Talk:LGBTQ rights opposition

What about parents wanting their kids to have kids?

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 50.44.236.162 (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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Article title

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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 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)

Actually, I take that back. I think the lead section makes it clear what the word "rights" refers to (laws, and possible laws).

Speaking of which, the lead section is a bit repetitive. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Reasons

@Lincean: I don't understand your objection to including "bigotry" as one possible motivation. We don't state that every person or organization shares all of these motivations, so the argument for not including bigotry would seem to be that no opposition to rights is motivated by bigotry, a thing that is patently untrue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: I do not see how it follows that just because something is not listed, that it makes it seem that no opposition is motivated by it. Exclusion from this list does not mean that it is not a reason.

Also, the use of the words "bigotry" or "bigot" are inherently value laden. Please see WP:LABEL, "bigot" is a contentious label, and it is a value judgement. Having it listed is presenting an opinion as a fact. Please see this essay for the distinction between fact and opinion.

Lincean (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

"Moral beliefs" is also a value word. I'm unconvinced by your argument that neutrality requires us only to include language that depicts LGBT rights opposition in a positive light, but if you think it's the language we're using to describe the view that's the problem, please propose an alternative, rather than removing the view entirely. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"Moral beliefs" is not a value word because it is qualified by "beliefs." A belief can be true, false, or nonsensical (that is, if moral beliefs are all nonsense). It is a fact that people have beliefs, they may be right or wrong, but the belief is still there. My argument is not that "neutrality requires us only to include language that depicts LGBT rights opposition in a positive light" or anything like this. Please reread what I wrote. My point is to not state opinions as facts, as stated in WP:YESPOV:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

And, to avoid a contentious label, see WP:LABEL. Therefore, I propose a change. We could remove "bigotry" or the whole sentence. Lincean (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Bigotry is an appropriate reason and it's perfectly factual. Bigotry is implicitly qualified by "beliefs" as well.- MrX 12:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"Bigotry" is subjective, and a passes a value judgement. Even if "bigotry" is explicitly qualified by "beliefs" it is putting forth a class of beliefs whose nature is value dependent and so passes value. Unlike, say, "moral" which is a class whose title is not necessarily value dependent. Please see WP:LABEL. Lincean (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It's also a fact that people are sometimes persuaded to opposed LGBT rights opposition due to bigotry. The article addresses this issue. This should be included in the text. The current wording says: "Such opposition can be motivated by religion, moral beliefs, homophobia, bigotry, political ideologies, or other reasons," not "Such opposition is motivated by religion, moral beliefs, homophobia, bigotry, political ideologies, or other reasons." [emphasis added, of course].

If you have a better way of phrasing the sentence, then that's fine. But don't just remove the word "bigotry" because you don't like it. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 15:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What people oppose what out of "bigotry" is a matter of opinion. I am not sure why you are pointing out what the wording is and what it is not, as the meaning of the text, that you pointed out, is not disputed here. Please read what I wrote. Lincean (talk) 04:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

So is your position that LGBT rights opposition is not motivated by bigotry? You have claimed it was an issue of language, but your recent comments suggest that you think this is unverifiable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

My position is that we do not use words like "bigot" just like we do not use words such as "good" and "evil" as positively describing things. Lincean (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I must still be missing something about your position here. WP:LABEL says we should avoid labeling people, concepts, etc. with value labels, but we're not saying that LGBT rights opposition is bigotry or is always motivated by bigotry. Is your argument that the word "bigotry" (or "terrorist", or "cult", or "racism", to use other words from WP:LABEL) can never appear in the encyclopedia? Again, you seem to be arguing from the position that LGBT rights opposition is never motivated by bigotry, a position I think you'd have a hard time defending with reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand why you wrote: "...but we're not saying that LGBT rights opposition is bigotry or is always motivated by bigotry." Please read what I wrote to Zumoarirodoka, this is not something that I am disputing. My argument is not that that "the word "bigotry" (or "terrorist", or "cult", or "racism", to use other words from WP:LABEL) can never appear in the encyclopedia." For I previously cited WP:YESPOV which includes this point:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

From this and the rest of what it says, it is clear that you can cite opinions that have words like "bigot" in them. But opinions are to be described as opinions. Note also that I wrote:

My position is that we do not use words like "bigot" just like we do not use words such as "good" and "evil" as positively describing things. Lincean (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Note that I said "use words like 'bigot'", not "mention word like 'bigot.'" It clear that you can mention all sorts of words, such as in quoting someone. It is also clear that it is best to generally try to avoid using some words. Such as stating opinions as facts, value-laden language, contentious labels, etc.. Lincean (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

i just stumbled across this and wanted to drop a note. The sentence, "Such opposition can be motivated by religion, moral beliefs, homophobia, bigotry, political ideologies, or other reasons." appears in the WP:LEAD, and is not sourced. That could be OK, if there is sourced content in the body to support it. There is a section describing religious opposition to LGBT rights that is sourced, so that term is well founded. I see no clear discussion of the other 4 named motivations in the body of the article as it stands now. So ... from a policy/guideline standpoint, the list seems to violate WP:OR and WP:VERIFY and WP:LEAD and should be pared down to "religion" until sourced content is added to the body, to support their presence in the lead. (fwiw, isn't homophobia a kind of bigotry? it is unclear to me why both would be needed even after sourced content is introduced to the body) Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you make some good points here. Perhaps this sentience should be removed. Lincean (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment can the word "animus" be used (as it has been a subject of discussion in the US Supreme Court as to whether denying same-sex marriage to LGBT couples can be defended by anything other than animus towards the couples as a minority group) ? -- Aronzak (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The body of the article contains ample content that is aptly summarized as "bigotry" For example, under Opposition in different countries>United States>History, the passage concerning Anita Bryant is an example of text book bigotry. Homophobia can have bigotry at its roots, or can be based on bona fide fear, or self-loathing, but the terms are not interchangeable. Nor is 'animosity' interchangeable with 'bigotry'. - MrX 03:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The use of "bigotry" violates WP:NPOV, see the above discussion. The example that you cited is your opinion, not a fact. Lincean (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The following two comments are pasted from User_talk:Lincean. Lincean (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem to repeat the same arguments. For example, you keep mentioning the word "bigot" but the word in question is "bigotry". Those words have different meanings, and the content you wish to remove is the latter. It is a widely-held view among those who study the LGBT rights movement that bigotry is one of the reasons why some people oppose LGBT rights. A few sources:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. It's rather absurd to assert that bigotry is not one of the reasons for opposing LGBT rights, when organizations like AFTAH and Westboro Baptist Church exist.- MrX 23:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

If it seems that I repeat the same arguments it is because they were misunderstood and not as of yet dealt with. To repeat it again so as to be clear: opinions should not be stated as facts. Moral views are opinions. Using "bigotry" involves a moral view, and therefore should not be used in Wikipedia's voice.
As for the difference between "bigot" and "bigotry," that is a distinction without much practical difference. "Bigotry" came from "bigot," and is defined as that which is characterizes a bigot. Even still, "bigotry" is still a value-laden word. It is highly subjective, imprecise, and contentious. It is a term of abuse. It connotes a value system from which to pass moral judgement from. Take a look at WP:LABEL, and you can see "bigot" listed as an example. Take a look at the other words as well and it is clear that "bigotry" would not be out of place on that list.
I do not see how citing those sources helps your cause here. Academic sources can and do contain opinions. These opinions can be cited in Wikipedia even, but they need to be cited as opinions, not facts. Especially if they involve a value judgement.
Regarding the two groups you cited, please see WP:OUTRAGE. Even if a group may seem morally offensive, you still have to be neutral. Many people say Hitler was evil. That, however, does not justify Wikipedia taking a side as to what counts as "evil."
Additionally see WP:IMPARTIAL. By using such words with normative implications, one necessarily engages in a dispute. Even if you think there is no normative implications, the tone of "bigotry" does not pass the test. You might want to take a look at this essay Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Examples. Lincean (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Religion is a value laden word when used to justify opposition to various rights, and I can think of few things based more on opinion than religion. Yet you don't push back on that word in the lead. Why? I agree that generalizations like "good" and "evil" are value laden, but bigotry is an irrational state of mind. It is an identifiable trait. Scholars such as Stephen Bronner obviously thinks bigotry is a factor in LGBT rights opposition, as he wrote in The Bigot: Why Prejudice Persists. I've provided other citations. Your argument seems to be largely strawman based: are we discussing bigots, bigotry, or Adolf Hitler?- MrX 01:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: How is "religion" a value-laden word in this case? "Religion" is a term for describing a class of beliefs and values, it does not pass a value onto what belongs in that class. "Religion" is like "political beliefs", for example, in that it describes a class for beliefs. I don't see what your point is here.
Not only moral related terms like "good" and "evil" are points of view, but also modes of moral reasoning. There are many different views on how to reason on morals and values, and even disputes as to whether such thinking is even reasonable. So taking a stance on any particular value reasoning violates the principal that "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." Words that carry normative meanings are to be avoided as that takes a point of view. Furthermore, it still is a term of abuse and still takes a POV tone.
Citing a philosopher as having truth on a matter is problematic. It raises the issue of which philosophers do we take. Do we accept Plato or do we accept Kant? I believe it is Wikipedia's policy to not take any side, but rather describe the opinions of Plato, Kant, and yes, Stephen Bronner. Believe it or not, there are many different, and conflicting, views held by philosophers, and many "rationalities." Especially when it comes to normative issues.
What exactly am I "strawmaning"? If I am misrepresented any of your views, just let me know. As for "bigot" and "bigotry," there is no substantial difference between these words. It still is a value-laden word. There is a good reason why its variant is listed as an example in WP:LABEL. I do not know why you think we might be discussing Hitler. My whole point of mentioning him was for an example in discussing the problem of using the Westboro Baptist Church, etc. in your argument. My point was to illustrate that just because many people value something or that they hold that value strongly, that this is not justification for taking a point of view in a Wikipedia article. Lincean (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Jumping in here since there is some much repetition of arguments. The word "Bigotry" means "intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status." NOTE, @Lincean:, @MrX:, and others involved, that this is a WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE that says that BIGOTRY is intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristcs, such as ... SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Now, I'm sure that you are both grown adults and that you are both aware that sexual orientation is synonymous with homosexuality, i.e. same-sex attraction, and is linked to gender identity for transgenders and transexuals; hence we have a WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE that states that Bigotry is involved in opposition to LGBT groups which would naturally follow on, with a mild step of logic, that those that are bigoted are opposed to LGBT Civil Rights.

Now, since we have a Wikipedia Article on Bigotry, which renders your arguments of WP:LABEL fairly moot since we are not saying that any particular person is a bigot but instead saying that the bigot attitude or mindset, aka Bigotry, is opposed to LGBT Rights in general; as well as the fact that there are various news articles] from various sources around the world that support the view, as well as various studies that show that the attitude of bigotry does form opposition to LGBT rights.

I'm glad that someone has had the decent sense to keep Bigotry as a reason for opposition to LGBT Rights

User:Drcrazy102 User talk:Drcrazy102 01:08 2 July 2015

@Drcrazy102:, Just because there is Wikipedia article on some idea, that does not mean it is not still value-laden. There are many articles that are about value related ideas and topics. Wikipedia is to describe values, not apply them.
Even describing "attitude or mindset" with this word is still takes value-laden stance. See above. A bigot is someone who practices bigotry. Saying "bigotry, is opposed to LGBT Rights in general" is your opinion and not relevant here. Regarding your sources, please read what I wrote above, just because a value is held by many, that does not make it a fact. Lincean (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-opposition

There's still stuff here that isn't about opposition (eg. xanith). How can we make sure we provide the full perspective (not giving the impression that some country, culture or religion totally opposes homosexuality when they don't) without including extraneous information? (Overhauling the structure may be helpful, as I have suggested in the past - so that it's not by geography or by group, but by forms of opposition or by the type of argument.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that reordering the structure will help improve the article, but I'm not sure what to do about not including extraneous information; I know that wikilinking to certain terms, pages etc. may help but apart from that, IDK. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 18:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, in regards to the Xanith in particular, if they are made a "See Also ...". E.g. the Xanith paragraph would be almost entirely deleted and made as a reference that there is an 'acceptable' form of homosexuality in Islamic culture, preferably after the HRW/Amnesty paragraph (just for flow-on clarity), with a "See also Xanith"? Just an idea to help but a restructure is probably needed as you are both indicating, but I don't have that much experience at making/reordering wiki pages, so I'll leave that with you.

If there are no objections within a week or so, I will go and change the Xanith paragraph and have a more thorough read-through to find other areas of discussion that aren't directly relevant to LGBT Rights Opposition

Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:50 06 July 2015

Creation of a LGBT Rights Support

I know that LGBT Rights Opposition page is flagged as being biased, and was wondering if it would be possible to either expand the page to LGBT Rights Argument Basis (would include both opposition and support) or to create a page for Rights Support and link the two pages? I'm not currently aware of any page that lists JUST the supporting arguments, in the same way that this page lists just the opposing arguments. Considering the fact that there are countries that are struggling to make up their minds (cough, Australia, cough) as well as the fact that there are countries that have had to have serious debate, such as America, it might be useful to collate arguments that support the LGBT Rights movement. Thanks, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:30 07 July 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)