Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators
213,517
edits
Homosexual: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 2:
{{cleanup|'''{{color|red|MOD: This needs a thorough review to identify and mark misconceptions and inaccuracies.}}''' (Not "remove" - they need to be listed for historical context, but they need to be listed as being incorrect information.) The page is also outdated as far as non-USA perspectives are concerned.}}
A
There are multiple words for the trait. "Gay" is gender-neutral in many but not all cultures, but more likely to apply to men. "Lesbian" applies exclusively to women; this is a reference to the Greek isle of Lesbos, where poetess Sappho kept a collection of women with whom she was enamored ("Sapphic relationship" comes from this as well). "Queer" is gender-neutral, and has often been used as a derogatory slur, but is now being reclaimed by the radical queer movement. Then there's "homosexual" itself, but this word can carry negative connotations (not to mention five syllables) and is avoided outside of technical speak; the shortened version, "homo," is mostly used as a slur, as are "faggot" and "dyke."
Line 30:
Today, being homosexual is also about politics. As with [[American Gun Politics|Gun Control]], homosexuality, its legality, its normality and its social acceptability is a [[Single-Issue Wonk]] for a lot of people on both sides of the debate. In modern American politics, for example, it's valid to ask, "Would you vote for [[Barack Obama|an African-American presidential candidate]] just ''because'' he's African-American, regardless of his actual platform," because some people would ''actually answer No'' (or Yes) to that question. A politician's stand on homosexuality can be a similar deal-breaker.
Even better, there are scriptures in various religious texts condemning homosexual acts. This of course raises its own questions: Why are those condemnations there? Is it to encourage reproduction, or does <{{smallcaps|Deity Of Your Choice}}> actually consider it evil? Does the passage of scripture actually mean what you say it does, or is it being taken out of context?<ref>More importantly, who wrote that passage? ''Leviticus'' was written not by God, but by the Orthodox high priests of the day. Most of the Epistles were written not by God, but by St. Paul. And yes, Jesus rebuked the high priests for teaching man-made rules as if they were God's law.</ref> Is it just because, before condoms and penicillin, STDs were much more of a problem and monogamy was the best way to reduce their spread? Some people refuse to ask these questions on principle. Indeed, they tend to focus on anti-gay scriptures while [https://web.archive.org/web/20130809170951/http://ozyandmillie.org/2000/08/14/ozy-and-millie-403/ ignoring those that condemn their own vices], simply using religion as an excuse for pre-existing hatred.
The point is that this is an issue where personal morality, religion and politics all intersect, and if you talk about it openly someone might ask you for a political justification to what you had thought of as a purely-religious opinion (or vice versa). To call it a mess would be an understatement.
Line 40:
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Homosexual]]
[[Category:Useful Notes/Sexuality]]
| |||