Talk:Heterosexism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Cited definitions 2 Material removed 3 Heterosexism 4 Problem para 5 Random musings 6 Homosexism (gendered elements) 6.1 Homosexism II 7 Heterosexism vs. Heterocentrism 7.1 More About Heterosexism vs. Heterocentrism 8 Major overhaul 9 heterosexism linked to essentialism 10 Lead In sentance 11 Homosexism a third try 12 Neutrality 13 Etymology and usage 14 Reproduction, recruitment, and orange juice pushers 15 Confusion of ideas 16 Major reworking of new material 17 Reliable, Pertinent, and Reputable External Links 18 Neutral Language 19 Ours? 20 Neutrality of "Effects of Heterosexism" 21 Parallel institutions statement - Let's talk neutrality.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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!!!

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.^{[neutrality disputed]}

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)

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)

"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)