Talk:Heterosexism/Archive 1

Cited definitions

• "Heterosexism. This term was coined by analogy with sexism. The dictionary defines it as "discrimination or prejudice against gay or homosexual people by heterosexual people." As with racism and sexism, this book takes the view that it is structural or institutional forces that underpin social inequalities, rather than individual prejudiced attitudes. Thus, heterosexism would refer to the heterosexual ideology that is encoded into and characteristic of the major social, cultural, and economic institutions of our society. See Racism and Sexism." Gender, Race, and Class in Media: A Text-Reader by Gail Dines (2002), ISBN 076192261X.

Hyacinth 00:11, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Material removed

As "David" admits below, he removed an insertion to this term that said, "The term's validity hinges in part on the belief that there is no element of choice involved in homosexuality, which has not been scientifically proven. The idea of heterosexism treats all disapproval of homosexuality as a mental disorder, completely dismissing religious or moral objections to the practice. If choice is involved in homosexuality, then morality is in play, and the term heterosexism is in many ways an illogical word."

David disagreed, saying, "It's perfectly logical to continue to believe heterosexuality is the only normal or moral sexuality for a human being while at the same time believing that it is possible to choose sexual orientation."

But that is not the point. The point is that the term "heterosexism" places disagreement with a chosen sexual or gender behavior, homosexuality, or transgenderism, and classifies it as a form of racism. This is illogical, because racism is hatred or discrimination of someone based on their essential nature.

Now, no doubt there is much debate over how much of someone's nature their sexual preference defines. But few would say that our sexual preferences define the totality of our being. Yet heterosexism buys into the theory that if you practice homosexuality, you are, above all else, a homosexual, who was born that way. Of course, there is no scienfitic evidence for this, and Robert L. Spitzer's 2001 study on "ex-gays" is one of the most authoritative studies done on the issue of choice as it relates to homosexuality.

The New Yorker Magazine in 2003 called Dr. Spitzer "without question, one of the most influential psychiatrists of the twentieth century." And Dr. Spitzer's study found that some homosexuals "can and do change" to prefer heterosexuality.

"There is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapydoes occur in some gay men and lesbians," Dr. Spitzer wrote.

Again, heterosexism takes someone who believes that it is wrong to practice homosexuality or to have sexual reassignment surgery (a sex change), and places them in a box, saying that that person does not disagree with a choice, but in fact that they disagree with the person him or herself who is making that choice. Further, the term says, you are not just disagreeing with the person who makes that choice, you hate that person.

In other words, the word heterosexism is a conversation ender. It is an attempt to short-circuit debate over the morality of sexual and gender choices by labeling those who disagree with certain choices as, essentially, racist. It is a hateful term in and of itself, because it demonizes those who have deeply held religious and moral beliefs.

I agree with David that use of the term "heterosexism" doesn't require that one believes sexual orientation is essential or unchosen; we have a similar concept of unjustified bias against someone based on religion, which is most certainly chosen. If you believe homosexuality is an entirely chosen behavior, it would still be unjustified (and heterosexist) to criticize that person's ability to do something completely unrelated to their sexuality, like programming a computer or cooking a steak, on the basis of their being gay. However, I think you are right that the analogy to racism should be noted in the article, as should the fact that many who oppose homosexuality find this analogy unfair, since they do not believe sexual orientation to be unchangeable as race certainly is. How does that sound? - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 05:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Adela Mae -- you can disagree with someone's religion, meaning you think they are wrong, and still treat them with love and respect. Likewise, you can disagree with someone's sexual preference, meaning you think they are wrong, and still treat them as well with love and respect. Disagreement is not "unjustified bias."

Please reread my comments. That is exactly what I said. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 08:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that some people who think homosexuality is morally wrong are heterosexist, because they are hateful, but that it is okay for some people to think homosexuality is immoral, because they are not hateful?

I'm saying that some people who believe homosexuality is morally wrong (and probably a few who don't) are heterosexist because, based on their knowledge that a person is a homosexual, they make unsubstantiated judgements about other aspects of that person (competence to perform specific tasks, parenting ability, etc). People who believe homosexuality to be morally wrong but do not allow that belief to influence their judgements about homosexual people in areas not directly related to their homosexuality are not heterosexist. I personally believe that such people are incorrect about the ethical facts of the matter, but what I personally believe is irrelevant to the definition of heterosexism. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 03:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

AdelaMae - I appreciate the clarification. That is helfpul. The problem is that the definition of heterosexism on the main page does not match what you've just said. The definition, as currently posted, says that heterosexism is "a belief or argument that male-female sexuality is the only natural or moral mode of sexual behavior." Obviously, according to this definition, someone who you said is not heterosexist--a person who has moral opposition to homosexuality but does "not allow that belief to influence their judgments about homosexual people in areas not directly related to their homosexuality"--actually IS defined as heterosexist.

Therefore, despite the very helpful and civil and admirable dialogue we've had, the definition as written currently is what I've described above--a "conversation ender. It is an attempt to short-circuit debate over the morality of sexual and gender choices by labeling those who disagree with certain choices as, essentially, racist. It is a hateful term in and of itself, because it demonizes those who have deeply held religious and moral beliefs."

I believe some changes should be made, and that the page should be placed under NPOVD.

In the above discussion various terms and concepts or practices are tangled in a large confusing ball. Improving the article through descriptions of cited definitions and cited consequences (perhaps discussion ending/shutting up homophobes, for instance) will help untangle this both for the article, the discussion page, and for users. Hyacinth 21:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Heterosexism

Hi, I am not articulate to write the article but here are some further suggestions which encapsulate what heterosexism is: a belief in a society constructed on heterosexist norms with the exclusion of homosexuality or homosexuality as a secondary conduit. I found this article on the web which explains what I am tyring to say.. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/prej_defn.html:

Around the same time, heterosexism began to be used as a term analogous to sexism and racism, describing an ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any nonheterosexual form of behavior, identity, relationship, or community (Herek, 1990). Using the term heterosexism highlights the parallels between antigay sentiment and other forms of prejudice, such as racism, antisemitism, and sexism.

Like institutional racism and sexism, heterosexism pervades societal customs and institutions. It operates through a dual process of invisibility and attack. Homosexuality usually remains culturally invisible; when people who engage in homosexual behavior or who are identified as homosexual become visible, they are subject to attack by society.

Examples of heterosexism in the United States include the continuing ban against lesbian and gay military personnel; widespread lack of legal protection from antigay discrimination in employment, housing, and services; hostility to lesbian and gay committed relationships, recently dramatized by passage of federal and state laws against same-gender marriage; and the existence of sodomy laws in more than one-third of the states.

Although usage of the two words has not been uniform, homophobia has typically been employed to describe individual antigay attitudes and behaviors whereas heterosexism has referred to societal-level ideologies and patterns of institutionalized oppression of non-heterosexual people.

Problem para

I removed the following para from the article:

The term's validity hinges in part on the belief that there is no element of choice involved in homosexuality, which has not been scientifically proven. The idea of heterosexism treats all disapproval of homosexuality as a mental disorder, completely dismissing religious or moral objections to the practice. If choice is involved in homosexuality, then morality is in play, and the term heterosexism is in many ways an illogical word.

The validity of the term 'heterosexism' certainly doesn't depend on whether sexual orientation is chosen. It's perfectly logical to continue to believe heterosexuality is the only normal or moral sexuality for a human being while at the same time believing that it is possible to choose sexual orientation. Nor does heterosexism imply mental disorder (it's arguable that 'homophobia' does, but that's not the subject of this article). David | Talk 13:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Random musings

The article states that the literal meaning of heterosexism would be: "a belief that one type of heterosexuality is inherently 'better' than another type of heterosexuality" So maybe the correct term would be sexualityism (sexualitism?), implying a belief that one type of sexuality is inherently better; i.e. heterosexuality is better than homosexuality.

Anyways, that's my two cents.

Homosexism (gendered elements)

Worth mentioning--220.238.26.121 08:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it; The term heterosexism refers to a set of societal beliefs that males and females are naturally opposite and complimentary and that therefore heterosexuality is the “natural” or “right” form of sexuality. Central to this concept is an essentialist notion of femininity and masculinity, ascribing specific sets of behaviours as acceptable for males or females. Heterosexism and homophobia are interrelated concepts. Heterosexism does not refer merely to the privileging of heterosexuality over homosexuality, the enforcement of gender roles is truely central to the idea.

Furthermore, I think it is the gender element of the concept that necessitates the "sexism" part of the word, so the "hetero" part is needed to imply the sexuality element? I think it's a great word - no need to change it!!!

Homosexism II

How is it ok to have an article on heterosexim and heteronormativity, and not homosexism or homonormativity ? -- 65.27.246.163 08:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

If that bothers you, feel free to click on the links and write the respective articles. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 03:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It is okay because those terms are not used (do not exist). See victim blaming. Hyacinth 21:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Heterosexism vs. Heterocentrism

Given the definitions given for each of these terms, it seems to me that the example given (of someone assuming that if a woman is going on a date, it must be a date with a man) is clearly an example of heterocentrism rather than heterosexism, so I moved it down to the appropriate place in the article. AdelaMae 17:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

More About Heterosexism vs. Heterocentrism

Since the article states heterosexism should NOT be confused with heterocentrism, why on earth does Hetercentrism point here? Even if the article may be short, heterocentrism and the facts relating to it should be put into a new article. There is no reason to group these two very different words.

There is reason to group heterosexism and heterocentrism, that being *Corsini, Raymond J. The Dictionary of Psychology (1992), ISBN 1583913289.

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 20:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Major overhaul

Given that this article had not explained what heterosexism is ("predisposition"?) and had not provided a typology or sufficient examples, I performed a major overhaul. Moreover, the article had gotten completely sidetracked from what heterosexism actually means. In addition, I added many other wikilinks to ease comprehension and situate the topic in a societal context focusing on discrimination. By consulting the much earlier versions, you will be able to see the subsequent degeneration and major digression.

Please help out with references from what you have come across in your readings, though make sure not to turn this important article into one on heteronormativity or heterocentrism. These concepts deserve their own entries.

Also, if there's anyone out there whose German is spectacular, there's a very interesting comparison of concepts in the German-language counterpart to this article. It would be interesting to incorporate the information from there into the English article, particularly the info from the comparison chart. CJ Withers 04:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I included information from the cited definitions in the introduction. I think we need to be careful how many terms and links we include. Since the difference between heterosexism and other terms such as homophobia may seem subtle we need to consider terms, such as "intolerance", applicability to those terms (we need to make sure those terms are a part of one, the other, or both).

The article on heterocentrism will be appropriate when this article becomes long enough to justify splitting off a closely related if not identical term, as at least one source seems to argue (if this article is not too long and heterocentrism would be a stub it should be in this article).

Hyacinth 21:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

heterosexism linked to essentialism

The linking of heterosexism to essentialism indicates that heterosexism and queer theory to some degree is non-essentialist and therefore more of a sophistic(in the literal definition of the term) rather than platonic theory. Sophistic theories (those of the types used by sophists in ancient Greece) had the nature of stressing rhetorical sophistication over essential content (hence "essential"ism and non-essentialism). Rhetorical sophistication often entails the usage of specially language language structures and terms or what we would refer to as so-called "memetic engineering" today. Thus identifying the language as such is not bias it's just a matter of identifying the type of argumentation used. This is important in discussions of the subject as many people might approach the subject from more of a platonic or essentialist viewpoint and may not be able to properly understand the non-essential or sophistic(in the literal sense) type of argumentation used. 68.254.182.131 16:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)rdjohnson

Lead In sentance

The sentance with the Gail Dines quote is a horrible lead-in sentance as it it currently phrased. It tells about Dines views about heterosexism in culture but has NO description of WHAT heterosexism IS in the first place. It is in no way suitable for a lead in to an encyclopedia article and is WAY more POV than the description that was replaced.Lasalle202 00:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Homosexism a third try

I created this article and it got deleted, rather troubling. I can't help but think there is a bias in suppressing the idea. All things have opposites, so just as there is an article for homosexuality to compiment heterosexuality, there should be an article on homosexism to compliment heterosexism. While obviously the theory has support, that's just because heterosexuality is more predominant and biases of the majority are more apparent. There is most definately homosexism, the belief that people can better understand their own gender/sex and so forth and that they should stick together or whatever. This divisionism does not interfere with the sexes serving different or complimentary roles in society at all. Tyciol 05:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all: It is untrue that 'all things have opposites' (what is the opposite of 'soup', what is the opposite of 'room temperature'?). But on to your point, your article creation will be kept within Wikipedia if you are able to show that it meets Wikipedia guidelines, particularly notability WP:NOTE and verifiability WP:VERIFY. If you are somehow able to find verifiable sources, but cannot prove that your topic meets notability requirements for a seperate article, then there may be places that you can include the topic within an article that meets the notability requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Chadjanicek added a neutrality template on 17 Oct, 2007. I invited that editor to open a discussion on this talk page. Since he or she hasn't done that yet, I'm doing it. Since no specifics were given—just vague allegations of "one straw-man after another"—I'm inclined to think the template should be removed. I see no NPOV problems with the article. Anyone disagree? If so, please explain. Rivertorch 04:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to be in much less need of POV review than many on Wikipedia.SDali2008 08:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it has been over a week now, and Chadjanicek still hasn't specified his or her concerns, I have removed the template. Rivertorch 17:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Etymology and usage

I deleted the dubious comment in this section. For several months, it remained unsupported and lacked references. CJ Withers 22:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusion of ideas

I removed changes made by User:75.82.92.244 for several reasons:

1. Fear or hatred of (as well as any antipathy toward) LGBT people or gay men specifically is called "homophobia", not "heterosexism".
2. "Ideological systems", i.e. ideologies, do not "deny, denigrate, and stigmatize": people do and it's called "prejudice" and "discrimination".
3. "Non-heterosexual" is a heterosexist term in itself. The lack of "gay", "lesbian", and "bisexual" here constitutes erasure.
4. The terms "heterosexual", "homosexual", "gay", "lesbian", and "bisexual" as well as their corresponding Wikipedia articles are key to the intro of this article.

It would be interesting for someone to develop the ideas related to denying, denigrating, and stigmatizing in order to add them to the Effects of heterosexism section. CJ Withers (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Reproduction, recruitment, and orange juice pushers

Regarding the otherwise valuable edit by CJ Withers today: the inclusion of Anita Bryant here strikes me as unfortunate. Although Bryant did speak those words, it seems doubtful (and, more to the point in terms of encyclopedia-worthiness, it's not verified) that she originated the concept. Besides, even if she was responsible for the concept, it has mushroomed way beyond her to become a part of the core dogma of innumerable activists working to impose an anti-civil-rights agenda. In this way, it understates the significance of the concept by seeming to limit it to Bryant while simulateously exaggerating the importance of someone who had a brief moment of notoriety and is now irrelevant and largely forgotten. I'd like to revert this paragraph but would prefer consensus first. Anyone? Rivertorch (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm very glad you brought up the topic of Ms. Bryant.

Please note that there's no mention of her originating the belief in the sentence; therefore, there is no need to delete that sentence, nor a paragraph. It is a well-known, if not the best known, spoken example of the belief, hence its inclusion. It also shows that the belief can be(come), with Ms. Bryant's will or not, the slogan or soundbite of a campaign against equal rights for LGBT people. The first paragraph in that section makes it clear that many people share the belief and the other example beliefs. Moreover, the sentences includes nothing more than her name, the name of the campaign and the quote. If readers want more information, they can consult the linked articles.

I will concede, however, that Ms. Bryant's 15 minutes were up long ago, but we must acknowledge as well that her statement resumes the belief well. In fact, if you compare earlier versions in which I hadn't thought of Ms. Bryant, you will see that her statement practically lines up to the common belief regarding recruiting. Once her words came to mind, I truly did not want to include her for her notoriety as the punching bag of many knee-jerk "fascist" finders and "homophobe" hunters. My final decision to include Ms. Bryant, the quote, and her campaign first hinged on the fact that many people, particularly those under 35, most likely do not know about such a campaign whose goal was to pass heterosexist laws. Next I thought of how such an obvious example of heterosexism could be forgotten. When I realized that her words were a real-life public example, I hesitated no more to include the quote.

Thank you for the compliment although I think the greatest value would be to exhaust the topic and find a better way to retain the Bryant info. Some re-writing may be needed but removing the example obliterates a bit of modern history in its very context. CJ Withers (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I realize it's not explicitly stated that Bryant invented the concept, but consider the context of the section, "Heterosexism as a set of beliefs and attitudes". It has an introductory paragraph, then a list of five items, all of which (appropriately, given the section's title) are beliefs and attitudes except one, which is a 30-year-old statement representing a belief and attitude. The implication, I fear, is that Bryant is responsible for the underlying belief and attitude. In any case, I'm not up to a thorough rewrite this morning. Let's see if anyone else would care to comment. Rivertorch (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The text has since been reworked. --CJ Withers (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Major reworking of new material

Just did a big clean-up of newer material, most of which is essential and a bit of which was contradictory, incorrect or redundant.

Also, the current second paragraph under the "effects" heading doesn't make any sense. Not only did it contain the error of "fear of being heterosexual", it also resembles a plug for the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. Take for example the first sentence:

"The fear of being homosexual extends past social environments and into the workplace and political realms of our society." The workplace is a social environment and a part of society. Also, the use of "our" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. If there is a succint idea based directly on the topic of heterosexism in this start of a paragraph, it has yet to surface.

If there are any questions, let's discuss them here one point at a time and without tedious reverts. --CJ Withers (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable, Pertinent, and Reputable External Links

I have just recently reverted some deletion-type vandalism by Knulclunk. The erasure by this user and justifying it by labelling reliable, pertinent, reputable, and truthful information as spam is exactly what heterosexism is about: removing the neutral or positive light on LGBT people and making their issues invisible. --CJ Withers (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, this erasure isn't Wikipedia inclusionist editing at all. --CJ Withers (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As many pages have "external links" section, will leave as per talk page. External links to the list of books compiled by GLSEN has no place here, though.--Knulclunk (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And that you'd accuse me of vandalism or heterosexism is pretty hilarious.--Knulclunk (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knulclunk (talk • contribs) 23:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ours?

The quotation in the first paragraph: "our society". Whose? Mine? All of ours, as in humanity's? Srnec (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A worthwhile question but probably unanswerable without referring to the cited source. Do you think this should be reworded to avoid the direct quote? Rivertorch (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Gail Dines's larger society. Since it is a quote, I'm not sure it matters. I read it as "all of humanity's" which would not be inaccurate, right? --Knulclunk (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of "Effects of Heterosexism"

The Effects of Heterosexism is an affront to the Neutral POV standards, since it takes what is essentially a Philosophical POV (that Heterosexuality is superior/healthy and Homosexuality is an Illness or Deviation) and then states as if factual the negative effects of this position in an utterly onesided way.

Basically the whole thing reads more like Propoganda against 'Heterosexists', than as an actual Neutral standard of what Heterosexism is all about, which would be Non-POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer of Cliffracers (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The way you've stated your opinion here is confusing. Are you suggesting we should look for positive effects of heterosexism to mention in the section? That the negative effects should be mentioned in a way as to make them seem potentially positive? It's not clear what you're trying to say. The section in question could use some citations but appears to be factual and free of overt neutrality problems. Rivertorch (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not neutral. I am happy for anyone to go through it, or delete it. forestPIG 18:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Effects" is neutral. "Negative effects" or "Harmful effects" might be construed as non-neutral. In fact, there are "positive" effects listed above already, i.e. privilege be it for some heterosexual people and some closeted LGB people. As for "heterosexists", I've never heard or read such a term, if it exists, and it certainly isn't contained in this article about an -ism, i.e. attitudes, presumptions, and discrimination. Furthermore, the article clearly states that people regardless of their sexual orientaiton can hold hetersexist views. With the reasoning in the unsigned, and odd, comment and other troll-like things, then the articles on racism, sexism, etc. are all one-sided, POV, non-neutral, and targets of any other false accusation. A rather stale ad-hominem, strawman, red herring sandwich! However, as Rivertorch states, the section needs some references (aside from Herek). --CJ Withers (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I may be wasting my time and tilting at windmills here, but I'd like to say for the record something that has been troubling me for a while with regard to several talk pages. It is not constructive to open a discussion by questioning the neutrality of an article unless one is willing to provide specific examples to demonstrate what one is alleging. Each editor is perfectly entitled to his or her opinion, but hurling vague accusations of "propaganda" and "NPOV" do nothing to advance other editors' understanding of one's point, let alone anything to improve the article, and improving the article is the whole point of talk pages. I'm particularly intrigued that in this case someone claiming sysop status apparently doesn't know this and would chime in while providing zero evidence to support his or her allegation. Come on, people. If there is a neutrality problem, be specific and show us how. If you can't do that but still have a strong gut feeling, I guess you could tag the section, and maybe somebody else would step up to the plate. Rivertorch (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I find most of this article remarkably NPOV! Other than the external links, as I had mentioned before, there is little to imply that "heterosexism" here is "bad". The article describes the concept, origination of the term, and lists examples in society. The merits and morality of "adoption bans against same-sex couples" may be up for debate, but the fact exists, and is an example of the larger society limiting the rights of LGBT individuals based on sexual orientation or behavior. This article does not seem to ascribe right or wrong.

The "parallel institutions" line is POV-pushing, however, and has bothered me for some time. I can't seem to rewrite it in an attractive way, so I'm going to yank it out. --Knulclunk (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV - exactly. Such neutrality plus the need to avoid finger-pointing and victim glorification so common in "knee-jerk liberal" discussions of homophobia and heterosexism are what drove me to do the major overhaul. As for the "parallel institutions" text, there are some examples lacking considering it's only the start of an article. For example, what lead up to the PaCS in France was exactly a stopgap measure (with the UK's civil unions as well?, etc.). The passage should be tweaked, not "yanked out", because it's an example of a tiered system akin to Jim Crow Laws' "separate but equal" angle. In reality there is no equality when only some laws apply to certain couples due to their sex or sexual orientation only. Moreover, rarely do civil unions, domestic partnerships, and such grant a (same- or opposite-sex) couple the same rights and privileges as does marriage. However, the comment and attention is invaluable because some may read the passage as, to put it simply, sour grapes. This article definitely needs more contributions in the form of enhancements and not just deletions and specious POV tags. Also, I have to agree with Rivertorch's last comment. I've seen such (sockpuppet) tactics on many a polarizing article. --CJ Withers (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Parallel institutions statement - Let's talk neutrality.

Here is the disputed statement:

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.

There are two potentially POV statements within. One is the perceived suggestion that civil unions and alternative-to-marriage proceedings are used as stopgap measures to prevent granting same-sex couples privileges, protection, respect, and symbolism. The other is these institutions do not grant same-sex couples the privileges, protection, respect, and symbolism that ordinary marriage does.

The first is a misrepresentation of the sentence. "Parallel institutions" are not always stopgap measures, but they certainly can be, and if used to deny same-sex couples all of the things above can be heterosexist. The second would be helped by a citation [that "Parallel institutions" don't have the same respect from people], but is something that is not usually challenged - opponents of same-sex marriage cite respect and symbolic issues. Is there anything I've missed? Дҭї 05:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Great comment, and yes, if someone reads what is not there, they may get false impressions. Obviously we can't control others' misinterpretations. However, I must add that, first, for same-sex couples who do not have the right to marry, civil unions are in no way an "alternative" to marriage. Second, the text clearly states "only"; therefore, any perceived suggestion is erroneous. Lastly, reserving marriage for opposite-sex couples only while providing civil unions and such to all, with the intention of providing a stopgap measure or not, is a clear and proven example of a tiered system under a "separate but equal" angle used also in Jim Crow Laws. The text needs to be tweaked to include more examples, possibly one on France's same-sex marriage trajectory ending in the PACS (civil union). --CJ Withers (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that attacking the concept of "parallel institutions" is helpful here. Instead, let's focus on the denial of equal treatment for same-sex couples. Perhaps two separate points:

• The nonrecognition of same-sex couples as a joint union for legal purposes, such as property rights and health benefits.
• The nonrecognition of same-sex couples as a joint union on par with heterosexual marriage, including the respect and symbolism such a marriage offers.

This will address actual inequities without ascribing values or motives.--Knulclunk (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Parallel" intitutions aren't necessarily parallel. In other words, "actual inequities" may be inherent in any system involving "separate but [supposedly] equal" treatment. Whether this happens by design or by accident seems beside the point for the purposes of this article, as does the question of any "appropriate direction of reform". I had no problem with the original wording, but what Knulclunk proposes above seems reasonable, as well. Rivertorch (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Parallel" as in "not congruous". Anyway, the discussion under the next heading here and the related edits have sorted out any queries. --CJ Withers (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Marriage as discrimination

I inserted "or exclusive recognition of opposite sex couples" into both, as implicit in the passages is an assumption that the appropriate direction of reform is to recognise gay marriage, and not abolish het marriage. forestPIG 21:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. This seems to be stating the same thing twice... How does the previous wording imply anything?--Knulclunk (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It clarifies that the presence of marriage as a het institution is a form of discrimination. Both the absence of gay marriage and the presence of any marriage system at all, are forms of discrimination. forestPIG 01:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have tweaked it to remove the implicit assumption of assimilation (excluding the possibility of deregulation) being the non-discriminatory option. forestPIG 02:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You want to insert language that claims marriage is a discriminatory form of heterosexism? --Knulclunk (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

When involving only heterosexual couples, yes. My edit was to clarify that such discrimination is not only manifested as the absence of gay marriage, but the presence of any marriage model at all - as long as it is discriminatory. Egalitarian marriage models are just as non-discriminatory as no marriage model at all. forestPIG 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I'm not sure about the "on a par with" part, but otherwise I think it's okay. Rivertorch (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And how is marriage discrimination? You haven't really said. --Knulclunk (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

When it only involves certain people. forestPIG 17:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, your point seems like fringe, original research with a whiff of undue weight. It's inclusion with the main aspects of same-sex marriage discrimination confuses a real issue about which there is much heartfelt debate. If you think that a separate and additional point needs to be made about the entire concept of heterosexual marriage being an "open form of discrimination" caused by heterosexim, then add that point separately, but I would encourage strong, mainstream citations.--Knulclunk (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion but not participating. Knulclunk, I don't think you totally understand the point that forestPIG was making. I don't want to speak for anyone, but when I read Egalitarian marriage models are just as non-discriminatory as no marriage model at all what I understand is that discrimination is the combination of the presence of het marriage and the absence of same-sex marriage (I would personally add more to that absence, like all relationships that don't adhere to a long-term heterosexual monogamous model, but that's just me). Thus, citing the "non-recognition" of same-sex marriage as discrimination doesn't address the entire situation, because non-recognition of same-sex marriage isn't discriminatory if we aren't recognizing any marriage at all. -- Irn (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur. In the context of heterosexism manifested as discrimination, it seems clear that legal recognition of opposite-sex unions (i.e., marriage) is discriminatory when identical recognition (identical in every way, including name) is denied to same-sex couples. To put it another way, discrimination would not exist either if same-sex marriage were recognized or if no marriage were recognized. Although a citation would always be helpful, this seems almost self-evident and hardly fringe; it's sort of the logical flip side of the coin. Rivertorch (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In real life, I would agree that this is obvious, but in wiki-land, I'm not so sure we can assume anything. If even the existence of heterosexism is a significant issue, any effects definitely go beyond obvious and into the realm of things that absolutely must be cited. I don't think it would take more than a half hour in the gender studies of the library to find ample evidence of people making this argument. Gimme danger (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But, in real life, the concept of "if we aren't recognizing any marriage at all" seems fanciful in the extreme. Though I'm sure there are examples of obscure societies in history that do not recognize some form of heterosexual marriage, to imply that there may be a world where heterosexual marriage is NOT recognized is indeed fringe.

Minimally the concept must be detached from the very real existence of unequal rights for same sex couples. --Knulclunk (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just reworked and redistributed some text and already present ideas. Added a few more notions. The discussion above and ensuing edits were useful to me and definitely helped improve this article. --CJ Withers (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you add sources along with your edits? Gimme danger (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

On first read this seems to work much better. I agree with Gimme Danger tho, we need mainstream sources that say "marriage is a form of heterosexism when...." --Knulclunk (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh, they don't have to be mainstream per se. Wikipedia itself shouldn't be making the claim, we'll have to attribute it to the source in the text, something like: "Famous human rights scholar Y says..." Then it turns from a relatively contentious opinion to a statement of fact. Gimme danger (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, by all accounts. I'm glad other people interested here. --CJ Withers (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense in this article

The article begins, 'Heterosexism is the presumption that everyone is heterosexual and/or the belief that heterosexual people are naturally superior to homosexual and bisexual people.' This includes two contradictory assertions: that everyone is heterosexual and that heterosexual people are naturally superior to homosexuals and bisexuals. If someone held the first of those two views (and I don't believe that anyone does) then by definition they cannot hold the second view. The 'and' part of this sentence does not make sense. Skoojal (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a grammar issue. The sentence is trying to say Heterosexism includes both people who presume everyone is heterosexual and people who believe homosexuals are inferior.--Knulclunk (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever; it was lousy the way it was (or is, if it hasn't been changed yet). Skoojal (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, presume is the correct word to use. Because it's the presumption that everyone is heterosexual - that is, one assumes heterosexuality until proven otherwise. And this presumption does not contradict the belief that hets are the best; in fact it can often re-inforce it. -- Irn (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's spot on since bigotry never bows to logic in the first place. These kinds of blatant contradictions are not unusual, they are expected of intolerant belief systems. But as I understand it, it more specifically means you go around assuming everyone you meet on the road or read about in history books is straight; also that nobody is really gay or bi, but that heterosexuality is the neutral, natural starting point and gays and bis are just confused or mentally ill or doing it for attention, etc.66.188.125.219 (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I reverted simply because "presumption" and "presume" allow for a broader interpretation than I first suspected.[1] --Knulclunk (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the second sentence of this article

The second sentence reads, 'Heterosexism also encompasses discrimination and prejudice in favor of heterosexual people over gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, and transgender people.' Note the inconsistent mixture of terms: 'heterosexual people' aren't called 'straight', but homosexual people are called 'gay.' If 'heterosexual people' is the correct term for people attracted to the opposite sex, then 'homosexual people' should be the correct term for people attracted to the same sex. Skoojal (talk) 07:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be changed to be consistent, and I'm going to do that. If someone doesn't like my changing 'gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, and transgender people' to 'homosexual', then revert and change 'heterosexual people' to 'straight people' instead. Whatever set of terms are used, the article should use them consistently. Skoojal (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is that "homosexual" often connotes only male homosexuals and excludes bisexual, asexual and transgender people altogether. There are no term that collectively addresses the entire GLBTQQA community except alphabet soup, at least to my knowledge. I would be amiable to changing heterosexual to straight but am concerned about the disconnect between the title of the article and the term straight, which may be confusing to some readers. Any thoughts? --Gimme danger (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The way another editor has just changed the article is acceptable. I'm not sure I need to comment further on this unless there are more changes. Skoojal (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As well as the issue that Gimme danger presented, "Homosexual" is a derogatory term when used outside of clinical contexts - "Heterosexual" is not. "Straight" is also less formal than "gay" or "lesbian", it does not make for an encyclopedic tone. Дҭї 05:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish. Sorry, but that's the only response I can think of to your comments. 'Homosexual' is a neutral term; apparently some people don't like it, but it's not derogatory. 'Gay' and 'straight' are equally informal. Skoojal (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to point out that there is a subtle but important distinction between "homosexual" and "gay", and between "heterosexual" and "straight". They are not by any means pairs of synonyms, coterminous in meaning. Not all heterosexual people are straight, and not all homosexual people are gay.

"Homosexual" is a more or less rigidly bound term that identifies a particular population of people by sexual orientation. People who are sexually oriented to people of their own gender (the complications raised by the existence of trans and intersex people being deliberately ignored for the sake of the argument) are, fairly explicitly, labelled as "homosexual"; people who are sexually oriented to people of the opposite gender are labelled as "heterosexual", and people of variable or mixed sexual orientation are labelled as "bisexual". (I acknowledge that Alfred Kinsey and those who share his views on the matter hold that there is no such thing as a heterosexual or homosexual person, and that there are numerous writers who argue that the very concept of "sexual orientation" is a false one, but these side arguments are not germane to the matter at hand, which is the way the words are actually used.) "Homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" refer to sexual orientations.

On the other hand, words like "gay", "lesbian", and "straight" carry enormous baggage and very strong expectations of cultural identity and role performance. They are very loose terms, and difficult to define; and furthermore, they rest on the unwarranted assumption that, for example, a man who routinely has sex with men necessarily identifies himself with the label "gay" and with the gay community (whatever that is). "Gay", "lesbian", and "straight" refer to cultural identities.

Since in each case the two words refer to significantly different concepts, I feel I must support Skoojal's position: to ensure that apples are being compared to apples and oranges to oranges, not tomatoes to mangoes, the contrast drawn should be either between "heterosexual" and "homosexual", or between "straight" and {"gay", "lesbian", "bi", &c.}. --7Kim (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's focus on clarity here, not erasures via sweeping deletions and casual oversimplification.

1. As for connotations, "homosexual" is an unarguably ambiguous, not neutral, term. Please consult the Wikipedia articles on homosexuality and gay plus the LGBT Portal for further discussion and Wikipedia policies on these lexical items.
2. "Homosexual" is not a true synonym for "LGBT" nor is it a hyponym of any of the following: "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual" or "transgender". Using "homosexual" to mean "LGBT" is a example of synecdoche and constitutes delusive framing.
3. "Non-homosexual" and "not heterosexual" are makeshift umbrella-term litotes for "homosexual" or "LGBT" and the latter abbreviation's various realities. Therefore, they are false substitutes.

My latest edits correct the previous over-editing errors. --CJ Withers (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The way you edited the article, it said, 'Heterosexism also encompasses discrimination and prejudice in favor of heterosexual people over gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people.' Aside from the peculiar and indefensible use of 'heterosexual' instead of 'straight', there is an issue of factual accuracy here. How do you know that 'transgender people' (I assume this means primarily transsexuals) are not or cannot be heterosexual? Skoojal (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In my comments above, I openly glossed over trans and intersex people, and I did that for a reason. Trans and intersex people raise some deep and fundamental questions about what it means to be homosexual or heterosexual; in fact, with regard to many transgender people (only a minority of whom are transsexuals) the concepts of "homosexual", "heterosexual", "gay", "straight", and "lesbian" become nearly unintelligible. Neither this talk page nor this article is an appropriate place to address those issues. --7Kim (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not, because the issue seems to be directly relevant. Skoojal (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is only directly relevant to a page on heterosexism if trans people are assumed to be homosexual; since you and I agree that this assumption is not a valid one, where does the relevance come from? (And since this assumption is found among people of all sexual orientations, it would be more accurately described as cis-sexist, if that were a word, than as heterosexist.) I think it's time for you to step back and consider WP:MASTODONS. --7Kim (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The term 'homosexual', as applied to a person, is not in the least ambiguous. Please remember that Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Skoojal (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The ambiguity that CJ Withers referred to, if I understand the comments correctly, was not an ambiguity of meaning, but an ambiguity of value connotations. In some contexts, "homosexual" is a neutral, clinical term; in others, it has a pejorative connotation (for example, among some more radically political gays and lesbians it is a term of abuse directed at those who conform too much to mainstream cultural norms); in still others, it has positive connotations. Out of context, its value is ambiguous. As for your comment that Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, that means that they should not be cited as sources in articles (I call that the "Wikipedia incest taboo"). Looser standards apply on article talk pages. Referring to information published in other Wikipedia articles is, in my opinion, often valid in discussions on an article talk page, particularly when the information referred to is general in nature and meets a reasonable definition of "common knowledge".

I think the problem here is that we're failing to correctly define terms. When we refer to a dichotomy between "straight" and "gay" (or "heterosexual" and "homosexual", are we referring to a dichotomy of sexual orientations, or a dichotomy of cultural identities? --7Kim (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

what is so wrong with homoseuxal? it is a scientific term. just because some anti-gay people use it doesn't take away from that fact. And using LG B T is kind of rediculous because according to the Kinsey study, most males are bisexual to varying degrees, and there was some study that came out last year that suggested that all women were bisexual (latently at least) also. You're going to run into problems regardless of what labels you use. If you're going to disqualify homosexual because conservatives use it, then the same logic would disqualify LGBT because gay activists use it. -- User0529 (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the original point was whether there was anything "wrong" with the term "homosexual". Skoojal raised the point that setting up a dichotomy between "gay" and "heterosexual" was missing the mark, and that to the extent that any dichotomy should be drawn, it should be between "gay" and "straight" or between "heterosexual" and "homosexual". I support this fully without passing any judgment on any of the terms involved, for the reasons I lay out above. CJ Withers, just above, describes the word "homosexual" as not neutral, which is true. However, that is not saying that its value-judgment is positive or negative; "ambiguous" is the word that was used. Much depends on context. --7Kim (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User0529's point (with me) is moot. If one reads previous versions of the article, you will see that I used "homosexual". "Homosexual" is used where it's semantically correct. Remember, as 7Kim reiterates, ambiguous in connotation does not equal neutrality. For those who remain confused, please re-read the three points I made previously. --CJ Withers (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I just edited both for consistency in terms (Skoojal's concern) and to remove ambiguity. As this article is a part of the LGBT Studies series, please discuss personal issues you may have with fully neutral and unambiguous terms only at WikiProject LGBT studies or on the discussion pages for of the specific terms in question. --CJ Withers (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is whether there is any justification for using an inconsistent mixture of terms - 'heterosexual' for people attracted to the opposite sex, and 'gay' for people attracted to the same sex. No such justification has been offered. I don't care which set of terms are used (heterosexual and homosexual, or gay and straight) so long as it's consistent.Skoojal (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The text of the Heterosexism article is not a place for anti-LGBT linguistic activism, i.e. eliminating "LGBT" where it is correct. Whereas you object to "queer" with or without its negative uses, you embrace "homosexual" while turning a blind eye to its ambiguous status due to negative uses and connotations (medicalization, anti-gay linguistic practice, etc.). How contradictory. Please take your beefs with language change to some forum as this article and the LGBT series template are not a sounding boards for your emotional bias. Removing "LGBT" in this article is erasure and constitutes vandalism. What's more, doing so under the guise of "consistency" removes all good faith. --CJ Withers (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to refer you to WP:MASTODONS, just as I did Skoojal above, and additionally WP:AGF and WP:NPA. In my opinion, accusing another editor being anti-LGBT (i.e., accusing that editor of homophobia) is crossing a very serious line, particularly when you offer no real evidence that the target of your accusation is motivated by opposition to homosexuality or gay culture itself and no such motivation is immediately self-evident in that editor's commentary. Really, is this an issue that merits this level of vitriol? If so, I would have to say that it takes two to tango and any strong emotional investment you may have in the label LGBT is as likely to contribute to the conflict as any other editor's imputed bias.

To offer a constructive outcome, may I suggest another route to resolving the conflict? Rather than arguing over replacing "LGBT" with "homosexual", which does not appear to offer any possible outcome upon which we can form consensus, can we then address the other side of the equation and replace "heterosexual" with "straight"? This would resolve what I see as the valid kernel of Skoojal's objection (preserving clarity and consistency by contrasting a cultural-identity label to a cultural-identity label), and it does so without giving the appearance of indulging in "erasure". --7Kim (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

By reading all of the user's edits as a whole both here and elsewhere and you'll understand my observations. The instigation with editing the LGBT studies series template tipped me off to a pattern. For example, one need not unilaterally change the name of, or worse, DELETE, "Queer Studies" just because one objects to the use of the word "queer" even by an in-group. What's more, there have been other deletions of others' contributions and key notions that have nothing to do with so-called style, NPOV, etc. Please read up because you'll see a pattern.

As for straight vs. heterosexual, that's a great springboard for discussion and thanks! However, I think it wise to start a new section because the issue is not analogous to the above instigation. The words gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender all have different patterns of development from heterosexual (patterns: euphemism, historical, clinical (clipping substitute only), and recent coinage). It probably would be more fruitful to consult any prior discussion on straight vs heterosexual via the article on heterosexuality so as not to waste time here. A civil discussion before repeated unilateral deletions will certainly enrich this article. --CJ Withers (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A simple piece of advice: stick to the subject. You are referring to dead issues, things I've given up on long ago (and also, it seems, to other issues that have nothing to do with this one). It would be so much more sensible to just debate the issue at hand. Skoojal (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A few thoughts, in no particular order. "Homosexual" in its adjectival form is generally accurate when placed in opposition to "heterosexual"; it is descriptive of both males and females but cannot be applied to bisexual people. Technically, the noun "homosexual" is analogous to the noun "heterosexual", but that usage is problematic for at least two reasons: (1) it is rarely applied to homosexual women and (2) it has long been considered offensive or at least inappropriate, and multiple dictionaries and style manuals reflect this. (For one example, see [2] ). So it seems best to avoid using "homosexual" as a noun.

"Straight" is synonymous with "heterosexual". "Non-heterosexual" is completely accurate, if clumsy, and encompasses both homosexual and bisexual people. "LGBT" is commonly used today, both popularly and in formal writing, as a synonym for "non-heterosexual". Its 'T' introduces another factor to the equation which could, in certain contexts, lead to inaccuracy or confusion, but the people represented by every letter within "LGBT" are certainly all directly affected by heterosexism, so it seems a bit odd to object to its usage in this article.

Each of us may have his or her own preferences when it comes to these usage matters, but we're going to have to agree to disagree sometimes and just move on, because we're not going to resolve our differencees here, and there are far more critical matters that need our attention. Can we agree to use one of these pairs—"straight" and "LGBT" or "heterosexual" and "non-heterosexual"—and call it a day? Rivertorch (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Our particular interpretations matter very little. What do we find in the sources that we are using? -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Effects on academia

I'm really surprised these aren't mentioned here. But some clear effects on history and science are:

A.) Historical gay figures, especially notable ones who have made positive contributions to human progress, are assumed to be straight; mention of their orientation and relationships might be actively suppressed if there is evidence that they weren't straight.

B.) Sexual and gender norms in non-Western cultures are assumed to be, and always to have been, the same as in Western cultures, or even to be universal across all human cultures, e.g. in reality, sex and gender diversity was acknowledged in several indigenous American tribes and treated with various levels of tolerance, until colonization and Christianization resulted in most Indians being forced to adopt European Christian values and beliefs. This results in, among other things, indigenous myths and traditions involving sex and gender diversity to be ommitted or poorly understood/represented in anthropological discourse.

C.) Biological science concerning sexual and gender diversity is underrepresented or actively suppressed, considered taboo or automatically assumed to be of a politically charged nature.

D.) The theories of openly gay scholars (Roscoe, Boswell, etc.) are rejected out of hand as it is assumed since they are gay, they must have a pro-gay bias - meanwhile the heterosexuals making these accusations fail to acknowledge that as straight people, they might have a pro-straight or anti-gay bias.66.188.125.219 (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A,C,D are covered in the article under "Implicit or hidden discrimination". B seems tangential to the subject of the article.--Knulclunk (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Topic B. shows how essentialism in society affects the field of biology, which is used to justify heterosexism when it is not the foundation of such beliefs. Therefore, the topic is quite relevant. --CJ Withers (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

People vs. relationships(?)

Let's not get ridiculous now. Certainly, heterosexism is against people, as is racism and sexism, not against same-sex relationships ONLY. Within a heterosexist mindset there is relationship exists. In fact, that's what anti-discrimination laws protect -- people. Moreover, as a presumption, it's about a person and that person's sexual orientation, not a relationship, should there even be one and regardless of whether that person even has or has had sex. Therefore, I'm restoring the "people" part, but your addition to heterosexism against same-sex relationships is definitely valuable, so I'm reworking it into the intro. What's more, I'm sure you can find forms of heterosexism and its effects on same-sex relationships since you came up with the idea. --CJ Withers (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I would argue the heterosexist belief is based on behavior and relationships. Heterosexist actions, based on that belief, affects individuals as discrimination. The article's next sentence addresses your concern and defines discrimination and prejudice in favor of heterosexuals. But, to my point, society's pre-disposition is not toward heterosexual people, but relationships. For example, it is not the person who has bisexual desires who is hated, but the person who acts on them, or acts on them openly. Society cherishes heterosexual "first-love" but shuns or is embarrassed by young homosexual "experimentation". Really, for the straight world (who we are attempting to define here) it is all about the actions. --Knulclunk (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with the last sentence. I think that heterosexism is about both relationships and individuals, and it seems really futile to try to separate the two. On the other hand, that's only my opinion, which isn't exactly what we need for the article. Merriam-Webster defines heterosexism as "discrimination or prejudice by heterosexuals against homosexuals", which suggests (despite its unfortunate use of the noun form) people, not relationships or behavior. The much-published Gregory Herek (see [3] says it's "an ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any nonheterosexual form of behavior, identity, relationship, or community", which supports my sense of its being about both, but then he goes on to say that "homophobia has typically been employed to describe individual antigay attitudes and behaviors whereas heterosexism has referred to societal-level ideologies and patterns of institutionalized oppression of non-heterosexual people", which confuses things further. Knulclunk, you draw a distinction between belief and actions, which may be analogous to the M-W definition's inclusion of both prejudice and discrimination. I don't know if this helps any, but I thought some mainstream definitions might be useful. Rivertorch (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is both who and what are targeted with stress on the who. Herek's (and armchair linguists') riving of the homophobia-heterosexism reality is a reference to the source of anti-LGBT attitudes and discrimination, not the object or target. Now, the article could use a few examples clearly against relationships, not people. Think about anti-miscegenation laws; they come from racism, like heterosexism, which deems a certain social group of people inferior. Clearly, we cannot say that racism is against relationships and not people. Again, since Knulclunk has insisted on this notion of relationships instead of people, I suggest he/she _add_ some examples to the discrimination section or some other appropriate section. As for "hating the sin and not the sinner", it clearly does not sum up heterosexism. If anything, that discourse belongs under the homophobia article under "subtle homophobia" or the like. --CJ Withers (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

eh... the MW is good enough for me. Let's just write the sentence so it is a little less clunky.--192.195.66.58 (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Heteronormativity and Heterosexism

Is there really any meaningful difference? AnonMoos (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the Heteronormativity discussion page, since that article is a mess. --CJ Withers (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead

The change made to the lead earlier today [4] ended up comparing apples and oranges (people and relationships to relationships and orientations), but since the previous wording was awkward, I rewrote it. It's not necessarily ideal but I think it's fairly accurate. There was a similar problem with the photo caption, so I just simplified that. Comments welcome. Rivertorch (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Heterosexuality is not heterosexism

I removed the image of an opposite-sex couple as heterosexuality itself is not heterosexism. Please remember that this article is about heterosexism as discrimination and a set of beliefs. If there is some image that displays such discrimination or the set of beliefs, please add one. To illustrate heterosexism, I suggest a photo of Anita Bryant's "Save the Children" campaign banner or poster because the campaign was based on heterosexism as a set of beliefs and led to heterosexist discrimination.

If anyone's confused, please consult the images used in the articles on racism and on white supremacy. Images of white people are not examples of white supremacy. Images of men are not examples of misogyny. Images of Japanese people are not examples of ethnocentrism or xenophobia against Korean people. And so on.--CJ Withers (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT and Discrimination templates

I've restored these two templates as there was no reason to remove them. The footers are collapsible and appear where they should, i.e. where someone has reached the end of the article and cannot see the earlier templates or does want to scroll all the way to the beginning. If the discrimination one is too long, then contribute by collapsing it or the sections within it, not deleting it. I should add that User0529 has removed the discrimination template from LGBT related articles only despite how all the other non-LGBT discrimination related articles have both the template and footer. Also, there's no need to target LGBT-related articles by removing LGBT references, links, and templates. --CJ Withers (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Discrimination template as it was already represented in the footer to free up space (and likewise moved LGBT to footer). Navigation templates that take up so much space take away space from more interesting and relevent things like photos, illustrations, and other infoboxes. The reason the discrimination template was removed from 2 or 3 LGBT pages and not other discrimination pages was that I chiefly only edit LGBT pages, as that is my interest area. I am not going to revert your reverts, but you should do your homework before making such inflammatory accusations against other editors. --User0529 (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

See also section

I have tagged the See also section with examplefarm. I cleaned it up earlier, but another editor did not like the revision. Some items obviously belong in there but others seem more of a stretch. The see also section looks more like a navbox than a See also. User0529 (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert of characterisation of homophobia

user0529 recently changed "homophobia, whose key meaning is antipathy towards gay men and lesbians. " to "homophobia, whose key meaning is irrational fear of or aversion to gay men and lesbians. " I am not hostile to this definition, but a look over the archives of Talk:Homophobia will show that insistence on the words "irrational" and "fear" not only has produced no consensus but inspired an endless debate that struggles to confine itself to reason and civility.

When some particular point creates such controversy, I would say it is very unwise to simply make edits on that point summarily, without explanation or an invitation to consensus. While I make no such accusation myself, I would warn that there are those who will perceive such a move as pushing POV or editing to an agenda.

For this reason, without any imputation of bad faith or ill-will on User0529's part, I am reverting this edit without prejudice. If User0529, or anyone else, feels strongly enough about the edit to repeat it, and place a note on this talk page giving a reason why the change is necessary or why the new version is better from an encyclopedic perspective, I will have no more to say on the matter. --7Kim (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Key meaning" (singular) is problematic when two different, if potentially related, meanings are mentioned. The fear meaning, while probably still valid, is less common and arguably not the key meaning, so I agree with your changing this back. (As for aversion vs. antipathy, either one is apt.) Rivertorch (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't have a dog in the fight (in fact, I prefer User0529's definition because it's more specific and documentable, but not by enough to make an issue of it). I just feel that if there's a potential of sparking an argument it's best to start it off with reason rather than try to assert reason after the fact.  :) --7Kim (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the "fear of" definition is less key, but felt that "aversion to" was a more neutral of a description than "antipathy toward". (Even though they mean the same thing, antipathy at least to me seems to carry connotations of hate/ill-intent, etc -- maybe that is just me though.) Someone can have a personal aversion to homosexuality or homosexuals without acting out malevolently toward homosexuals. Antipathy seemed a little POV-ish to me, as if we were preaching against homophobia rather than documenting it as encyclopedians--User0529 (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Antipathy neither denotes or connotes "acting out". In fact, "antipathy" is broad and as neutral as it gets. Please do research on words before attributing your POV meanings. --CJ Withers (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I did do my research, thank you. (Re: "Even though they mean the same thing,") They may mean the same thing, but IMHO antipathy conveys more negative connotations (sounding kind of like sociopath) than simple and plain "aversion", at least to simple minded folk like me. The job of the article is not to preach down to people to make homophobia sound naughty, if someone comes to the article with a certain POV they will leave with the same view. Alot of these homophobia, hetersexism, etc etc etc. articles suffer from over-pontificating. Sometimes it's best to just K.I.S.S. ("Keep It Simple, Stupid" -- not calling you stupid, but it is an expression) User0529 (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

lets not be calling anybody stupid and just find a source with a definition. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I made clear I wasn't calling Withers stupid, Red Pen. I didn't come up with the expression, but it conveys a specific writing concept (that sometimes "keep it simple..." is better than longwindedness) If aversion conveys the message why get all fancy with antipathy. User0529 (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I was attempting a joke about not calling people stupid (and it aparently failed - sorry for any misunderstanting) - but I was not joking about getting a definition from a reliable source solving our issue of whether or not antipathy is more or less NPOV than aversion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ah ok... lol (it can be hard to tell when someone is joking online i guess). User0529 (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Heterosexism is "overt or tacit bias against lesbians, gay men or bisexuals based on a belief in the superiority or, sometimes, omnipresence of heterosexuality. Heterosiexism is a broader term than homophobia in that it need not imply the fear and loathing the later term suggests." Completely Queer: The Gay and Lesbian Encylopedia, Steve Hogan and Lee Hudson.

If you guys want to call it antipathy, go ahead... that one line is really the least of this article's problems (can you say weasel words...) For the dummies on the street like me though, "aversion" is easily understood word. Antipathy is just a fancier version. --dropping my contesting of the issue-- User0529 (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Joke, i.e. comic relief, greatly appreciated. "Antipathy" is precise and fitting, not "fancy". We all value precision and appropriateness here, don't we? What's more, "sociopath" and "antipathy" are in no way synonymous. Would the same have been done with "empathy", "sympathy", "pathos" or "pathetic"? Even if such words appeared in some other article? Doubt it. Way too much fundamental attribution error is occurring against the main author of this article and its topic. Plus, lumping the etc.-phobias and heterosexism articles together because of an assumed LGBT-agenda ("preaching") is just another example of bias. While the heterosexism article certainly needs more sources, the others, however, need just about everything else. For example, the tone of the lesbophobia article is whiny or, at best, victim-focused. The homophobia article is rather redundant and needs major work starting with its organization. As for the heteronormativity article, it's a nightmare (just read the "past" paragraph - it sounds more like an exercise in rhetoric). What's interesting, though, is that Heterosexism has been targeted by a few users specifically where the crux of the article is neutral and correct (see previous discussions), yet the articles needing much or urgent work have not been corrected. Odd, no? --CJ Withers (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see that this article is dead on as per the above source. --CJ Withers (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What weasel words?

Can anyone cite the supposed weasel words? --CJ Withers (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• " some may consider faith, dogma, universal truths, appeals to authority, or popular beliefs, but others consider "

was the only example that I saw, but I did not (could not) read any of bullet pionts in the "Heterosexism as discrimination" section. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Great! A start! :-) Now how do you suggest it be fixed without destroying the sentence? --CJ Withers (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged a couple. There were some others that I was tempted to tag, but figured didn't qualify as official "weasel" words. (example: many of the "can...." type sentences) In a theory of heterosexism paper it would be less jarring, but it's awkward having an article basing alot of its content on "can", "might", etc type stuff. User0529 (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, and I see you agree that two potential words do not merit the weasel word tag. I, too, was wondering about the those words: the first one "can" in the intro is not a true weasel word since it is not acting as a hedge; the second word, "may" is from the source. "Jarring"? Sorry you feel that way; maybe you need a break. :-( --CJ Withers (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

maybe jarring wasn't the best choice of words lol... just gets a bit repetitive having an article that seems to be based much upon "can..." type statements. User0529 (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Repetitive? You're definitely confusing this article with some other articles, because this one isn't "based much upon "can..." type statements". --CJ Withers (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC) (note that "some" here is not a weaseal word lol)

"Others" instead of ("homosexuals" | "non-heterosexuals")

My rationale for this replacement is as follows: Heterosexism is not quite like homophobia. Homophobia targets homosexuality as a specific object of opposition; heterosexism grants heterosexuals airs of general superiority and normalises heterosexulism as natural and inevitable, making anything else a deviation from that norm. Anything else is not restricted to homosexuals and bisexuals, nor even to "LGBT" people (incidentally, "LGBT" is a strictly Euro-American concept and therefore focussing on it obscures cross-cultural features of heterosexism), but also to third genders such as hijra and kathoey, and intersexes -- people who cannot be neatly labelled as homosexual or bisexual (or, especially, LGBT).

Incidentally, I wouldn't object to "non-heterosexuals" as an ad hoc or nonce word, at least not in this context. I think that a hyphenated prefix is not sufficient to generate an independent word that can be judged on this score; consider "the pre-Bush era" or "post-Gutenberg biblical literacy". --7Kim (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Rivertorch (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In the situation of "non-heterosexual", an argument comparing "pre-" and "post-" is a false analogy. Plus, the argument falls flat because no one identifies themselves by using the label "non-heterosexual", be they LGBTQ2ⁱ, unaware, closeted, Western, Eastern, Southern, and what have you. --CJ Withers (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal: agree/oppose?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was to not merge -- User529 (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I would simply remove this tag from the article (since there has been no action on it), but one of my pet peeves on Wikipedia is editors rm'ing others tags and comments, pre-judging them as vandalism or trolling. (Note: I looked through the contrib history of editor that added it (AnonMoos) around the time of the edit, to rule out trolling and it appears to be a good-faith tag.
As for me...
Oppose (I am far from a political correctness junkie but the 2 terms clearly have distinct meanings.) User0529 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also Oppose on the same basis as User0529; though I feel that heterosexism may well be described as a fulcrum point between heteronormativity and homophobia, that doesn't make it mergeable with either. --7Kim (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed - the terms are related but different, as one relates to discrimination, one to theory/sociology. forestPIG 22:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, and object, for the record, to removal of tag while matter is actively under discussion. Rivertorch (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons above, esp. those by User0529 but also because, as the main contributor here as yet, I found that the after reading both, the heteronormativity article seems to have been fleshed out using the heterosexism article. These changes can been seen in the history of heteronormativity. The tag should remain until discussion(/voting?) is final. --CJ Withers (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I put the tag back. I was not aware that so many editors wanted to opine on this and assumed that it was the simple matter of removing a tag wrongly added by an editor who failed to discuss. forestPIG^(grunt) 02:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I agree the hetromonativity article is hard to read and sloppy, but it is different. User0529 and ForesticPig are correct here. --Knulclunk (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Intro paragraph

Wow! The current intro paragraph is both succint and encompassing. Plus, it reads well. Thanks everyone. :-) --CJ Withers (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I re-deleted that weird sentence in the intro. Sorry I wasn't logged in. The sentence presumptuous and confusing. It's also really small potatoes for an edit war. If you think it is important, why to do hash out some language here on the talk page? Thanks!--Knulclunk (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Does this article include any support for heterosexism? Or is it basically a piece against the concept? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

At this time the article shows no support for heterosexism. Efforts have been made to neuter the language a much as possible. For example, "Heterosexism is a term that applies to attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships," gives a definition without placing a value on these attitudes.

Essays or research that focuses on "strong gender roles", etc. may be considered WP:original research or WP:synthesis, but it is worth a try. Surely there has been historical or anthropological research that hypothesizes why heterosexuality has been "'encoded into and characteristic of the major social, cultural, and economic institutions of our society,'" right? Would an essay have to use the term "heterosexism" to be applicable? No, but it would have to directly address why there would be a societal preference for opposite-sex sexuality. --Knulclunk (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree: this article does not represent a neutral point of view, and needs to be significantly modified. Ejnogarb (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The addition of corresponding tag would be fine, there are numerous heterophobic and queer places within as if WP is occupied by pride adherents. brandспойт 20:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And let's not forget the lions and tigers and bears. Oh my! Rivertorch (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Straight-acting"

Rather than nothing that this is a vicious hate term used against some gays by other gays, this article baldy states that some gays are 'straight-acting' and therefore cannot count as 'truly' gay and therefore are evil since heterosexuals give them privilege. This is nonsense. Please delete it. 129.120.177.60 (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The article says nothing of the sort. Either you're reading something into the text that isn't there or your browser is possessed. Suggestion: if you were to copy the relevant wording onto the talk page and comment on what it specifically says, we might end up improving the article.Rivertorch (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Heterosexism and religion

I noticed that some gender activists more or less tend to equate heterosexism with monotheistic religion. Perhaps such issues ought to be included in the article. For instance, a Treasury Board employee told the Canadian Human Rights Commission that his union's anti-heterosexism policy creates a hostile, anti-Catholic work environment. [5] ADM (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's not Original Research synthesis, if you have sources which state such an equation clearly then i guess there would be some way to work that info into the article. It would be especially helpful it there were enough sources to present multiple viewpoints for hopefully presenting the equation neutrally. But of course, you knew that. Thanks! ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 12:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Heterosexism and racism

With this edit, Hyper3 has restored and sourced an edit I reverted yesterday. For now, I will leave it to others to decide, but I believe the edit is problematic because:

• it is not supported by the source, which actually tends toward saying the opposite;
• the source is not reliable and Jamie Washington is not a notable figure or expert or even a researcher in any relevant field;
• it makes a claim (in strangely conditional language: "the considerable differences...would not support") that is not verifiable fact but merely opinion;
• it uses weasel words ("Some claim that...");
• it essentially constitutes original research and does not reflect mainstream theory. Rivertorch (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The subject is the intersection of heterosexism and racism: as they are obviously two different things, the section should say both why they are similar and why they are different. I will support any improvements to the section that reflects this. The section already shows this as it goes on to point out that sexuality can be hidden or overt, whilst race (on the whole) is more obvious. If you are in touch with mainstream theory, by all means quote your sources. Hyper3 (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That's all very well, but it would be helpful if you would respond to the specific points I made above, such as the point about your using an unreliable source that doesn't even support the wording you inserted. While we're at it, who the bleep is Irene Monroe? Are you actually suggesting she's a reliable source? This is clearly fringe. The intersection between heterosexism and racism should indeed be addressed in the article, but not using weasel words, synthesis, and unreliable sources. Rivertorch (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not replied, but sought to respond to your critique, adding the Monroe material.

Who else is responding to the thought that "gay is the new black" besides Monroe? If you know, then by all means contribute. Hyper3 (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be at cross purposes. I am objecting to the edits you've made—this one and this one—because they are in violation of various WP policies and guidelines, including WP:V (the verifiability policy), WP:OR (the policy prohibiting original research), WP:RS (the Reliable Source guideline), WP:FRINGE (the Fringe Theories guideline), and WP:WEASEL (the "Avoid weasel words" style guideline). Not wanting to throw wiki-alphabet soup, I attempted to explain some of the problems in plain language earlier in this thread. Here's another one: I think that by cherry-picking phrases, you're misrepresenting the views of Jamie Washington, thus violating WP:BLP. (As I touched on before, Washington isn't an acceptable source anyway because he appears to lack credentials or other evidence of expertise in any field related to the topic of heterosexism.) As for Monroe, she fails to meet the requirements for exceptions to the policy against self-published sources. Please review the applicable rules carefully. If you still don't see what I'm getting at or don't want to address it, I guess it will be necessary to get some more eyes looking at this. Rivertorch (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

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. [6] 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." [7] 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.[8] 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.[9] 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 [10]). 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.[11] 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[[12]] 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." [13] 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. [14] 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 [15] 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.[16] 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." [17] 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.[18] 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 [19] [20]. 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)