Category talk:LGBTQ rights

POV?

I unhatefully claim that the name of this category is inherently POV. Calling them "civil rights" displays a POV alignment with advocates for same sex marriage and other LGBT "rights." It's like calling the Election 2000 article The grave injustice of Bush being handed the presidency by the supreme court. I suggest "LGBT Civil recognition" or "LGBT civil/legal issues" or something that someone opposed to Same-sex marriage will agree with. Non-advocates shouldn't be branded by Wikipedia as being "against civil rights" or this would violate WP:NPOV. MPS 14:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Non LGBT civil rights advocates would be against calling LGBT civil rights rights at all, so they would, by definition, be against LGBT civil rights, as a term. I don't really see an issue there. Further, the LGBT civil rights issues are about civil rights, whether or not a person wants to recognize the issues at stake issues of civil rights or not. That is, the fight is, at least partially, one to get people to recognize that these things are even basic civil rights. Since its a fight over civil rights (initially, like all civil rights movements, a fight to get these issues recognized as civil rights issues at all), I'd say the category name isn't POV. But hey, there's more talk about this. Have a look at the talk page on Category:LGBT rights opposition. -Seth Mahoney 17:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I marked territory over there with my $.02, and I think that's the same argument I am making here. Further talk might as well all be over there. For the record, I am Category:pro-morality. See how POV that sounds? MPS 19:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I object to the term "LGBT civil rights". Civil rights are rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship, especially the freedoms guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments (slavery and due process).

Gay people possess the identical civil rights that all other citizens have. They are not being taken into slavery or being denied their right to vote.

Additionally, none of the subcategories reference civil rights. Lou franklin 00:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Its fine to object, but do you have any constructive suggestions? Does Category:LGBT rights, as suggested below, sound more appropriate? Just saying, "I object to such-and-such" isn't really likely to promote any change. -Seth Mahoney 06:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Better yet would be something like "Gay activism". In most places gay people have the same rights. It is actions that are legislated. Lou franklin 01:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

To be completely accurate, in most places gay people have the same rights in theory, but not so much in practice, and that hasn't always been the case, even within the limited scope of 20th century US history (though its not like gay people are alone in this - very poor people have the same rights in theory as everyone else, but rarely in practice). Anyway, though they overlap, Category: LGBT civil rights and Category: LGBT activism cover different sets of articles. I'd like to see this category name replaced with something that has the same scope as the current category, but is more NPOV. By the way, another category which has had a proposed rename forever that you might be interested in checking out is Category:LGBT rights opposition. There's a lot of discussion on its talk page, but another voice can't hurt. -Seth Mahoney 01:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)