Talk:gay rights

Are they "a concept", or the rights themselves?
I don't like this definition. Are "gay rights" a concept? Surely they're the rights of gay people, and any activism is just to show that those rights are the same as those of straight people. Equinox ◑ 00:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the answer is clear. Quotes, quotes and more quotes.  I'll see about digging up a few; your help would be gratefully appreciated. 75.215.20.120 (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 00:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

RFD discussion: July–August 2016
Lots of things can have rights: men's rights, women's rights, animal rights, fish rights. The translations are also linked in parts, so there's no translation target argument. DTLHS (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The definition could be tweaked a bit, but the specific set of rights typically asserted is distinct. No one debates whether men should have the right to marry women, whether women should have the right to marry men, or whether animals should have the right to marry. bd2412 T 14:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Unsure. Compare gay pride, civil rights. Equinox ◑ 14:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say delete, but it may be considered an abuse of gay rights... DonnanZ (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be an example of microaggression, I think, as is your comment. DCDuring TALK 20:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Having thought about it more, I'm voting keep. Although I am not in favour of the concept and I don't consider it to be a God-given right, only gays do, I realise it's a controversial topic and that gay rights are non-existent in some countries, like Mr. Putin's Russia. It's a combination of social, political and religious issues, I guess. DonnanZ (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Nibiko (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thought about it more. Delete. Equinox ◑ 14:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't know when something crosses over from SoP to idiom, but we seem to think that human right(s), equal rights, animal rights, states' rights, and civil rights and conjugal rights, property rights, and air rights have. I don't know what makes women's rights, voting rights, visitation rights different. All of these and many others are in one or more OneLook dictionary or glossary. DCDuring TALK 13:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Onelook dictionaries have different criteria to us, so it's no surprise that they end up with some different entries to us, too. In fact it's the reason that dictionaries aren't all identical. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought we were trying to be more inclusive than our competitors.
 * Do you think we should entertain RfDs for the various rights entries that we have? What distinguishes them from this case? DCDuring TALK 20:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely a particular thing with a specific and regular meaning, not sum-of-parts.  Agree with DCDuring that "women's rights" should also have an entry.  It just needs someone to write it up.  Not as sure about the other two, as there are many phrases that describe "voting rights" and at least a few alternatives to "visitation rights".  P Aculeius (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Voting rights has at least two definitions, one in corporate law and one parallel to that in gay rights. A few OneLook dictionaries have entries for visitation right(s), as they do for the others. DCDuring TALK 01:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The concept of voting rights in corporate law is still about the ability of individuals to have a voice in the process, even though that voice may be expressed in shares of stock (or a certain kind of stock). bd2412 T 04:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that "voting rights" and "visitation rights" are just two of many collocations of words that are used to express the same thing, as well as the fact that both can be used to describe various types of rights to which the words "voting" or "visitation" could apply, and therefore they seem more like they're the sum of their parts, fully transparent without any subtle or restricted meaning. For instance, "voting rights" could be referred to as "the franchise", "polling rights", "suffrage", "universal manhood suffrage", "universal suffrage", "women's suffrage", etc.  So it's not the chief expression used to refer to this type of thing; and it's not limited to this type of thing.  So it seems very sum-of-parts to me.  "Visitation rights" seems even more so, since any right to visitation would seem to be included in the phrase.


 * When we speak of "gay rights" we don't mean the right to life, to a jury trial, to freedom of speech or religion, even if the people affected are gay. We mean a specific set of rights, or a specific group of related legal questions.  At the same time, we don't alternate "gay rights" with many other phrases that could be used equally well.  Relatively few cases will refer to "homosexual rights" or "LGBT rights"; there's not a distinct "lesbian rights movement".  Here we have a phrase that has, to borrow an astronomical phrase, cleared the field around it.  There are a few other possible terms, but they're not widely used by comparison.  And I think these are strong evidence that it's not simply sum-of-parts.  P Aculeius (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - the definition is not readily deducible from the headword, it could mean a range of things, but doesn't, so I wouldn't consider it sop. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 01:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)