LGBTQ+ studies Stub‑class

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Organizations Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

We seem to have a low-grade edit war going on over this terminology. I would propose that we use same-sex marriage. It's the name of the wiki page that deals with the topic, and it's WP:NPOV. "Marriage equality" is a political term that implicitly favors one political position. Even though that's my political position, I think we should strive for neutrality in the encyclopedia. Agathman (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Not only is marriage equality POVish, as you said, but I think it's a bit ambiguous compared to same-sex marriage. FlyingToaster 22:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the term "same sex marriage" is more POVish than "marriage equality." Using the term same sex marriage implies that it is somehow different than heterosexual marriage. We don't say "opposite sex marriage" do we? GLBTQs are seeking equality in marriage, not "same sex marriage." "Marriage equality for same sex couples" is a more accurate description and should be used here. TH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.219.3 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is meant to imply that it is somehow different than heterosexual marriage - namely, the part where it's same-sex. :P FlyingToaster 19:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there's an article titled same-sex marriage (and that term is used widely elsewhere in Wikipedia), you should probably start there to obtain consensus to change it... —EqualRights (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the story of "2M4M" as a slogan was part of a parody video on the internet, used to suggest a worse unintentional double-entendre than "Teabagging." Can anyone clarify? Ai1238 (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're serious. See the ref cited on the page -- [1] from the NOM official site. Agathman (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How established is 2M4M in homosexual parlance? The only mention of it I have seen is in this article. - Schrandit (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All one needs to do is take a look at personal ads. I recall seeing this term as far back as at least a decade ago in the personal ad sections of printed weekly newspapers, along with other short forms such as M4F, F4F, MF4F etc.. Of course now, it is much easier to find online. And as Rachel Maddow suggests in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1MGtULY73Y you could try craigslist or ManHunt to find a 'few' more examples. LittleMatchGirl (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Near as I can tell the National Organization for Marriage has not displayed a irrational fear of homosexuals. Opposition does to homosexual marriage does not translate to homophobia. If there any compelling reason that this categorization should remain on this page? - Schrandit (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it seems you are using your own particular definition of homophobia. My dictionary says homophobia is an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" (my emphasis). Does yours say something different? Since the group exists to try to ensure that the right to marriage is denied to gay men and women, I don't think the categorization is a stretch, especially in view of their tactics. Feel free to try and build a consensus here that they are not advocating discrimination against homosexuals, but let's work from an honest definition of the word. - Outerlimits (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a vast disparity in that generalization. Why doesn't President Obama's page include the aforementioned category? - Schrandit (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he starts spending millions of dollars on disinformation campaigns to oppose marriage rights for gay men and women, I suspect it'll be added soon enough. - Outerlimits (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He ran a billion dollar campaign with the preservation of marriage as one of his platforms. Shouldn't that count? - Schrandit (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come now. How can you expect to be taken seriously if you pretend you really see no difference between the emphasis, vituperativeness, and honesty of the two campaigns. One was started to take away rights from gay people in a state in which they had won them; the other was to attain the presidency. - Outerlimits (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is how you view things, not necessarily how they are. I see an organization and a man who have spent vast sums of money campaigning to preserve traditional marriage. One is labeled homophobic and one is not. - Schrandit (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're free to use your powers of persuasion in an effort to see that Obama is categorized according to your lights. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the obvious nuances of President Obama's generally progay position and the NOM's absolute antigay position, NOM exists solely to promote antigay causes. Wilhelm Marr is categorized under "Antisemitism" because a substantial part of his public life was spent campaigning against Jewish people. Voltaire is not because he was a polymath that simply held the popular unenlightened position of the time. Campagne (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the text at Category:Homophobia says, "This category is for issues relating to homophobia, including organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for being involved in the subject of homophobia. It is not intended for groups or individuals who have made homophobic remarks and related actions but are not considered widely known for their homophobic stances." Opposition to same-sex marriage and other aspects of the gay-rights movement are the raison d'être of the NOM. The opposition to gay marriage was an incidental plank of Obama's platform, and one on which as President he has taken no action to date. The difference seems clear. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Outerlimits. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has any reliable source described the group as homophobic? If so (and if such a cited addition can be added to the article) there might be a justification for adding the category. If not, the category would be a violation of WP:NPOV. We shouldn't make the determination based on whether we think the organization is homophobic (however we choose to define the term); we should base it on what reliable sources say. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia categories are of Wikipedia's creation and reflect the way we organize things here, not necessarily what others say. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that NOM's defenders will reject the San Francisco Chronicle ("What's most striking, what sets these ads apart from most homophobic campaigns of the past, is the palpable tone of desperation. It's a feeling that these groups are, more and more, clutching at straws, scraping bottom, leaning on the most absurd, least tenable arguments imaginable, each one more shrill and desperate than the last in a losing effort to appeal to an ever-shrinking audience of increasingly indifferent, bored homophobes") as unreliable, let's go with the New York Times: "If [the ad] advances any message, it’s mainly that homophobic activism is ever more depopulated and isolated as well as brain-dead." The Bigots' Last Hurrah. - Outerlimits (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SFC Morford is a "satiric liberal commentary columnnist" and the NYT article is an oped. - Schrandit (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have something against columnists and op-eds? The question was whether commentators in reliable sources used the word "homophobia" or if it was something that Wikipedians started applying on their own. The answer is yes: commentators in reliable sources have indeed used the word "homophobia" and applied it to this group's activities, and no, it's not something Wikipedians just made up. - Outerlimits (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how many columnists and op-eds do you think I could find that don't use the word "homophobia"? - Schrandit (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's sort of...irrelevant. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merely not using the term wouldn't say anything. You'd have to find a columnist or op-ed (in a similarly reliable source) explicitly saying that the group or its aims aren't homophobic. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there was a previous argument about whether American Family Association belonged in this category or not, and the eventual consensus was that it did. If they do, then NOM does. That's good enough for me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, Wikipedia:Consensus can change#Consensus can change - Schrandit (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this one doesn't seem to be headed that way. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the homophobia categorization, because the term is thrown around too loosely as a scare tactic.  EJNOGARB  00:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shocker, that there. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 01:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the person who removed it, and I think it should stay like that. Also, my dictionary defines homophobia as unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality, which I don't think applies to this group. -Zeus-^u|c 04:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]