Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality and morality

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 13:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality and morality[edit]

A needless article. All of the information should be moved and often is just duplicated from these articles. This is just an un-needed article with the entitlement of "morals", which by definition is philosophy and religion.

*Causes of sexual orientation

Apollomelos 23:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is needed only if an article on "Heterosexuality and morality" is also needed. But I don't see what use it would be to discuss either matter in such a context. Perhaps we could consider an article on the morality of sexuality instead. I vote "delete" if not ammended as indicated. Haiduc 04:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think that's a little reductive? The fact is that homosexuality is a distinct issue, and there are moral concerns associated with it. Saying "this article is needed only if an article on 'heterosexuality and morality' is also needed" is ridiculous. Should we also have one on "heterophobia," "anti-hetero slogan," "societal attitudes towards heterosexuality," "heterosexuality and religion," "hetero rights?" Though I agree the article is poorly written, especially the "reactions" section which needs some serious editing in the name of neutrality, and personally I don't think it would be missed if it were deleted, but if it were heavily revised instead, it would serve a valid encyclopedic function. Archaist 18:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Improperly nominated. I'm just finishing the submission. No vote. —Mar ka ci 2005-05-8 T 01:59 Z
Delete. Inherently POV. Invites articles with "{anything} and morality"--just random original research. What's next, Lamb and morality? Leather and morality? Oral sex and morality? Science and morality? Ego and morality? Niteowlneils 07:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. Merge it there. I agree with Niteowlneils that it should be renamed. Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Also delete Pie and morality, Bassoons and morality and Jigglypuff and morality if they should ever be created. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. DeweyQ 19:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Exploding Boy 23:06, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Stancel 00:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh sure, someone is apt to type this articlename into a searchbox, not. hydnjo talk 00:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Regarding POV of content: This type of article is not designed to report whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. It is intended to collect what various parties think and say about the subject. It can easily be NPOV in that a variety of viewpoints are covered, and no one in particular is favored by the article. Regarding the need for a "heterosexual foo" for every "homosexual foo": Such parallelism is makes for significant redundancy and a very short "heterosexual foo". It's much more useful, I've found, just to make "sexual orientation foo", and cover all aspects. I should note that we also have Sexual morality, Sexual norm. Causes of sexual orientation is no longer its own article, by the way; I merged it into Sexual orientation. Pies and bassoons are different from sexuality, in that whatever moral implications their use may have, they are not the subject of raging national cultural and political controversies. -- Beland 02:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if you must. Sexual morality and Sexual norm split discussion along a religion/rest-of-society line. It's fine with me if Homosexuality_and_morality is merged with Religion and homosexuality and Societal attitudes towards homosexuality along the same divide. Though if I had my pick of articles to merge and purge, it'd be Anti-gay slogan, which seems a little one-sided. -- Beland 02:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. -Sean Curtin 04:54, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Move information to other articles as appropriate. There is also a case for moving some information to a new article: Homosexuality and ethics, since there have been specific ethical positions consistently used to both condemn and justify homosexuality (natural law theory, divine command theory, and Kantianism on the one hand, and utilitarianism as a good example of the other). I suspect an explanation of this may have been the original intent of the article. -Seth Mahoney 08:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - this article has always been an attractor for POV regarding homosexuality, with its implicit and biased assumption that morality and homosexuality are somehow fundamentally interlinked - we don't have a page for Woman and Morality for example? This VfD is long overdue. Much of the content is repeated elsewhere so a merge would be redundant here, IMHO. --Axon 08:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. --Spinboy 19:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an encyclopedic topic. Morality is not religion. Merge with Societal attitudes towards homosexuality Klonimus 22:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork. There is nothing really here that is already in existing articles on homosexuality. Megan1967 01:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Move to the obvious entries, with appropriate links. Peter Ellis 02:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. POV fork. Jonathunder 13:31, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Delete. POV magnet. Sheldrake 04:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. Nothing wrong with having a decent article on this topic, only this isn't it. -- AlexR 17:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.