|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Heterosexism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 6 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
According to the text, this: "The institution of opposite-sex marriage and reserving the right to marry strictly for opposite-sex couples via explicit definitions... is DISCRIMINATORY.
We should not forget that the institution of marriage is a polemic issue. Thus, it is open to discussion. Wikipedia's purpose is to bring accurate and objective facts, not opinions. Classifying "The institution of opposite-sex marriage" as discriminatory is not objective nor accurate. Let's be polite and responsible and avoid biased comments, because Wikipedia is not a forum. Thank you --Commander Aletheia (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- It occurs to me that there are several ways to respond to this post. One would be to point out that there's no such thing as an accurate fact. Another would be to note that you're wrong about Wikipedia's purpose, which includes presenting a range of noteworthy opinions on various topics. And another would be to note that the content you're objecting to is reliably sourced—a detail that doesn't necessarily negate what you've said but certainly would need to be addressed before taking your argument seriously. Yet another would be to ask who you're a sockpuppet of, since instances of brand-new editors quoting policy and getting piped links right on their first try occur with roughly the same frequency as hens' teeth. (AGF is not a suicide pact, but you know that, right?) Here's the way I'll choose to respond:
- That an issue is still polemical in some quarters doesn't mean that it doesn't involve discrimination. Sad to say, many forms of discrimination are demonstrably extant in the world; sadder still, there is no lack of people who choose to continue to defend them. Sometimes such people couch those defenses in neutral-sounding language, but their agenda still shows through. I will concede that the wording here might be tweaked to better differentiate the "institution of opposite-sex marriage" from efforts to prevent non-heterosexual persons from enjoying the advantages that the institution of marriage itself can confer. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Heterosexism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131229154227/http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/prej_defn.html to http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/prej_defn.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131229154227/http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/prej_defn.html to http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/prej_defn.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The use of online editions of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary are hardly an authoritative source and the entire use of the term heterosexism is spurious. The article might be improved by using actual scientific research, either sociological and/or psychological. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talk • contribs)
This article has a very strong liberal bias.