heterosexist, and is therefore included in the source, and should be included in the article. --Dr.enh (talk) 05:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the fallacious heterosexist argument you refer to, but there are two issues with your wording of choice. First, as CurtisSwain noted in the previous section, there's a numerical mismatch between subject and object in the sentence: your version has plural heterosexuals marrying the singular person they love. That is unacceptably sloppy wording for an encyclopedia and cannot be allowed to stand. Second, your preferred wording inserts the messy and potentially irrelevant question of love into a section entitled Institutional level that deals with laws and rules, not emotions or states of mind. Marriage as a legal institution has little or nothing to do with love, which is an internal personal thing which cannot be quantified or even verified, and everything to do with freedom of choice or lack thereof. Do you see what I'm getting at? Straight people are allowed to marry whether they love each other or not. Gay people in most places aren't allowed to marry, period. Love doesn't even enter the equation. While there is unquestionably horrific discrimination against same-sex love, that is not the same as discrimination against same-sex marriage. It's related but not the same, yet your wording conflates the two. The previous wording—"only opposite-sex couples can legally marry—doesn't make that mistake, and it is grammatically acceptable. I do think that the point about same-sex love that you're attempting to highlight is worthy of the article, but it doesn't belong where you've placed it (the Individual and group level might be more appropriate), and perhaps a short direct quote from the source would resolve the awkward wording. Rivertorch (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My issue is not whether some areas legally recognizes same-sex love or not. Obviously many do not. My contention is with the statement that only heterosexuals can marry who they love. That is wrong. Obviously, there are bisexuals who can marry who they love, and I am arguing that there are many gay people who can marry who they love. I showed a reference about gay men in mixed-orientation marriages who love their wives. Rivertorch is trying to draw a distinction between loving someone and being in love with someone. I think the implication is that gay people are incapable of being in love with someone of the opposite sex. I think that is a homophobic view that limits the capabilities of gay people. Pushing negative stereotypes about homosexuals is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Gay people are capable of a lot more than you give them credit for. Many gay people say that they love their opposite sex spouse.[3] Historyguy says that "I am no more impressed by what a repressed homosexual says about his "wife" anymore than I am about a flat-earther claiming the earth is flat". First of all, calling someone a "repressed homosexual" is not NPOV. Second, it is simply a personal opinion and is not substantiated by facts. I, however, have looked at the research. Beckstead, a gay psychiatrist, researched the stories of married men who were attracted to other men. He says that they were all attracted to the body shapes of men, and were not attracted to any other women besides their wife, but that they were still attracted to their wives.[4] He cited the story of one man who loved his wife, but compared his love for his wife as a nice warm campfire as opposed to his attraction to men which he compared to a roaring forest fire. I completely and totally admit that many gay people cannot marry the one they love, but you can't discount those of us who do. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rivertorch, I appreciate your comments about the awkwardness of the wording. I would like help in finding a concise solution. How about, "In many jurisdictios, same-sex marriage is not allowed, so non-heterosexual persons must remain unmarried or enter into hetersexual marriage"? The point is not that loveless marriages exist between hetersexual, nor that in some marriages the parties have platonic love, nor that in some marriages the parties are "in love". The point is that if a gay/bi man wants to make a lifelong commitment to a gay/bi man, or a lesbian/bi woman wants to make a lifelong commitment to a lesbian/bi woman, the institution of civil marriage treats them differently (in most jurisdications) than if a man wants to make a lifelong commitment to a woman. --Dr.enh (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dr.enh, I think the wording you just proposed is acceptable. In terms of your comments, if you removed the word "lifelong" from them, I'd agree totally. But length of commitment is rather like love—nice if you can get it but hardly intrinsic to the institution of marriage.

Joshua, I believe your intentions are good, but your hobbyhorse is growing long in the tooth. We cannot rewrite every homosexuality-related article to explicitly acknowledge the existence of a tiny minority of gay people who proclaim their happy marriages to opposite-sex partners, and it is tendentious to continually argue that failing to do so constitutes some sort of homophobic erasure. Regarding your cited shrink's fire analogy, aside from the negative connotations of danger and destruction associated with a forest fire, I'd say that it illustrates rather well my distinction between loving and being in love. One might have "nice warm campfire" feelings for one's friends, children, and pets, but that is not being in love and it is not the sort of love which is typically associated with engagement rings, honeymoons, and all the other trappings of marriage. Rivertorch (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A nice warm campfire is still a flame. The "shrink" said the people were sexually attracted to their wives. You might call him a shrink, but he has published in a peer-reviewed article, and has worked extensively with this "tiny minority" (which according to some estimates constitutes 20% of gay men [5]). I'm not advocating that we rewrite everything to explicitly acknowledge us, but that you should take us into account when you make statements about gay people. Here is one study that acknowledges that married gay men are often underrepresented.[6] Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to spend a great deal of your day in every homosexuality-related article trying to rewrite it from a NPOV. What amazes me is despite your claim to have "overcome homosexuality" you still seem to be attached to it in a way which is hardly in my expertise to explain. Keep in mind I'm not attacking you, but looking at your previous contribs to the site it seems to be the case. Nonetheless you have to understand that just because some guy who claims to be some psychologist who decides to make some claim, that doesn't such a claim true. Yes there are gay men who love their wives but it is absolutely not in the sense that we understand love in relationships. There are people who claim that God told them to kill another human being, it happens every day, but we're not going to be bothered by these fringe sources. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, just made a current edit to the article that reflects both sides (used many, not all). I believe it's fair and represents the adjective I used appropriately (many) -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your help in fine-tuning the wording but have reverted your edit for three reasons (aside from its punctuation issues):

1. I was under the impression we had gotten past the "love" word. It's true, but it is unnecessarily limiting and is a distraction. (See earlier in this thread.)
2. The use of "homosexual" as a noun is potentially offensive and unnecessary.
3. While I personally approve of using the term "right" off-wiki to describe marriage, the usage in this context is problematic because it's unclear what type of right is referred to. For instance, while it is arguably a human right, it's not a civil right as long as it's illegal. So, at best, there's a lack of clarity, and there also may be neutrality problems.

This is sort of academic if we word it without using the word "right", but I'd like to suggest that the "many" qualifier is unnecessary, too. We can say that rights are denied to non-heterosexual people without implying that all non-heterosexual people are affected. (In this case, all are affected, since non-heterosexual people are either denied marriage or forced to make an unnatural choice, but my point is that the wording doesn't require the qualifier).

I'm curious: what problems do you see in the wording I'm reverting to?

(P.S. by way of reply to Joshua: As unimpressive as I find 20-year-old data gathered by telephone surveys, it pales in comparsion to feature interviews with self-proclaimed "infidelity experts" published in Scaife-owned rags. Please review WP:RS and WP:Synthesis. "Shrink" is not pejorative, only informal, btw. "Rags" is both.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am unimpressed by your assertion that my love for my wife "is absolutely not in the sense that we understand love in relationships". You don't know my at all. You don't know the men on these surveys. I agree that "just because some guy who claims to be some psychologist who decides to make some claim, that doesn't such a claim true", but just because you don't think I really love my wife the way we understand what love is doesn't make it true either. You seem to like to state your opinion and expect everyone to accept it as fact. That is why we rely on 3rd party sources. Maybe these sources are a bit old, but you have 0 sources. (You making an argument on Wikipedia does not count as a source.) Do you really think you can convince me that I don't "really" love my wife the way that we understand love? I find it ironic that you have no calms in attacking me and my family, but then accuse me of trying to protect myself. Even if I am a "tiny minority", minorities should still have rights. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Joshua, please carefully review who said what. You're clearly responding to comments posted by more than one editor, but the pronoun "you" doesn't make clear who you're addressing at a given moment. Speaking for myself, I've attacked neither you nor your family. In fact, I have always wished you and yours all the best, but that's really beside the point. You appear to be taking very personally what for others is only a content dispute (and a relatively minor one at that). Someone speaks in general terms about the nature of love as it applies to the article, and you come back with both barrels blazing in defense of your wife? Puh-leeze. If certain topics are too close to home for you, perhaps you should consider moving on to other areas of the encyclopedia where your life experiences don't affect the tenor of your edits. Your proclivity for using questionable sources to bolster the same type of tendentious edits across multiple articles is getting you nowhere and, I suspect, is only serving as a distraction for many of the rest of us. If there are no further objections to the sentence in question, I suggest we end this thread and move along. Rivertorch (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You is the plural you and include you, Rivertorch. You have attacked the love gay people feel for their spouse, saying it wasn't real love, but associated it with the "feelings for one's friends, children, and pets, but that is not being in love and it is not the sort of love which is typically associated with engagement rings, honeymoons, and all the other trappings of marriage." You say you wish me the best, but then continue to attack the validity of my love and the love of millions of others of gay people. You attack my sources, but provide no reasons nor do you provide sources for yourself. A source isn't considered "questionable" because it interferes with your ability to discriminate people. I'm not just trying to protect myself, but a whole group of gay people who you (meaning Rivertorch) seem to have no problem discriminating against. I'm not amused by your suggestion that I should just allow you to discriminate against us just because we are a "tiny minority". Discrimination is discrimination regardless of the size. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't victimize yourself because of your misinterpretations of everyone's posts, no one here is attacking you nor are they questioning the validity of 'love' towards your wife - no one cares, this isn't about you. We get your life story, you're a gay guy who doesn't think he's gay but kinda is who loves his wife in a way most gay guys wont but kinda. You go into every single gay-related article and always espouse the same tired out & unsubstantiated claims about homosexuality, which is quite astounding to me coming from someone who's "overcome homosexuality", it's like someone saying they've "overcome alcoholism" yet hang outside the bars telling people to stop from drinking. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Joshua, your personalizing this is totally unacceptable. You are accusing me of saying things I haven't said or even implied. If you cannot discuss these issues without bringing up details of your own life experience, I'd respectfully suggest that you don't discuss these issues. At the very least, if you do bring up your own life, you should be prepared to receive feedback on what you've said. I don't know the first thing about your life and I couldn't care less. This isn't about your life or my life or anyone's life; it's about trying to improve a Wikipedia article. I have assumed good faith from the start, and I have been far more patient and compassionate towards you than many other editors, but now I'm feeling as though I've been hoodwinked. If my measured, civil words merely constitute troll-bait, I won't make the effort anymore. Rivertorch (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for bringing my personal life into it. You are right. My personalizing this is unacceptable. However, Rivertorch, I would respectfully ask you not to call into question the validity of the love of gay people in general for their spouse. That does strike a personal cord with me, but we will leave me and my personal situation out of it. I feel your statement that this group of people are not really "in love" is discriminatory. How would you feel if some straight person said that same-sex couples can't really love each other because the only real type of love is between a man and a woman, and wanted that documented on Wikipedia? How would feel if you provided sources saying that there is no difference between the love of gay people and straight people, but they had acquired a mass of people and decided that they disagreed with the statements of peer-reviewed research and other professionals in the field? It would be very easy to take that personally. What if you reacted less than civilly? I admit, I probably have let this get too personal and have acted less civilly than I should. What if when you took it personally, these straight editors decided that gay people were to close to the issue and should not edit these comments, and if that you should learn to be civil? Honestly, how would you feel? Even if you think I am delusional or am in denial, or whatever, can you at least try to see why I might react the way I did? I admit, I probably did error when I lumped everyone into the general "you guys". However, that does not change that fact that you participated in attacking this minority group, which I happen to belong. You said that the love of these gay men "is not being in love and it is not the sort of love which is typically associated with engagement rings, honeymoons, and all the other trappings of marriage". Do you understand how I might take that personally? Do you understand that discriminates against people? I do not think your words were "measured, civil words" nor do I think you ever assumed good faith. You starting attacking without provocation on my part. I admit I have let my emotions get a hold of my words, but you had a part to play in provoking those feelings. I apologize. I should have assumed that your hurtful words where done out of ignorance rather than to be mean. I guess I did not assume good faith. I apologize. I too am ready to move on. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So you go from saying "I probably did error when I lumped everyone into the general "you guys"." and then say "these straight editors decided that gay people were to close to the issue and should not edit these comments" - how do you know all these editors are straight? How do you know this is how they felt? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

How would you feel if some straight person said that same-sex couples can't really love each other because the only real type of love is between a man and a woman, and wanted that documented on Wikipedia? Joshuajohanson, have you read[[7]] and the dozens of Wikipedia articles about same-sex marriage in various jurisdictions? Your heterosexist arguments that "LGBT folk can be happy in heterosexual marriages just like heterosexuals" are incredibly ironic, given that this is the talk page for heterosexism. --Dr.enh (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Joshua, I must tell you I find it difficult to accept an olive branch that is laden with thorns. I'm willing to accept your apology but am dismayed that it is accompanied by renewed, baseless accusations regarding my conduct. If I said something you found hurtful or mean, I'm very sorry. But I did not attack you or anyone else, and I reiterate that I have gone out of my way to assume good faith on your part. I'm not clear on whether the questions you pose above are intended to be rhetorical. In case they're not, I'll offer a few generalized answers: if I took much of anything I read on Wikipedia personally, I'd be a basket case by now. If I disagree with something strongly enough to speak up, then I speak up—but not by attacking other editors' motives and not by dragging my own personal life into the discussion. And if I speak up and no one agrees, I don't hang around and get angrier and angrier; I either reconsider my position in the light of others' comments or I go off and do something else. Wikipedia is a vast place, and I see no reason to linger in areas where I have an axe to grind. Rivertorch (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The analogy was rhetorical. The purpose to try to help you see it from my point of view. I was hoping that you would see how I would find someone questioning the love of a minority group to be hurtful and why I would fight not to have that bigotry inserted into Wikipedia. Obviously it didn't work as you still do not see any where you did any wrong. If you were serious about trying to promote civil rights, I would think you would try not to create so many enemies. As Historyguy pointed out on another page, this reason is the MAIN reason I work hard to defend traditional marriage. I have nothing against same-sex couples and hope them all the happiness and joy that life can bring them. I think many of them are good people and I want them to succeed. The ONLY issue is when they start attacking other people. This is one of the biggest issues with much of the opposition to same-sex marriage. They use other terms, like saying homosexuality is a choice or a "lifestyle". That might not be the most politically correct way of saying it, but if you talk to them their main issue is the idea that the only way gay people can be happy is if they marry someone of the same sex. If you were to argue that gay people should be allowed to do whatever they want to, I bet you would have a lot more success. But when you say that gay people are incapable of any other option, and those that try to go some other option aren't really "in love", and try to force that idea onto other people, that is when they get upset and fight back. Do you really want people to come out in droves to "defend traditional marriage"? Do you really want them to pour money into blocking your rights? Do you really think they care about who you have sex with? The only reason you are getting them so riled up is because they feel they are under attack. Stop attacking them, and all of a sudden you will see how easy it is to get the rights that you want. Continue to attack them, and they will continue to fight back. I had hoped that much of this was simply a misunderstanding. I thought a statement like "same-sex marriage stops LGBT people from marrying who they love" was simply stated out of ignorance that (1) bisexual people by definition are attracted to the opposite sex and (2) many gay people are "in love" with someone of the opposite sex. I was hoping that by pointing that out to you, you would realize that statement actually does anger a lot of people, and if you actually wanted to get somewhere you try not to create enemies with those who previously had been very supportive of gay rights (like I was). However, I was proven wrong that even being aware that you are creating enemies, you continue to do so. Not all "LGBT folk can be happy in heterosexual marriages just like heterosexuals", but there are those of us who are. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"I work hard to defend traditional marriage" - What is traditional marriage? And who's tradition are you following? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Do not fret much. While I do not rule it impossible, I have never been able to have a conciliatory civil talk page discussion with Joshuajohanson where he showed me respect as an educated user or as a human being. I never had the impression that he was being specifically malicious, but more that he just simply didn't get it. He may still need some practice and aid in interacting in a scientific and empirical manner as is required of us here, and I can only assume (as I must) that he is doing his best in that regard. But for the time being, I do not reasonably expect to have a productive talk page discussion with him, so I don't pay too much attention. My sanity as a editor demands it. My calmness and dispassion do not suffer more for it either.

You see, as organic living beings, there are certain ways that we cannot or find it hard to keep ourselves detached, for reasons of identity, imprinting, ingrained thinking, etc. However, we practice conscious detachment to the best of our ability. If we can detach ourselves and carry on a proper discussion, we do. If we cannot detach ourselves adequately, then it's better that we recuse ourselves from the issue. And if we discuss and edit specifically because of our strong impassioned attachments, then well...I know from experience that that is a recipe for edit warring. Articles as well as talk page discussions only suffer from our inability to divorce our behavior from our personal inclinations. You can be on Wikipedia and have many positions of your own, and sometimes even mention them. But editors should not go out on a figurative crusade/jihad to assert a position. It's just not empirical, not scientific, and does not aid the arrival at a respectful consensus among diverse reliable scientific sources.

- Gilgamesh (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed archiving

Resolved

 – Revert me if I screwed up

We should probably unleash MiszaBot to archive old threads here (say, older than 60 days). Let's give it a couple of days to see if anyone objects. Rivertorch (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Definitely in favor of the proposal, given that there are threads that have not seen action in a year and a half. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm for it! -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Done (I think). Rivertorch (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced claims and relationships discriminated against

For some reason, people seem to think that it needs to be discussed whether we should have unsourced claims in the article. It is claimed that a "LGBT youth" was prohibited "from attending the high school prom when [he chose] to bring a same-sex date." I see no support for that allegation. Dr Enh also refuses to have relationships listed as something that is discriminated against, insisting that people are discriminated against, not relationships. But clearly two straight people of the same sex cannot get married, while two homosexuals of the opposite sex can, hence it obviously the relationship, and not the individuals, that are discriminated against.Heqwm2 (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Dr. enh, you continued editing of the article while refusing to respond to these points constitutes edit warring. Your own definition (which is wrong, for reasons that I have explained and you refuse to respond to), specifically states' that "discrimination" can refer to a thing. Prohibitions against same-sex marriage is NOT discrimination against people. Saying "there's an article that explains why it is", but not saying where that article is is not having a discussion.Heqwm2 (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To repeat my talk from 23:30, 28 November 2009, the definition of discrimination is "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." [8] The groups in question in this article are heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. The definition does not belong to me, it is from a reliable source. Your assertion that the reliable source is "wrong" is irrelevant; see WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." You cannot say that same-sex marriages are discriminated against, unless you can identify the group, class, or category to which SSM belongs. It is your job to read the Jung and Smith reference that you deleted; it is not my job to type it onto this talk page for you. --Dr.enh (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is your job to type in the location of the article. How the hell am I supposed to read it if you refuse to tell me where it is? What, am I supposed to be psychic or something? I don't know how to explain this any more clearly: you are making no fucking sense at all. You have gone from edit warring without any response to my points to edit warring with nonsensical, incoherent, off-topic responses. If you want to make edits, you are obligated to explain your position. That obligation is not fulfilled by telling me to go read some article that you won't even tell me how to find. It is not my job to read whatever article you find interesting, let alone decipher some cryptic reference to the article.

I have no need to tell you what group same-sex marriage belongs to, unless you are unable to figure out for yourself that it belongs to the group of relationships that do not consist of one man and one woman. According to m-w, "to discriminate" means "to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discriminate . Clearly, the distinguishing features of SSM are perceived and marked by Prop 8. It is rather frustrating to have to explain point after point that should be blatantly obvious.

To sum up, you have not provided a cite for the claim that a student was prohibited from attending his prom. You have not explained how prohibition of SSM is discrimination against people, or at all acknowledged my argument to the contrary. You have not explained how prohibition of SSM is not discrimination against relationships. You have not responded to my pointing out that your proposed definition of "discrimination" is nonsensical. You have refused to explain what article I supposedly "deleted".

Please stop wasting my time with these responses that completely fail to address the issue at hand.Heqwm2 (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The relevant definition from M/W is "to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit." In jurisdictions that do not recognize SSM, same-sex pairs of people of legal age who ask for a marriage license are always refused; opposite-sex pairs of people of legal age are always allowed, without having to demonstrate individual merit. That is clearly "a difference in treatment" that is "in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships" -- the definition of heterosexism. For the fourth time, the ref which you have twice deleted is Jung, Patricia Beattie; Smith, Ralph F. (1993). Heterosexism: An Ethical Challenge. State University of New York Press. ISBN 0791416968. --Dr.enh (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The definition that I gave is the first definition. You're simply cherry-picking what definition you want. You say "same-sex pairs of people of legal age who ask for a marriage license are always refused". Exactly my point. Pairs are refused. Yes, the pairs are made up of people, but the people are not prohibited from getting married, the pair is. This is not the fourth time that you have given the ref, it is the first time. You STILL haven't given a cite for the prom claim or explained how relationships are not being discriminated against.Heqwm2 (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did provide a cite, and you deleted it. [9] Why? --Dr.enh (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you did not provide a cite for the given claim. You can't just take some web link and claim that it's a ref. It has to actually support the claim.Heqwm2 (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Claim: Aaron Fricke was a LGBT youth who was prohibited from attending the high school prom when he chose to bring a same-sex date. The ref states "Information on a 1980 case in which a federal court ruled that Aaron Fricke, a student from Rhode Island, had the right to bring a same-sex date to his prom" and links to [10] which states "Aaron Fricke decided he wanted to go to his senior prom with Paul Guilbert. His principal wouldn't let him." How is that not support? --Dr.enh (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for the claim that Aaron WAS NOT PERMITTED TO ATTEND THE PROM? Yes, or no? What is so hard to understand about this question? I am not asking for a cite for the claim that he was not permitted to take a same-sex date. I am asking for a cite for the claim that he was not permitted TO ATTEND. What is WRONG with you? Why can't you answer a simple question? Why do you insist on engaging in these evasions and obfuscations?Heqwm2 (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to look at the inline "see also," Aaron Fricke, specifically Fricke v. Lynch. If he had been permitted to attend the prom, it would never have gone to federal court. If an inline wikilink to the court case was provided, would you be happy? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I just don't how to deal with you. You just don't seem to be able to comprehend basic concepts that are necessary to have a conversation. A cite for a claim is an article that ACTUALLY MAKES THE CLAIM. It is not an article which has caused you to speculate that the claim is true. In WP terms, you are engaging in original research. I could try to explain to you why your logic is faulty, but I think that it would be a waste of time, and I don't need to, anyway. WP is quite clear about citing a link and then making logical inferences from that source.Heqwm2 (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

POV issues

This article has major POV issues. It's quite clear that the article disapproves of heterosexism. Furthermore, throughout the article there is constant equivocation between discrimination against homosexuals and merely organizing society around a heterosexual norm.Heqwm2 (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, disapproves? I mean, heterosexism is a form of homophobia, which is a human rights abuse. You wouldn't expect the human rights article to say that human rights should not be honored. Do you feel it disapproves of heterosexism because it does not display heterosexism in a positive light? It can be very difficult to discuss issues of human rights without seeming to be in a positive or negative light to somebody. Here, I wonder if this may be a good source of answers to your questions: The Yogyakarta Principles on the human rights of LGBT people. Among the principles affirmed are the right to equal treatment (without a bias against them), the right to found a family, the right to cultural participation, and the right to redress of grievances. This agreement was reached and signed by international signatories in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and is thus far the most comprehensive and authoritative definition of fair treatment of LGBT people. To breach it, would be homophobia. - Gilgamesh (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's put Gilgamesh's assumptions aside for a second. Heterosexism by definition discriminates against non-heterosexuals. The article should not imply that this discrimination is "right" or "wrong", "fair" or "unfair". As far as I can see, the article walks a pretty neutral line on that point. I admit that the word discrimination itself is a bit sticky, but it seems to be the best fit. Do you have a specific part that troubles you? --Knulclunk (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Where, there seems to be the part he removed. Other than that, I don't know — I'm rather new to this particular exact discussion. - Gilgamesh (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, there is an equivocation between discrimination against homosexuals and organizing a society around a heterosexual norm. Heterosexism does not "by definition" discriminate against non-heterosexuals. Simply because discrimination is heterosexism does not mean heterosexism is discrimination. Homophobia, discrimination, heterosexism, human rights abuse: all of these are distinct concepts that are simply lumped into one category.Heqwm2 (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, organizing society around a heterosexual norm does by definition discriminate against non-heterosexuals. The definition of desrimination is "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." --Dr.enh (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not the definition of "discrimination", nor, if it were, would it include organizing society around a heterosexual norm. Simply recognizing that a majority of people have a particular characteristic, and creating institutions that take advantage of that characteristic, does not satisfy either the actual definition of "discrimination" or the one you have presented. I should have included "disparate impact" on my list of concepts that are lumped together, as you seem to not understand the difference between that and discrimination.Heqwm2 (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination. "Organizing society around a heterosexual norm" is the definition of heterosexism. Your bare assertion fallacies that words do not mean what they mean are growing tiresome. --Dr.enh (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Merely believing that a word has a meaning different from what you believe it has is not a "fallacy", and I find this to be yet another instance of your refusal to evaluate my position respectfully. Just because a definition is in a dictionary does not mean that's what the word means. If that were what "discrimination" means, then very little of what is called anti-homosexual discrimination would, in fact, be discrimination. For instance, anti-sodomy laws, which target people not on some abstract notion of belonging to a group, but on individual actions, would not be discrimination. If organizing society around a heterosexual norm is heterosexism, is organizing society around written communication "literacism"? Should we have an article about how society "discriminates" against people who can't read?Heqwm2 (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

All statements should be properly sourced. Anything that is identified as heterosexism must be accompanied by the organization that identifies it as such. I would be hesitant in using the Yogyakarta Principles as an authority on discrimination since the document itself has been accused of being discriminatory.[11] Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If the concept of "literacism" had a definition, advocates and reliable sources, then yes, we should have an article on it. But to your point, if there are reliable sources calling the concept of heterosexism baloney or that the organizing society around a heterosexual norm is preferential, then perhaps they should be included. It would be best if they were mainstream, reliable or academic sources though.--Knulclunk (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that the overwhelming majority of societies, both across the globe and across history, have been built around a heterosexual norm, it's safe to say that it's a view widely shared that this is a good idea.Heqwm2 (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

... ... citing the Oaks speech? That speech inflamed every gay rights and gay support group around, and put off more than a few professionals and even moderate Mormons. If you want to make a case that the Yogyakarta Principles are discriminatory, don't cite far-right sources that would object to any non-negative gay information in the first place. Many religious groups are going to object no matter what, and are not very objective in terms of science or civil rights. For accredited independent sources, you cite the consensus of scientists, psychiatrists, legal scholars, etc. The Yogyakarta Principles were an orderly international effort to outline the fundamental human rights of LGBT people, with representatives and signatories from many different countries, including countries as conservative as Pakistan. Even Talk:Homophobia/FAQ temp cites the Yogyakarta Principles as an accredited reference. - Gilgamesh (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

POV issues (arbitrary section break)

I feel that the article as a whole asserts a point of view (that various controversial beliefs and policies are discriminatory), but if there is a broad consensus that these are facts rather than opinions, I will adhere to a 2-revert rule and leave it undisturbed. Bwrs (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The definition of discrimination is "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." [12] The groups in question in this article are heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. --Dr.enh (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

By asserting that policies viewed as heterosexist are biased or discriminatory, you attribute a negative value to them, since unfair discrimination is a human rights violation. It would be better to say that _____ considers _____ policy to be heterosexist, and _____ asserts that heterosexism is discriminatory, but _____ asserts something else, et cetera. Bwrs (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the definition again. "Discrimination" is neither positive not negative; the POV value judgement is yours. Unfairness is POV. There are many who argue that discrimination against non-heterosexuals is fair, good, holy, and in line with "natural law." --Dr.enh (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I generally have to agree with Dr.enh. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with Dr.enh. --CJ Withers (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. enh is talking nonsense. "Discrimination" absolutely has negative connotations, and it is ridiculous that anyone could claim otherwise. Look at what Dr. enh claims the definition of "discrimination" is: it's treating people differently when they don't deserve it. That's not POV? Please explain how same-sex marriage is "discrimination" according to Dr. enh's definition. Is anyone prohibited from getting married based on the group to which they belong? No, homosexuals are allowed to have OSM, and heterosexuals are prohibited from having SSM. Those who think that homosexuality is morally wrong would argue that treating homosexuals differently is not discrimination under Dr. enh's definition; since homosexuals are morally depraved, they MERIT different treatment. Since Dr. enh's definition specifically excludes different treatment that is based on merit (that is, what people "deserve"), heterosexism is discrimination only given the POV that homosexuality is not morally wrong.Heqwm2 (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of "homosexuals" in these talk pages. (That term has become more disused as now less respectful than "gay" or "LGBT" people.) You are certainly allowed to believe what you wish, but you could end up inviting a flame war (or even a behavioral complaint) in the process of repeating that they as people are immoral in their presence. I'm not accusing you of any bad faith or anything like that — but could you please be civil to us? What we think matters as well.

Anyway, discrimination is based on human rights assuming arbitrary individuals to be equal. An assumption of LGBT people being immoral is not based in peer-reviewed accredited scientific evidence, but only on a judgment stemming from a cultural tradition - cultural traditions being notoriously fickle and unobjective. Every individual has cultural rights, but someone's culture cannot trump the personal rights of others whom that cultural merely considers undesirable. To protect the individual and equal rights of all, everyone's individual rights must be upheld, even if those rights might be frowned upon by someone else's own tradition. For instance, take partnership rights: How many gay men want to be with a woman? Now compare that to how many gay men want to be with a man. If you treat their fundamental life desires as less important than that of straight people, then it has a discriminatory effect on those gay men, and that is undeniable regardless of whether you think they deserve less rights because you believe them to be immoral. First, you must respect their unique rights, even if you may not know what they are. Then, you figure out what those rights are. And here, we consult the extensively internationally peer-debated Yogyakarta Principles on LGBT rights, as well as the positions of numerous mainstream accredited psychiatric organizations. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To see how how same-sex marriage is "discrimination," please read the reference in the article that Heqwm2 deleted and I restored. --Dr.enh (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying that discrimination is based on human rights supports my position: "discrimination" is not a neutral term. LGBT being immoral is not an "assumption", it is a position, a position which I presented, not one which I gave as my own. Now, as to Dr. enh's comment, what article did I delete? I asked a simple question: "How is same-sex marriage discrimination?" Yet again, you are simply evading the issue. Do you have an answer or not? And no, "take a look at some unnamed article" is not an answer.Heqwm2 (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference that Heqwm2 deleted was <ref name="JungSmith" />^{pp. 145-151} --Dr.enh (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Without a reliable source, the position that "discrimination" is not a neutral term does not belong in Wikipedia. --07:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have very little understanding of the term "reference". How about actually looking at what's supposed supposed to be in that ref tag? What, exactly, is this article that you are talking about, and when and where did I delete it? And "reliable source" applies to article space, not talk space. Sheesh. Not that it would be difficult to find a source; your pretending otherwise is simply yet another example of your bad faith. And your hypocrisy, given that you are engaged in an edit war to include a claim that has no source.Heqwm2 (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the the first reference.[13] You deleted the reference tonight, twice.

Your edits (removal of the source) to SSM in article are based on your unsourced claim that "discrimination" has negative connotations. Please cease that edit until/unless you find a source. --Dr.enh (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't even mention marriage. Just partnership rights. That is, the right for people to form a common household and family (the Yogyakarta Principles include the right to start a family) without being hindered in areas that benefit partnerships, whether they be marriage, common law marriage, domestic partnership, or even just shared health insurance. In some countries, men can face criminal charges for even having a relationship with each other, and the very right to their partnership at all is denied. - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC) My edits are not based on the fact that discrimination has negative connotations. I presented this fact in reference to the POV issue, not in reference to my edits. I started two different sections on the talk page because I had two different issues: your reverting my edits, and the POV issue. You telling me what my edits are based on is really quite rude. I started an entire section of the talk page to discuss what they are based on, and not only did you not respond to that, you are now pretending that what I wrote in a different section was meant as the basis for my edits. And while I did revert to an earlier version that had one fewer mention of the reference, I did not ever delete the reference from the article. And since you do not have a weblink, I would have to track down the article if I wanted to read it.Heqwm2 (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You deleted the Jung-Smith ref twice from SSM [14] [15]. The ISBN serves as a weblink. Please remember that talk page is for discussing improvements to the Heterosexism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. --Dr.enh (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

After my edits, the reference was still at the bottom of the page. And something is either a web link or it is not. Can I put the ISBN into a web browser and see the article?69.107.102.25 (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fairness

This article implies that certain beliefs held by homophobes make someone a homophobe. For example, that everyone is naturally heterosexual has scientific merit when you consider natural selection. This belief does not make someone a homophobe. Also, belief that homosexual acts are morally wrong is not homophobi as exemplified in the book Songmaster by Orson Scott Card in which Orson Scott Card condemns homosexual acts but more seriously condemns homophobia and hatred/abuse of gay people. It is my Sincere belief that all people deserve respect and love no matter what. I however hold the two aforementioned views. Please rectify this situation. Thank-you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.10.116 (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not once is any person or group labeled as a homophobe in this article. In fact, neither "homophobic" nor "homophobe" are used anywhere. What's more, the article is about heterosexism, not homophobia, the difference being clearly explained in that section of the heterosexism article. Your fallacious points are unfounded, thus no rectification is due. I suggest you shift your time, energy, and focus to articles dealing with the causes of heterosexuality, religion and homosexuality or heterophobia since, in all fairness, that is where your true interests lie. --CJ Withers (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination is against people, not against relationships

To repeat my talk from 23:30, 28 November 2009, the definition of discrimination is "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." [16] The groups in question in this article are heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. --Dr.enh (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, that is NOT what discrimination means. Secondly, that does not exclude relationships. Third, according to that definition, prohibition of same-sex marriage is not discrimination. How about instead of just repeating yourself, you actually respond to my points?Heqwm2 (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My definition is taken from a dictionary.[17] What is your definition, and where did you get it? I will respond to your points when you make a point backed by evidence or reference, not just by bare assertion. --Dr.enh (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have already presented a different definition. Since you have declared that you are not going to respond to my points, I am going to revert your edit, and I will submit an edit war report on you if you revert. Your abysmal civility is unacceptable.Heqwm2 (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)