DavidBailey (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
::Perhaps the term could be replaced with "supporters of the gay rights movement". Indeed, "pro-homosexual" suggests actively trying to change other people's sexual orientation - which is not a goal of any gay rights organization. What I think is notable about the idea of a "homosexual agenda" is that it sounds like a secret conspiracy all homosexuals are aware of and are actively working for, but there is no such conspiracy. Gay rights organizations have ''goals''--different goals at that--but individual homosexuals have widely differing views about them. Not all gay people are even interested in working for gay rights. The article could be clarified by explaining that better - perhaps in the intro. --[[User:The Famous Movie Director|Grace]] 02:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
::Perhaps the term could be replaced with "supporters of the gay rights movement". Indeed, "pro-homosexual" suggests actively trying to change other people's sexual orientation - which is not a goal of any gay rights organization. What I think is notable about the idea of a "homosexual agenda" is that it sounds like a secret conspiracy all homosexuals are aware of and are actively working for, but there is no such conspiracy. Gay rights organizations have ''goals''--different goals at that--but individual homosexuals have widely differing views about them. Not all gay people are even interested in working for gay rights. The article could be clarified by explaining that better - perhaps in the intro. --[[User:The Famous Movie Director|Grace]] 02:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::''Gay rights'' is a controversial term. Many people who use the term ''homosexual agenda'' do not feel that any individual's rights are missing, inequal, or that an expansion is justified under current law. All individuals in United States and most democratic republics worldwide are protected from bodily harm and have equal rights to associate with whom they choose, own property, and conduct themselves as they wish in private. Most opponents feel that this is a moral or religious issue, not an issue to be debated in legal, media, or cultural circles. There are some who choose to demonize and to violate current law, but there have always been those who do so, whether the law exists or not, and not just over this issue. Pro-homosexual doesn't mean anyone is trying to convert anyone. It means that someone is for a homosexual perspective on issues. [[User:DavidBailey|DavidBailey]] 02:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:41, 9 June 2006
Archives : Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7
Neutral opening paragraph
Attempt #27 (grin)
Okay. Bhuck has chimed in his readability issues too, and these are valid. I think the current working paragraph is easier to read. Also, in my opinion, using a computer program to determine how valid a sentence or paragraph is not accurate, although probably more objective. Some of the structure is required by the fact that we are straddling the line between the two perspectives as well.
Here is the most recent paragraph with all of the suggested improvements, including some edits to try to improve readability.
- Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the goals of gay and lesbian activists to increase public support for pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture, and refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine marriage and family and shift focus away from traditional morality. Gay rights activists would argue they are removing anti-homosexual bias. The term is considered to be offensive by some, particularly those within the gay rights movement, who consider themselves to be merely advocating equal rights.
Please comment and make suggestions. If its acceptable, we will put it on the article! Thanks. DavidBailey 20:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think a few minor changes would make it more acceptable:
- Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the goals of gay and lesbian activists with regards to increasing public support for pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture. It refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is considered to be offensive by some, particularly those within the gay rights movement, who consider themselves to be merely advocating equal rights and the removal of anti-homosexual bias from society.
- I think this version is slightly more succinct, but I can certainly live with your draft. I realise the linking of "Anti-homosexual" to "Heterosexism" might be problematic for some, but I thought it was less charged than homophobia (and more accurate). It doesn't have to be linked to anything I guess. Martin 21:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think Martin and David's revision is the best we've had so far. It could still be more succinct, eg "to advocate" rather than "with regards to increasing public support for". However, I have no major problems with it. David L Rattigan 21:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh - except for the italics. I still don't understand them! David L Rattigan 21:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, then, this is my suggestion:
- The homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the goals of gay and lesbian activists to increase public support for pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture. It refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is considered to be offensive by some, particularly those within the gay rights movement, who consider themselves to be merely advocating equal rights and the removal of anti-homosexual bias from society.
- I would have pared it down even more for stylistic reasons, but I'm sure someone would have objected that it introduced bias or changed the meaning somehow! David L Rattigan 21:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- That looks like a pretty good compromise; if DavidBailey agrees, and no one else has any objection, let's put it in the article! Martin 21:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- I feel that we need either quotes or italics in the places I have been putting them above, but am willing to concede this point assuming everyone else agrees with this edit. White I think we need to make it as succinct as possible without adding POV wording, I tried adding David Rattigan's recommended edit to replace "to advocate" rather than "with regards to increasing public support for", but we lost some meaning in that I think it is less the goal to introduce pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture, than it is to shift public opinion for them. Therefore, if everyone else is amenable, I am okay with David Rattigan's proposed paragraph. DavidBailey 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- No one seems to have any objections, so I think we can agree that this paragraph is considered a consensus. I will move it to the article page. DavidBailey 23:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think its a good paragraph. I congratulate you all. I am inspired by the great way this was resolved! I earnestly hope that no one feels that great violence was done to their position. --64.178.145.150 03:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
First sentence
Now that unrelated concerns in the previous discussion section have been resolved, I would like to return to the issue of the phrasing of the first sentence. This is certainly an improvement over previous versions, but leaves room for further improvement. The sentence states that the goals of GLBT activists are "to increase public support for pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture." Is it NPOV to refer to equal rights as a "pro-homosexual policy"? I think we need to find a different and more neutral term for this. If we cannot agree on a term (I would prefer "equal rights" or something like that), it might be necessary to include two phrasings, but then we would need to end the sentence there, before going on to media and culture.
Indeed, what is meant by "...media, and culture"? Activists' goals include increasing public support for pro-homosexual media? Does that mean that they want to conduct a subscription drive for the Washington Blade? Exactly which media are pro-homosexual, and how do the activists attempt to achieve the purported goal of increasing public support for these media? Does pro-homosexual culture differ from homosexual culture in general? Maybe we could drop the "pro-" prefix?--Bhuck 09:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have never liked "pro-homosexual, but I also dislike "equal rights". In particular, I think this repeats the previous problem of this term being "offensive". Some folks see the issue as actively promoting a specific set of new (and thus not equal) rights that are "pro-homosexual". Others see the issue as simply and only letting homosexuals do the same things that other do and thus "equal rights" and not "pro" any one group. I have thought about this a lot and do not see any way around the problem. I think your comment about media is fair. Probably the term should be "messages in the media" or something like that. One of the problems with removing the "Pro" from Homosexual is that, to be fair you should also remove the "anti" from it as well, later in the sentence. Because both anti and pro are included in the opening paragraph I believe that this meets the standards for NPOV.--64.178.145.150 13:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not terribly keen on "pro-homosexual", but I can live with it in the absence of a neutral term, which I'm not sure exists! The "anti-homosexual" reference is different, as it makes it clear it is a POV. David L Rattigan 13:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I see both pro and anti as individually POV but presented together they meet the NPOV guidelines. By the way.. good job of archiving. I do not know how to do that, but I think you did a good job of preserving only the most important things now. --64.178.145.150 13:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Does this work?:
- The homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the goals of gay and lesbian activists to increase media messages and public support for policies as well as cultural changes favoring same-sex relationships. It refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is considered to be offensive by some[1], particularly those within the gay rights movement, who consider themselves to be merely advocating equal rights.--64.178.145.150 14:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Frankly, all of this debate has left me feeling that instead of a continual push by those who may forever see an opposing or a NPOV view as under-representative of the gay rights view, that we need to have a moratorium on editing the opening paragraph for a few weeks. We can use the time to flesh out the rest of the article, which has been largely ignored in this discussion. Otherwise, I may start feeling testy about the removal of italics/quotes and heterosexism portions of the article, and honestly, I don't think any of us want to go down that road right now. DavidBailey 01:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that. I've been waiting for this to move forward. (Just because I haven't said anything for a few days doesn't mean I haven't been keeping up.) CovenantD 01:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Frankly, all of this debate has left me feeling that instead of a continual push by those who may forever see an opposing or a NPOV view as under-representative of the gay rights view, that we need to have a moratorium on editing the opening paragraph for a few weeks. We can use the time to flesh out the rest of the article, which has been largely ignored in this discussion. Otherwise, I may start feeling testy about the removal of italics/quotes and heterosexism portions of the article, and honestly, I don't think any of us want to go down that road right now. DavidBailey 01:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Bhuck, I think I was the original author of that tidbit of the text. Originally, I think it read "pro-homosexual policies" only. I added "media and culture" to denote the fact that this is part of the efforts of the activists- not only to influence policy and law, but to influence media and culture as well, such as television, movies, video games, etc. Not that any media in particular is being targeted as being pro-homosexual (although you could certainly argue that some are), but that there are efforts to influence all media and culture. (IE- to change views, perspectives.) And yes, pro-homosexual culture does vary from popular culture in the sense that gays feel they are underrepresented, presented in unflattering ways, etc.
- As far as the "pro" prefix goes, I don't know how else to state it and remain NPOV. From a strictly literal standpoint, it is accurate in that homosexual/gay activitists encourage pro-homosexual attitudes, and not con- or anti-homosexual attitudes. I realize that there is a connotation, but it was the best I could come up with, and still think it's probably the best way to represent it. I realize that most homosexual activists will chafe at the thought and term that what they are doing is "pro-homosexual", but again, it is at least literally true. DavidBailey 00:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The term "pro-homosexual" is not very good. For one thing, it has the connotation of encouraging people to be gay, which fits with the recruitment theory favored by some of the nastier homophobes. I edited around this problem. Al 04:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Al - they're after equality. The term "pro-homosexual" does sound like they are an active group promoting conversion to their cause, which as Al says plays straight into a certain POV groups agenda. Sophia 06:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- The intro paragraph is vastly improved now, I think. I tinkered with a few of the links and reordered a couple of nested prepositional phrases, but my concerns were largely addressed by prior editors. Thank you!--Bhuck 08:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- I reverted the first paragraph to the consensus version. Please float ideas for edits here prior to making them to avoid another prolonged edit war, which helps no one. Thanks. DavidBailey 11:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Arguably, I should have discussed the change here before making it. However, I did explain it afterwards, and I did receive support, so your revert was counterproductive. Let's not be so eager to enforce our gentleman's agreement that we forget why we created it in the first place. Now, if you have any actual objection to my suggested change, please state it here so that we can discuss it. Al 17:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Some anon IP just reverted, claiming I need a consensus. This is nonsense: the responses here establish a consensus. Al 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- No responses established concensus. --72.13.168.149 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Alienus, this was debated for over a week and, although you were on Wikipedia, without your assistance. Then you suddenly show up, make changes, and claim the moral high ground? I don't think so. I don't like the wording either but nobody involved in the discussions could come up with anything better. If you want to make changes, suggest them here first the same way that everybody else did. And stick around for the discussion this time. CovenantD 00:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Dear anon IP - this is an international project so we all sleep at different times! As to the changes - I really object to the term "pro-homosexual" and in my serches on the web have overwhelmingly found the term used by people trying to imply some "take over and corrupt" agenda by those supporting eqaul-rights. Wikipedia must NOT reflect this bias whatever the particular views of some editors, especially as the term "homosexual agenda" itself is more often than not used in the same way. We must report the facts in as neutral a way as possible without using loaded language if at all possible I dislike edit wars as I feel they polarize the debate and common sense often goes out the window so I'm asking the editors who keep reverting to the version that includes this term to really read around the web and get a feel for the very nasty way in which this term is used. Sophia 07:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- As though "homosexual agenda" is any less biased... CovenantD 20:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
We're not responsible for that term, just reporting on it. But if we invoke "pro-homosexual", that's our own fault. Al 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Alienus, Sophia, and Bhuck that "pro-homosexual" is POV and that other language should be used. The POV problem doesn't stem from the literal meaning of the phrase, but from its use in contemporary debate. Fireplace 21:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Keeping the article focused
As I edit the section that has become the psychology section, I begin to think that this paragraph has no place in this article. It seems a broader discussion that would fit better on Gay rights opposition because it really has very little to do with the homosexual agenda. What are your thoughts? DavidBailey 02:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- I just cleaned it up a bit, but I agree that the article might be able to survive without it. Al 04:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- That section doesn't seem to have much at all to do with the topic at hand. I agree that it can go.--Bhuck 08:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Moved the section to Gay rights opposition. DavidBailey 11:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Reference No. 10
It needs to go. Like the above, it belongs in Gay rights opposition because there's nothing in it about a "homosexual agenda." CovenantD 13:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- CovenantD, it gives one of the best discussions about the conflict between homosexual viewpoints and natural law. Although it does not specifically state the term homosexual agenda, I think it is relevant to the discussion within the paragraph. DavidBailey 01:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Remove religious and philosophical section?
The "Religious and philosophical" section just includes cursory statements which aren't clearly connected to the topic of the phrase "the homosexual agenda". Analogous to DavidBailey's comments about the recently-removed Psychology section, I think this section should also be removed. Fireplace 19:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- You are quite right - this article should just be about the term and it's usage. These sections are really about the rights and wrongs of homosexuality in the eyes of various groups which really belong in the main homosexuality article. Sophia 22:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. CovenantD 00:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. These arguments are key to understanding the perspective behind the opposition to the homosexual agenda. DavidBailey 02:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're so out of step with consensus, but you're just going to have to accept this fact. Thank you for understanding. Al 02:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Precision
I would like to see the term "pro-homosexual" removed and replaced with something more meaningful. A term that would explain what exactly these gays and lesbians are trying to achieve (this would also need citations from gay rights groups). Many consider the word to be completely nonsensical. I.e., How can one promote homosexuality if there is no scientific data illustrating one can change sexual orientation? Pro is from the word promote and I feel no need to explain the meaning of homosexual. A greater explanation is needed for "redefine marriage and family", whose family are they trying to redefine, and from what definition. And again the word "traditional morality"... Whose traditional morality? My suggestion for this would be the dominant morality in western socities since the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity. Globeism 00:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't endorse these ideas, nor do I even claim they make sense. Our job is just to report them accurately. Of course, we can also report criticisms accurately, and should do so. Al 01:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps the term could be replaced with "supporters of the gay rights movement". Indeed, "pro-homosexual" suggests actively trying to change other people's sexual orientation - which is not a goal of any gay rights organization. What I think is notable about the idea of a "homosexual agenda" is that it sounds like a secret conspiracy all homosexuals are aware of and are actively working for, but there is no such conspiracy. Gay rights organizations have goals--different goals at that--but individual homosexuals have widely differing views about them. Not all gay people are even interested in working for gay rights. The article could be clarified by explaining that better - perhaps in the intro. --Grace 02:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Gay rights is a controversial term. Many people who use the term homosexual agenda do not feel that any individual's rights are missing, inequal, or that an expansion is justified under current law. All individuals in United States and most democratic republics worldwide are protected from bodily harm and have equal rights to associate with whom they choose, own property, and conduct themselves as they wish in private. Most opponents feel that this is a moral or religious issue, not an issue to be debated in legal, media, or cultural circles. There are some who choose to demonize and to violate current law, but there have always been those who do so, whether the law exists or not, and not just over this issue. Pro-homosexual doesn't mean anyone is trying to convert anyone. It means that someone is for a homosexual perspective on issues. DavidBailey 02:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)