Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Homosexuality. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Screen Actor

I click the link for "Screen Actor" on Dane Cook wikipedia page and it links here. Is that a Joke? Some how i dont feel it should link here

I believe you would be correct. Some child with too much time on their hands deliberately vandalized the article. Happens all the time, really. E. Sn0 =31337= 23:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Biased Research

I don't even understand why we emphasize this research from the 60's: "In my entire experience, I have never interviewed a single male homosexual who had a constructive, loving father. A son who has a loving father who respects him does not become a homosexual." Clearly the issue of "loving father" is biased and represents a subjective point of view. Moreover I just don't think you can trust studies from the super-Christian 60's to provide honest science.

What do you expect from a page that so prominently relies upon the completely and utterly debunked Kinsey studies? --Theadversary 19:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is upon you to show this study is debunked. And who's to say there's no better scientific study that does in fact hold its water? E. Sn0 =31337= 22:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Use your head, what more proof do you need then the fact that he based his "reasearch" on INMATES? Others have already done a far better job of showing Kinsey was a hack than I ever could. Theadversary 16:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

When inmates were removed from the sampling, the numbers didn't change muchKechvsf 23:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well gee, that just leaves the reform school subjects and the people he recruited from homosexual "friendship" networks. No wonder the numbers don't drop much. The man's research has been debunked by everyone who has looked at it objectively. The University of Chicago (not a bastion of conservative activism) in 1990 released a study which proved definitively that Kinsey's sample pool was badly flawed. They noted that he specifically recruited subjects from classes of people likely to have had the desired sexual experiences (e.g., inmates, homosexuals, and reform school youths). Not one study that has been conducted based upon statistical sampling has come even close to Kinsey's numbers for homosexuals. Not one. The most recent one that I'm aware of, the 2002 study by the Center for Disease Control, found the number was 2.3%. A far cry from Kinsey's 10%. Theadversary 04:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

Searching for "JESUS" redirects here. Matt714 04:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to go to the right entry to me, today, anyway. Are you still seeing that? --Rschmertz 02:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Religion

The article does not mention a christian's point of view. The bible clearly states that homosexuals are far from god and possibly beyond salvation. Someone please add this line in the article. Thank you. 134.106.199.30 09:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

They are far from God when they act on their homosexuality. PatPeter 00:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you'd bothered to *read* (not to mention sign your name) you might have noticed the rather large section on "Religion" in the article, or the link to the topic "religion and homosexuality" which quite clearly covers Christian perspectives -- from the liberal and tolerant, to the conservative and fundamentalist. Before you go whining on talk pages about your POV not being represented, remember, this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a religious text. POV's can be presented neutrally (ie. "many christian sects believe homosexuality to be proscribed behavior according to the bible,) without veering into clear POV presentation in the article (ie. "homosexuality is an abomination unto the lord and all homosexuals are wicked."). Dave 15:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Get a new bible. Yours is broken. This article is about homosexuality, not about religious justifications and rationalizations of cruelty to others. Christianity is based on christ, christ taught to have love and compassion for others, not hatred. Atom 12:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was bored and what could be easier to get some attention than by putting up something controversial on the internet. I did not mean it, I'm not even religious. Just delete the whole thing. Sorry again. 134.106.199.2 16:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC) (posting from lib. IP could have changed slightly)

You forgot to mention that Christains point of view isn't the worlds view, that some people think the bible and God are just fairy tales and that having strong hateful and ignorant views based on fairy tales is in itself rediculous. Sure a Christian point of view may have a place in the article, but you speak it as if it is fact, which is rather offensive JayKeaton 10:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Christ died for ALL sins, including homosexuality. Besides, the Old Testament has got its share of suggestive gay relationships. And, 134.106.199.2, it's fine, I'm religious and I disagree with your first statement. See? I forgave you right there. Christ's word. Augustulus 01:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You obviously do not read the Bible that much, or you just do not understand it. Did God ever give an OK to these gay relationships? No. Was not gay practice between individuals or orgies common in the day? Read some Greek or Roman history. Was there any reason fo you to post "the Old Testament has got its share of suggestive gay relationships"? Not really. PatPeter 00:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a controvercial topic, and as such it has two sides. I don't care who you side with, but I think both perspectives need to be recognized equally. This article, in my opinion, is very heavily biased on the pro-homosexual side. There needs to be more balance.Disparager 23:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give equal time to hatred. FCYTravis 23:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Then how is it that you are allowed to have an account here? That was a pretty hateful thing to say. --Theadversary 19:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hatred is not a valid POV. Your ad hominem is a logical fallacy. And please do not format your comments in such a manner as to cause a horizontal scroll. It is detrimental to readability. Thank you.

Your opinion that adversaries of the gay special rights agenda "hate" is just that, opinion. Not everyone who disagrees with a homosexual hates homosexuals. And your hypocrisy is duly noted. Your labeling of a difference of opinion as "hatred" is, indeed, an ad hominem designed to shout down debate. Theadversary 22:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. there is scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic, just like race. Homophobia is no better than racism. E. Sn0 =31337= 22:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you know your little scientific proof?

Alpha) Scientific proof?!? His discoveries were not posted, did he do this all himself because I do not see a mention of a team, I guess you are just following one man's word, here, I will say that gays are not set biologically, let's see how many people agree with me.

Beta) Being gay IS a choice!

Do the gays choose to take part in sexual interaction with one and other?

Do they try to fight it? Change?

Gamma) All the last sentences end with "Bradshaw said" or "Bradshaw sited" this is not scienitfic proof, this is garbage. PatPeter 00:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't seriously believe that drivel. -- Steel 00:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Christian view today is that it is a sin and you should hate gays. But a someone following what Jesus taught would know they are sinning, but they shouldn't hate them. We as Christians should love them, not become gay, but love them as a brother. Accept them, don't accept their lifestyle. You see, that's why people aren't drawn to Christianity in America. We Christians are hating, not loving. -71.224.24.99 02:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

YOU ARE ALL Heretics against the church! Even you who claim to be Christians.

A) The Christian view is NOT to hate gays, we shall love our brothers and sisters who are astray, but we shall not accept them if they are not willing to change, i.e. as an example the church does not allow |practicing gay| parishioners (not gays who practice Christianity but their own acts) to be part of the church.

Is that hatred? NO! Do we allow Satan worhipers into the church? It is that simple. I will be happy to quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Bible.

B) Gays are welcome WITH WARM OUTSTRETCHED ARMS into the church if they do not practice their impure acts.

C) Homosexuality is not a sin, why would the Lord punish His creation for something that they did not bring upon themselves?

D) Check my other comments.

PatPeter 00:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Islam and homosexuality

Tthe sentence concerning homosexuality and Islam is as follows "Islam regards love and desire for beautiful youths (adolescent men or boys) as a natural temptation for all men, sexual relations however as a transgression negatory of the natural role and aim of sexual activity". This statement is not only untrue but also contradicts itself. If such a statement is true then same sex relationships would have been regulated the same way heterosexual relationships are regulated through marriage. I would like the author(s) to cite one reference that states that such a feeling is regarded as normal in Islam. The reference quoted in the article only deals with the second half of the sentence.--Waashwal 19:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, let me point out that the sentence does not contradict itself; it is not logically very different, I think, from the policy of the Catholic church, which recognizes homosexuality as a condition, but bans homosexual acts. But to the matter at hand... I agree with you that the first half of the sentence seems unsupported by the citation (though I didn't get through the whole article -- it's difficult to read). Furthermore, as Islam is not a monolithic religion like Catholicism, one has to be careful with general statements of Islamic doctrine. Someone may be able to dig up a writing by an Islamic scholar or two that supports the notion that desire for beautiful boys is natural, but without a sense of how well accepted such ideas are in Muslim society at large, they must at least be qualified (e.g. "Some scholars have stated that...").

Firstly, I do think that there is a great difference between recognizing something as a condition and trying but bans the practice; and suggesting that something is normal yet it is prohibited and sinful. I totally agree with you in the second point. And until supporting evidence is provided I think such a statement should removed or labeled as [citation needed]--Waashwal 15:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Incidence of Homosexuality

After reading over this article, (and many other related articles) I still can't seem to get a clear idea of incidence. From what I understand, it is only reported that 1-5% (varying figures across different studies) of the population identifies as homosexual, or has had homosexual thoughts or experiences. However, there are a few things to take into consideration when looking at these relatively low figures:

1.) Incidence versus observation

If these statistics accurately reflected the homosexual population, then how are people getting together in the first place? There would simply be too many non-homosexual people to keep them distanced. As well, we also have to take into consideration the incidence of being closeted versus being open. This would play a large role in hindering how people manage to identify one another. I have also noticed that these figures vary quite much depending on how conservative or liberal the area is, which brings me to...

2.) Social stigmatization

Another important factor to consider is the possible levels of dishonesty in these studies, where people who may very well be classified as homosexual (or simply have homosexual thoughts or experiences) may fear persecution, or have not yet come to terms with themselves due to impeding social standards.

Thoughts? Grendel 10:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue of incidence of homosexuality and bisexuality is a thorny and complicated one. As with any social surveys, these studies are limited by several key factors, in addition to some issues that are specific to the study on human sexuality.

First and foremost, there's an issue of uniformity in defition. It seems trivial at first, but it is a very daunting task to define homosexuality. Are we speaking of thoughts and fantasy alone? Are we speaking of actual actions? If the latter, are we distinguishing between voluntary and situational same-sex sexual contacts? What about one-time flings? Do we count those? To get an accurate picture, one must go about the Kinsey way of using an exhaustive set of interview questions. For the most part, surveys do not have that sort of resources.

Secondly, as all surveys that rely on self-reporting do, these surveys are only as accurate as the targets are willing to be honest. Besides the social pressure and the potential adversities from disclosing one's sexual orientation, we are also dealing with self-identification. Do people who live on the low-down consider themselves as homosexual? Certain cultures do not perceive the penetrative partner in a male-male couple as gay, but do so for the penetrated partner.

Thirdly, homosexual people in the United States (and possible everywhere else) are not uniformly distributed geographically. They tend to be more concentrated in certain cities. This is not to say there aren't any gay people in the rural areas. In fact, there are plenty of us out there (and everywhere). The issue is sampling and sampling errors due to non-uniformity in distribution.

So, taken together, the accuracy of any surveys on the incidence of homosexuality must be evaluated carefully with a sharp eye to the methodology. Even then, the results must be taken as valid only for the criteria that it operated under and generalization to the entire population would be problematic.

Nevertheless, the incidence of homosexuality is not in itself a terribly useful piece of information outside of the academia. Consider that if there are only 2% of the U.S. population who're gay, there'll be still more gay people than there are residents in several states, like Rhode Island and Montanna. If the incidence of homosexuality is used as justification to deny equal rights for gay people, then all one has to do to see the absurdity of that argument is to imagine denying every citizen of Rhode Island that same right and/or protection.

Qifeng 05:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There must be a more accurate way to gather data. With statistics being so hazy, it's difficult for anyone to get an idea of just how incidental homosexuality actually is. All the studies I've looked over so far disagree with one another far too much, and their methods of research are often too questionable to have any credibility. I'm afraid that no matter how much want to gather honest statistics, societal standards will always hinder our ability to collect any real data. 65.6.42.22 18:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the quest to gather data on the incidence of homosexuality is a fruitless cause; when there is no absolute definition of what gay actually is, how can it, or they, be counted? The notion of researchers applying a label to a subject based on the subject's observed sexual behaviour is equally faulty as it relies on the researcher's bias towards what constitutes gay and what doesn't. All that could ever be quantified are those who admittedly self-identify as gay, and, as pointed out, societal standards will affect how forthcoming those surveyed will answer. Because the label and how it is applied is hazy, the statistics regarding it will always be just as hazy. --G2bambino 19:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that its quite simple. Do you identify as homosexual? Its not about acts but rather classification. Technically I am homosexually yet I would answer no, because I do not identify as such. To all extents and purposes this is all that is needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.110.24 (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Homosexuality in ancient Buddhist and Samurai practices?

If there is to be assumptions noted on homosexuality being present in ancient Buddhist and Samurai practices, I think it would be best to cite them. There shouldn't be remarks like that unless you can provide otherwise. SprSynJn 17:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is well-known. See Shudo. -- lazy anonymous

Not so ancient either - the formal tradition only died out in the eighteen hundreds. Haiduc 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And it's exceedingly well documented. Exploding Boy 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well-known? Possibly, depending on where you are. I dont know where you came up with the conclusion "exceedingly well documented" when the main article does not cite sources. The Shudo string that lazy posted does have a source, which is good. Not sure if it is valid or not, will have to look into the book to determine that. SprSynJn 18:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In Japan, it was called "yaoi". It was the relationship between two men, mostly referenced to an older man and a younger man, though it can be meant for both. It was a common practice in the 1800's, looked down upon, but common none the less. --Majinvegeta 17:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church

The following entry should be slightly modified:

"The Roman Catholic Church requires homosexuals to practice chastity in the understanding that homosexual acts are 'intrinsically disordered', and 'contrary to the natural law'. It insists that all are expected to only have heterosexual relations and only in the context of a marriage . . ."

The second sentence should be modified to read:

"It insists that any persons who do not intend to remain celibate should have only lawful sexual relations (that is, intercourse only within the context of marriage) . . ."

Problems with the existing entry:

1) The clumsy writing seems to imply that the Catholic Church insists on compulsory "heterosexual relations". In fact, the Church insists, first, on virginity or celibacy. Chaste (or lawful) intercourse would then be a secondary activity within the proper context of marriage.

As Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in "The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" (1986): "Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life." (Section 12) Note the phrase "as all of us are": even those who are married are called to live chastely.

2) "Heterosexual relations" is too broad because it subsumes many sexual activities not sanctioned by the Church. That is, not all "heterosexual relations" are "chaste" in the eyes of the Church.

It is also worth noting that the Church refers to "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals" only in a heuristic sense -- that is, references in Church documents to "heterosexuals" or "homosexuals" should not be taken to imply that it regards "heterosexuality" or "homosexuality" as spiritually essential or objective conditions. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote in "The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" (1986):

"The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation . . . the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a 'heterosexual' or a 'homosexual' and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God . . ." (Section 16)

It should thus be borne in mind that the Church's spiritual notions of personal identity are historically very different from (and incompatible with) any materialist or quasi-Freudian notions that treat desire (specifically, sexual desire) as the constitutive element of the individual.

(Also, I'm not sure that "Roman" Catholic is correct. The Catholic Church's views on "homosexuality" would presumably apply to Catholics who observe the Byzantine rite as well as those who observe the Roman rite.)

Huh...what about Byzantine rite Catholics? Are they better placed under Catholic or Orthodox as far as this question goes...or do they need their own category? I don't think we can quite say they're "presumably" in line with Rome on this. I know some Byzantine-rite Catholics are part of Axios, so... Also, anon guy, can you source the claim that the church privileges celibacy above lawful married sexuality? I remember that as being the subject of a lot of waffling and debate. Also, do you happen to know the origin of the term "homogenital"? Do you see it in official statements of the church? Also, can you give sources for the Ratzinger quotes, in case we want to incorporate them into the article? DanB DanD 17:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    * * * * *

Hi Dan, sorry for the tardy response.

1) Virginity vs. Chaste Marriage: Augustine: "by divine law continence is preferred to marriage and holy virginity to wedlock" (De Sancta Virginitate, Oxford, 2001, p. 67); "the chastity of continence is better than the chastity of marriage, though both are a good" (De Bono Coniugali, Oxford, 2001, p. 53); "marriage and virginity are two goods, of which the second is the greater" (De Bono Coniugali, p. 55). Council of Trent: "CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema." Link: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/Trent/trentcom.html

2) Ratzinger quotes: "The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" in Origins: Catholic News Service Documentary Service 16, no. 22 (November 13, 1986). Or see the following: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

3) Re "homogenital": I have no idea.

4) Axios, etc.: I was simply pointing to the fact that if "Roman" in "Roman Catholic" is used to indicate a difference in RITE (Roman vs. Byzantine), then the word "Roman" is misleading (and irrelevant). Yes, there is within the Catholic Church a difference between Roman and Byzantine rites. It does not follow, however, that there is a difference in DOCTRINES. Eastern (or "Greek") Catholics hold the same doctrines concerning "homosexuality" as do Western ("Roman") Catholics. Thus, while there is a Catholic teaching about "homosexuality", it does not follow that there is a specifically "Roman" Catholic teaching. As for Axios: that has to do with the personal opinions of Orthodox Christians who self-identify as "gay" -- but it has nothing to do with church doctrine. Similary, once can find a Roman Catholic such as Andrew Sullivan who not only self-identifies as "gay", but who also speaks in favor of gay (or same-sex) marriage. But again, such personal opinions can hardly be confused with church doctrine.

5) Another problem with the entry: "the Roman Catholic Church, requires homosexuals to practice chastity". I would write instead, "the . . . Church, requires those who experience homosexual desires to practice chastity". As the Ratzinger quote above shows, the Church uses the words "heterosexual" and "homosexual" to point to the character of a DESIRE, not to define the nature of a PERSON. Freudians and marketers targeting a demographic may think in terms of "heterosexuals" or "homosexuals", "heterosexual persons" or "homosexual persons" -- the Church, however, does not. As I wrote earlier, "the Church's spiritual notions of personal identity are historically very different from (and incompatible with) any contemporary quasi-Freudian notions that treat desire (specifically, sexual desire) as the constitutive element of the individual." I stress this in order to highlight how Catholic presuppositions about "sexuality" differ markedly from the presupposions implicit in almost every entry on this page.

Regards,

Brothers and Homosexuality

From the Wiki article: "In a study comparing the effects of being raised with older "brothers" and having biological older brothers, published July 26, 2006 in PNAS, Bogaert found that there was a link to homosexuality only if the older brothers were biologically related and even when they were not raised together.[10] "

Bogaert did the follow-up study because of objections that the homosexual connection could just as well be associated with social relationships as with biological effects. His finding that it doesn't affect non-biological brothers overlooks the fact that non-biologically related brothers undoubtedly have an entirely different attitude regarding jealousy, etc. between each other.

Bogaert's 1996 study was strongly criticized. Many pointed out that siblings' behavioral influence on each other, particularly the older male sibling on the younger, is the most probable cause of any statistical showing that younger male siblings were more likely to be homosexual than the average in society.

So Bogaert got grant money to do a follow-up. This time he would study male siblings where the other family siblings are adopted or from families created by re-marriage. His statistics show that in these situations there is no trend towards homosexuality. Therefore, it must be because of the mother's hormones.

Nonsense, again. For all these siblings know who is biologically connected. The emotive reaction to genetic older siblings (on the part of all family members) is bound to be different, as is their behavior towards each other. Not only is there knowledge by family members. Those outside the family know it. And the intimacy of close contact from birth is bound to differ in such situations. In fact, if you take away his biological connection, it would tend to prove the opposite, i.e., that older male siblings' dominant relation and the inner-family dynamic of desire for approval from the biologic parents may have some effect on a homosexual orientation.

Bogaert's study should lead social scientists to compare this situation with numerous studies showing the relationship between first borns and older siblings with younger ones, rather than jumping to biologic conclusions. It would be particularly interesting to see if there are studies in this area (economic success of first-born compared to subsequently born; differences in age; choice of jobs; effect on middle child, etc) involving siblings who are adopted or are re-marriages.

In other words, we are aware of trends regarding 1st, middle, final sibling, etc. regarding different types of economic and social "success." How about comparisons of biological siblings and non-biological siblings in this area? Is there any substantial comparison between the biologically related siblings and those that are not biologically related? If the non-biological siblings don't follow the same pattern as the biologically related ones, that would tend to also disprove Bogaert's argument regarding non-biological brothers

Note also, that all of this is just a wild assumption by someone trying to prove a biological connection (which no one has ever shown) by a sociologic statistic. There is no medical proof. His answer, like that of most psychologists today, is to throw up their hands and declare: "It must be [entirely] biology (including chemistry) because we were so wrong when we declared homosexuality to be a mental disorder."

Eventually, someone will figure out that like the infamous I.Q. tests that once claimed that race determined intelligence, our emotive relations with other is a bundle of many factors including biological randomness, society, and intrafamily relationships.

In full agreeance. Seems to be the general outcome in most psychological debates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.110.24 (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Sexual Identities Template

I added it again, its more insclusive now, and not simply seemingly a redundancy of the sexual orientation box, i think it should be included.. any thoughts? Qrc2006 00:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As the person who removed it a couple of times as "not ready for prime-time," I can say that I'm pleased with the evolution of this template. It's already led me to a couple of articles I hadn't visited before. CovenantD 01:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think three related templates on the same pages is a bit messy. Is there any way the three can be integrated? DanB†DanD 01:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Albanian virgins

The reference to Albanian virgins seems out of place with the section it's in, and with the article in general. From what I've been able to find about the practice, it has nothing intrinsic to do with homosexuality, let alone with the structure of a homosexual relationship. Has this been brought up before? --Rschmertz 04:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not familiar with it, either, but it doesn't seem pertinent at first glance. I'm inclined to wait a bit for any objections, but if none seem to be forthcoming, it may as well be edited out. Luna Santin 18:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I googled it, and it seems to be mostly a way for women to get out of an arranged marriage by giving up all sex forever. That hardly seems like getting the "rights of a man" since according to what I read her sex life was just as fiercely policed afterward. DanB†DanD 20:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

They reject heterosexuality. Definitely a orientation change there. They reject the dress of women and dress as men. They may drink as men. They may smoke as men. They may own and transfer property as men. It's at least andro and perhaps butch and definitely transgendered and it belongs in this category. They are definitely living a homo life, regardless of what they do with their genitalia or not. Traditional Homosexualities Women Who Became Men Neutralaccounting 17:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

They reject ALL sexuality, homo or hetero - hence the term "Sworn Virgins". The social convention was apparently a response to a chronic shortage of men in Balkan society due to incessant, lethal feuding - it permitted women to renounce all sexual expression and take on the social roles of men, including smoking, drinking, playing certain musical instruments and probably most importantly, pursuing stereotypical male occupations in society such as blacksmith or weapons manufacturer. Although in some cases there may be a transgender proclivity in some who take advantage of this opportunity to switch gender roles in general, it is an asexual societal position: all sexual expression is forsworn, operationally neutering the participants. Doesn't seem to belong in a general article on homosexuality at all. - User QuantumDriel.

Here's the wiki article: Sworn virgin. Seems pretty tangential to homosexuality. DanB†DanD 18:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Erratic Russian Link

At the top of the list of links to WP articles in other languages, I'm seeing a link with text "Pyccknn" (latin approximation, cut me some slack) linking to something that appears to be a category or template re:LGBT or so. I can't find the Wiki markup that creates this link; can anybody help? The regular Russian link to the homosexuality article seems to be in the proper place, doing the correct thing. --Rschmertz 16:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The template LGBT had a link to the Russian category, which in turn made this page (and any other page with that template) have a link to it. I removed it. -Branddobbe 02:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

'Homosexuality' as a Social Construction

The article does not reflect the serious body of work that views homosexuality as a social construct, notably from Foucault. Such views, if valid, provide serious limitations to the use of such terms. 'Homosexuality' as a concept can be viewed as a historico-cultural peculiarity of 19th century attempts to classify types of person and personalities. In other times and cultures such concepts make little sense e.g. the compulsory same sex activity prevalent in the Spartan armed forces or the ritualised male fellatio in Melanesian society. Even in today's society, it's far from clear that terms such as 'homosexual' or 'heterosexual' are at all useful except, perhaps, in making casual generalisations about behaviour or preference.--Nmcmurdo 00:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Gay" and "lesbian" are POV?

Nmcmurdo,

I don't understand your objection to the sentence about the adjective 'homosexual' (you wrote: "Deleted sentence which presumes the ontological status of 'gay' and 'lesbian' - POV"). Is there really such disagreement about the meaning of these words? I confess that I don't understand what ontological means. --Rschmertz 17:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The sentence in question chose to draw a distinction between 'homosexual relations' and 'being' (hence the ontological reference) 'gay' or 'lesbian'. Such a distinction assumes as a premise that nature of being gay or lesbian is not behaviourally defined. This is a common view, but it is one that can be and is contested. I can't define ontological any better than Wikipedia! --Nmcmurdo 18:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm an anonymous wikipedian, but for what it is worth, I support this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.168.167 (talk) 12:48, October 29, 2006

You support what? --Rschmertz 17:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

FOUR different templates???

The page looks kind of crappy and disorganized now with all those different templates and portal graphics jammed up against each other. Are they really all necessary? DanB†DanD 21:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

New article on homosexuality in nature

As a newly registered user I cannot add any part of the article I found (titled "Birds and bees may be gay: museum exhibition") to this one, but maybe someone could check out this link and consider adding a reference to this article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10405795.

The Birds and Bees article cited a scientist: "Geir Soeli, the project leader of the exhibition entitled 'Against Nature,' told Reuters: 'Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them.'"

The article also explores why homosexuality occurs in nature, when it appears to be a genetic dead-end: "Still, it is unclear why homosexuality survives since it seems a genetic dead-end.

Among theories, males can sometimes win greater acceptance in a pack by having homosexual contact. That in turn can help their chances of later mating with females, he said.

And a study of homosexual men in Italy suggested that their mothers and sisters had more offspring. "The same genes that give homosexuality in men could give higher fertility among women," he said."

The "he" in that quote is also Geir Soeli.

Shannon Bullock 02:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

NARTH

Please add http://narth.com/ to the list of external references —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.32.206 (talk • contribs)

No. NARTH is a hate group on par with Focus on the Family, American Family Association, and Family Research Council. Request denied! E. Sn0 =31337= 05:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, anyone who disagrees with the current conventional wisdom is a "hate group"? What a convenient excuse to avoid making this article more accurate and less one-sided than it clearly is. There is not ONE single article or link to a contrary source and/or POV. If this website wasn't run by a bunch of leftists -- if it was truly the neutral site it claims to be -- this entire article would be makred as a violation of NPOV. --Theadversary 18:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How about you do a regex (regular expression, aka find-replace) of gay into african {or interracial in the case of gay marriage} to any homophobic argument, compare the result with old racist claptrap, then try to tell me homophobia isn't hate. Bigotry is not a valid POV. Thank you. E. Sn0 =31337= 22:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your "analysis" is your ridiculously broad definition of "homophobia". NARTH is not "homophobic". Your argument assumes facts not in evidence based upon your own slanted view of the world, which seems to be, "anyone who disagrees with a homosexual is a homophobe." NARTH is a professional organization, does not hate homosexuals, and has a valid point of view. YOU are the hater here who is clearly engaged in a non-neutral attempt at jamming a message you don't like -- straight out of the homosexual special rights activist playbook. Theadversary 15:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"current conventional wisdom" is not what your opinion... narth, focus on the family, and AFA share the viewpoint of a very, very small minority of people at the most... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.136.197 (talk • contribs)

As well it should be. E. Sn0 =31337= 18:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Really? Either of you have some proof to back that up? You'd better check the number of states who have recently enacted statutes and constitutional amendments to prevent gay marriage. Some of those votes have occurred in liberal, pro-gay mecas like California, and some have been by 3 to 1 margins. Theadversary 16:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the link would fit better on the "ex gay" page? Fitz05 20:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it would. E. Sn0 =31337= 20:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Because heave forbid we actually have a neutral page on homosexuality on Wikipedia. Theadversary 16:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody have a reliable source stating that this Narth group is a hate group? Otherwise, I see no reason not to include it. Remember people, we're not supposed to edit based on what we think, but rather on what we can cite properly. --Wildnox (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No they don't, and can't, because it isn't. But don't take my word for it either, check NARTH out for yourself. Theadversary 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that NARTH is focused on curing homosexuality and isn't about homosexuality, I don't believe it belongs in this article. Just my $0.02US... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the way that Theadversary added the link to the article is alright, or at least it would be if he cited his claim that they don't use or condone the older methods. He just put it in the Behaviour modification section, which is what NARTH is based on. Notability compared to other groups may be questionable though. --Wildnox (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I linked to NARTH's website, check the link in the line. Regardless, this entire section needs a rewrite. It is so biased it isn't even funny. It starts out from the position that no "reputable" therapist practices reparative therapy because of the APA's position and then goes on to talk about testicles being wired with a pathetic link to an unsourced opinion piece on the Southern Poverty Law Center's site. I'm going to put together a more balanced article when I get a spare minute that will try to discuss in the same space the basics of reparative therapy epitomized by NARTH, the faith-based ex-gay programs epitomized by Exodus, and the critiques of such programs that already appear here. That should clean up the serious problem with neutrality this section of the article has. Theadversary 04:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no neutrality issue here. NARTH's views are that of a small fringe of bigots who have been discredited and dismissed by the entire mainstream mental health community. Wikipedia is not required to give "equal time" or "undue weight" to such groups, nor does NPOV require that we somehow create "balance" where none actually exists. NARTH says one thing, literally everyone else says something else. We report that, and that's the end of it. FCYTravis 07:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

PROVE that NARTH members are bigots. Your statement is hateful and proves the lack of neutrality here. Theadversary 22:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A neutral non-POV response to putting (or not putting) NARTH on the page is this: What is the empirical validity of NARTH's central claim that homosexuality is not an inborn sexual orientation analogous to left-handedness but a psycho-emotional perversion that can be cured? NARTH's claim is prima facia as reasonable as any other. The question is: Is it empirically true? The answer is no. There is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that homosexuality is a sexual orientation correlating with no known pathology. It may be social and/or biological origin. But all the evidence states that it is neither alterable nor pathological. One may disagree with the consensus. The consensus may be wrong. But objectively that is the scientific consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandlerburr (talk • contribs)

Just to add, I've read reliable scientific studies that show that a gay person's brain is biologically different to a straight person's brain to a much lesser extent than a left-handed person's brain is to a right-handed person's brain, or than a man's brain is to a woman's. In other words we're people just like everyone else, and more physiologically (is this the correct strain of science I'm looking to refer to?) similar than somebody who's simply left-handed instead of right-handed, despite what most bigots would argue. Being a left-handed bisexual, I found this rather helpful and interesting when I read it. Though I don't have a source right now, it shouldn't be too hard to find. Scientific studies also show that sexuality is genetic and hereditary, which proves once again that NARTH is merely close-minded propaganda. Homosexuality is nothing to be "cured" or otherwise altered. Homosexuals can live a perfectly normal, happy life just like anybody else, and the only thing that could possibly stop them from this is relentless bigots who seem to want to make life difficult for anybody different than them. Life is hard enough for somebody of a non-heterosexual orientation, and we don't need "organizations" such as NARTH to present pseudo-psychology in support of bigotry. I'm going to stop myself now before I begin ranting, or ramble anymore than I already have. 4.234.30.224 08:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, scientific study shows that although genetics sometimes seem to have a strong correlation with sexual orientation, there sometimes doesn't seem to be any correlation at all. It is wrong to say sexuality is or isn't genetic. Regardless of how sexual orientation is formed, the overwhelming consensus is that it cannot be changed, but that doesn't mean it's genetic. Herorev 16:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Studies have shown that it is genetic. See the sources quoted in the article. If you have sources that show that it is not genetic, or some other perspective, then add those to the article and cite them. it is not our job to argue whether it is true, or not true, but to document reliable sources. Atom 17:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the American Psychiatric Association removed Homosexuality from their DSM in 1987, because they concluded that homosexuals can live a normal life like anybody else. I have read this in several places, and this just proves that NARTH is furthering pseudo-science that was deemed illogical and non-scientific long ago. 4.234.30.224 08:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Questionable redirects

I was examining the redirects to this page and have picked out some that, in my opinion, are of questionable validity. However, I thought I'd get community consensus. The ones I've picked out are:

Queball
User:Mykenism (NOTE:This was set up by the user, but I don't believe user pages are supposed to redirect to article space, are they?)
Buttfuckery
Talons brain and or penis
Poofter
Steve Wisdom
That way
Yagsinujtay

Anyway, just thought I'd put this out there. - GassyGuy 05:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Poofter used to have it's own, not very good, page. It's British slang similar to faggot. The article said it was also Australian and somewhat more lighthearted than faggot, although I'm not sure of those two. Is there a page on anti-gay pejorative terms in general. If so, it should be mentioned there. I tried doing a quick search but couldn't find one. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Poofter is more lighthearted / less offensive than faggot, I've even heard gay people themselves use it to describe themselves. --cocainekongpow 15:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That doesnt make it less offensive, its about the context. To be honest, I dont think most people will type "faggot" or "buttfuckery" into wikipedia for any other reason than boredom or childish humour. Fitz05 00:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Buttfuckery now redirects to Anal sex. -- Steel 15:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And now it's back here again... -- Steel 00:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And now that I check it, it has been deleted. It makes sense that it would go to Anal sex though JayKeaton 09:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the Falun Gong homophobic

Some editors are having a heated debate on whether the Falun gong is homophobic. The following quotes are from the leader of this group Master Li Hongzhi.

According to Li homosexuality is the leading indicator of the depravity and regression of our society. Gays are more visible than ever and laws have been created to protect their evil life style. In Li’s poem “the World’s Ten Evils,” he states: “homosexuality, licentious desires—dark heart, turning demonic.” [1] Li’s strongest words against gays come from a lecture in Switzerland. Homosexuality was one of the factors that led to the collapse of the Greek civilization, he said. Furthermore, “Homosexuals not only violate the standards that gods set for mankind, but also damage human society’s moral code. In particular, the impression it gives children will turn future societies into something demonic.” [2] Li describes a special kind of suffering for homosexuals. They will be made to undergo a particularly slow and painful annihilation: “That person is annihilated layer after layer at a rate that seems pretty rapid to us, but in fact it’s extremely slow in that time field. Over and over again, one is annihilated in an extremely painful way.” [3]

It would be great if you could come to this page and vote your opinion here. Thanks --Samuel Luo 04:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Going by Li's own words, there is no question whatsoever that they are homophobic to the extreme, with a possible potential for violence. E. Sn0 =31337= ^{Talk to me :D} 04:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Length

This article, although overall a well written entry, is becoming entirely too long. I understand that homosexuality (and sexuality in general) has become quite the issue as of late; I do think that there is a value in short, concise sections whenever possible, or perhaps redirects to new pages. I think we should all come to a consensus on what to cut, keep, and move. I'm more than willing to do this, but want feedback.Trodaikid1983 05:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the section of "Homosexuality and Society" deserves its own page? Fitz05 13:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

While this article can certainly be tightened up a bit it will never be among the shorter ones. Already a great many of the sections are merely abstracts of other articles. But there are some obvious candidates for removal or tightening up.

Physiological differences in homosexual persons - Abstract and move to Biology and sexual orientation
Father-son Relationships and Male Sexual Development - abstract and consolidate into Biology and sexual orientation
Psychology - Much of the Kinsey reports material should be consolidated there,
United States Military - should be moved to Sexual orientation and military service
Polemic - should be tightened up and citations cleaned up

There is also a great deal of work to be done providing proper citations for much valid material that lacks references. I too am willing to help with this. Haiduc 15:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is too long because of RECOMBINATION. For example, "History of homosexuality" was merged into this one, and now where is it?→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 10:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like the three largest sections, Study, Society, History, could be simply split off into seperate articles. --Carterhawk 04:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just been bold, editing and adding content as seemed good to me; but this has added to the length of this unwieldy article. Sorry! :-) For what it's worth, I agree with Carterhawk: Study, Society, and History (everything before the 20th century), plus Art & Literature, would be good sub-articles to split this into. Textorus 07:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition of non-visable header in the edit page

I've added the following tag to the "Edit this page" window:

Before you edit this page please keep in mind that this page is being watched and that vandalism will be quickly removed and tracked.

Although I understand editing is limited to registered, established users, the tag still may help. Also, I am adding this article to my watch list. I will revert blatent vandalism, but will refrain from edits until discussion is commenced. Thanks for everyone's help! Trodaikid1983 02:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Treatment of Homosexuality

I'm sick of wrestling with religious zealots over the "Behavior Modification" section in the article, I've edited the article and believe that the most NPOV way I can describe FMI is "vehemently anti-gay", it should also make the right wing POV more difficult to gain traction now that I've mentioned that the American Psychiatric Association removed Homosexuality from their DSM in 1987, leaving such supposed "treatment" to nutjob firebrand preachers with some jump cables and a car battery. (sarcasm)Izanbardprince 01:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

CovenantD, what information do you have to justify deleting that sentence. How has Paul Cameron been discredited? This I'm wondering on a personal as well as an editorial level. ---Imgi12—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Imgi12 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Read Paul Cameron (researcher). That recounts how he's been denounced by his peers, the flaws in his methodology and the selective and biased use of his "work" to promote a POV. CovenantD 07:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I see, I willingly rescind my position on posting his research. Thank you. ---Imgi12

I wish more people think as you do. Some people get angry and pursue vendettas when told their position on something is wrong. Your open-mindedness is a breath of fresh air! 22:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Homosexual Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

Hi There,

Just thought it might be possible to mention HOCD at some point. For those of you who aren't aware, HOCD is a form of OCD where the suufferer, while being straight, has obsessive thoughts about being gay that cannot be resolved. This happens to both men and women, and even to some gay people (they have fears that they're actually straight!). A full defintion can be found here: [4]. If you google HOCD you can find a number of references to it in a number of places.

I think a brief mention at some point would be helpful to anyone suffering from HOCD. There is no article about HOCD on Wikipedia yet, but I'm thinking of writing one soon.

When I get around to it, I'm going to try to write an article on HOCD as well.

This condition is very complicated, stressful and susceptible to doubt (speaking from experience). The worst thing for me right now would be for someone to reply saying 'sounds like you're gay' or encouraging me to come out of the closet! Please read [5] for a gay person's perspective on HOCD.

Thanks.

Ok first of all, WTF?!?!? It sound like another thing that makes people think that there is somthing wrong with them for being gay. I say that this HOCD is somthing that people made up.--Dil 20:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK .... did you even read my last paragraph? Did you even bother to read the articles?? This post has only been up for 45 seconds. Please be a little open-minded. I have gay friends and am an open-minded, progressive, type with no prejudices against gays at all. Please think and research before you speak, especially when someone has implored you to do so from concerns for their own health. Please read the article by the gay guy which should give you a helpful perspective on HOCD.--Anon

I don't think something like that really belongs in the homosexuality article, plainly because calling it OCD is misleading. Many homosexuals go through times were they may doubt themselves, and heterosexuals obviously do to. OCD, by definition, is the process of repeating specific things in a routine, which the sufferer feels is necessary to live day by day. Creation of another artcile would be fine, but I don't believe it should be in this artcile. Also, please sign your discussion entries. Thanks! Trodaikid1983 20:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I looked at the articles that you posted and I stand by what I said.--Dil 21:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I first came across it on the Wikipedia OCD page - it is actually a form of OCD. The articles I cited above and a bit of googling will show you that it wasn't 'invented' by the people at the brainphysics site. I'm not suggesting a major section, just a brief mention and a link once the page is up. I have been in contact with a number of people suffering from this and it is a real problem. I can see that there will be a barrier getting a mention to it on this page and realise that some of you may have a perspective/fears that will make the acceptance of its existence somehow threatening, but the human mind finds a lot of ways to mess with good people and this is one of them.60.241.11.74 21:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it is a recognized form of OCD. I don't see why it has any place here though. It is a form of OCD, and being Homosexual has nothing to do with OCD, or any other mental disease. As is pointed out here, and in the articles, it is when someone who is not homosexual has a compulsive concern that they may be gay, or be perceived as gay. This article is about homosexuality, not about people who have a disorder because they are afraid they might be homosexual. Atom 22:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. People with OCD obsess about lots of different stuff, and it makes no sense to mention on hundreds of articles that some people with OCD obsess about the topic. For example, it would be out of place to mention in the natural disasters article that some people with OCD obsess about natural disasters. Same for death, suicide, germs, etc. Herorev 01:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

About religious zealots attempting to delete the truth

Despite your delirious notions that homosexuality is a "disease" to be "cured", the fact of the matter is that it isn't and it can't be, the more scientific studies are done on the subject, the more your lies disintegrate when exposed to the daylight.

Anyway, if you could please not resort to your usual behavior towards the truth, which is usually trying to delete it when it doesn't serve your purpose, I would appreciate it.

Anyway, the reason I reverted CC80's edit is because this is a section devoted towards "Behavior modification", I really don't see how it's "unbalanced", it mentions the techniques that have been tried (and failed) to "cure" a "disease" that doesn't exist, and I cited it properly with respected organizations, such as the APA.

Thank you, good night, and may the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless you all.

Izanbardprince 09:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Shock Therapy

Despite YOUR claims to cite everything you write, you never did cite a book, website, documentary or other proving that some reperative ministries use shock therapy to men's testicles. Could it be that you don't have any such documentation?Imgi12 15:15, 13 December 2006

Actually he did cite it. Here is a direct quote from one of the citations he provided in his edits(with linkage) "In the not-so-distant past, gays and lesbians were routinely subjected to "reparative therapy" that included barbarous "aversion techniques" designed to "cure" them of homosexuality. Gay men were shown pictures of naked men and then administered electric shocks through electrodes attached to their testicles, or made to ingest drugs that made them vomit.". I don't understand why two editors now have failed to check the sources provided. --Wildnox 22:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because the link itself is not sourced. It is an OPINION piece on the Southern Poverty Law Center's web site. It has absolutely NO links or cites to sources of when, where, why, who, etc. practiced such "treatments". In short, the link does not verify anything. Theadversary 22:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Granted

O.K. so he did cite it, it still isn't worded properly. His citation says "In the not so distant PAST". The article makes it sound like this is something that is ongoing.

Imgi12 01:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I reworded with "has in the past included".--Wildnox (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

About a pro-homosexual group

Izanbardprince deleted my reference to the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance as a pro-homosexual group claiming that they encourage discussion. This is false. My evidence is here: [[6]]. Number 15 on this list of "hoaxes" is reparative therapy, a type of behaviour modification. The personal note by the author of this page [[7]] also proves this group's bias. His note is found near the bottom of the page. I believe this to be sufficient evidence to identify them in the article as the pro-homosexual group that they are.

Imgi12 19:28 14, December 2006

So you think somebody who is neutral would have to support behaviour modifcation? You know, anybody can have a mixture of opinions, some for, some against, so two statements don't mean much. The arguement is moot anyway since you've used your own interpretation and synthesis to come to that conclusion with your evidence. --Wildnox (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you can cite a reliable source stating that they are pro-homosexual, that would be different and I would support the addition of "pro-homosexual". --Wildnox (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because the group "suspects [reparative therapy] to be a hoax (or a partial hoax)" doesn't mean they're pro-homosexual, anymore than suspecting Satanic Ritual Abuse is a hoax means they're pro-satanists. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I read the links you provided, including the "personal note". I don't think I'm seeing your point Imgi12. The personal note is mostly attacking all "experimental therapies" including for example recovered-memory therapy. The author is merely stating that studies should be done to show evidence that the therapies actually are effective. This does not make the author pro-gay (whatever that means) anymore than an average person. Wjhonson 03:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Very Well

Very well. The consensus is obviously against my position. I concede.

Imgi12 04:42 ,15 December 2006

External link to Gay Movie History

I would like to suggest an external link to the [gay movie history] section of the [About Gay Movies site. I think it adds to the information on the topic of homosexuality because the history of homosexuality in movies is sympthomatic for the views on homosexuality through the centuries. Especially during the sensorship years. I have tried to add it in the past but it was always deleted because it is an external link. Please advise. 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Community ban of the Joan of Arc vandal

This article has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal. This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person.

A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned. This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts. Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. Durova^Charge! 17:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Military cleanup?

Looking over the military section, some changes occurred to me and I wanted to run them by others before making them:

The very first "section" is just a link to the Eur. Court of Human Rights ruling - can this be put someplace else? Maybe the "In Modern Times" section?
Ditto with the orphan "Nazi Germany" link?
The "United States Military" section is either covered or should be covered in the "[Sexual orientation and military service#United States' history United States History]" section of the "Sexual orientation and military service" article. That article needs to be cleaned up, too, but that's not for discussion here...

With those three changes, the military section will be neatly organized into ancient, past, and present and should be fairly clean. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Big Pile of POV

Could someone please erase the big pile of POV anti-homosexuality rant before contents table. Since it is so obviously POV I don't think it is really encyclopedic to be included in this article or at least in this way at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.241.35 (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2007

I personally can't see what's POV about it. It seems pretty balanced to me. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 03:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything non-NPOV or anti-homosexuality about it either. Aleta 11:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality in India

How come there is no article on Homosexuality in India? India happens to be the second largest populated country in the world. Obviously there would be huge number of homosexuals in India. It would be great if some one can research and add the article under the different countries mentioned. Indian subcontinent countries should fall under the category South Asia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.204.117 (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, From what I know homosexuality might very well be repressed and/or not very outspoken in India. However, I know next to nothing about gays in india and i'm guessing all of this from the fact i've heard somewhere that india is mostly Muslim. (Muslims to me seem to generally dislike Gay's, just like Christians and Hebrews (Jew's, i kinda consider Jew a racial slur so... yea) due to relegious teachings.

Maybe someone else on wikipedia knows..... Nateland 21:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Indian Penal seems to imply that homosexuality is illegal. "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with [life imprisonment], which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine... Penetration is sufficient to constitute [this]." There's more information on the Homosexuality in India article. If there's no link on this page I might add one (done! 20:04).

Indians are mainly (80.5%) Hindus, by the way. -- User:Wozocoxonoy 19:53 10/01/2007 (GMT)

Times misreports that homosexual sheep changed to heterosexual in recent scientific study

Someone may want to incorporate the findings in this article into this page. The findings are pretty significant. VegaDark 05:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What findings? At least that article linked gives no findings and only says what they are trying to do. It doesn't sound like they have any results yet. at most it should get one or two sentences in a current controversies section. Aleta 07:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"By varying the hormone levels, mainly by injecting hormones into the brain, they have had “considerable success” in altering the rams’ sexuality, with some previously gay animals becoming attracted to ewes." - Successfully changing a homosexual sheep to a heterosexual one is huge news. VegaDark 09:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This article was retracted. Futurix 13:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the Times have now admitted to a publishing ill-informed rubbish. Ben Goldacre takes it apart here http://www.badscience.net/?p=347#more-347 --Nmcmurdo 20:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow...after all those glaring errors, can timesonline.co.uk no longer be considered a reliable source? Publishing something like that when it is patently untrue is inexcusable. VegaDark 20:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, that drops them down a few notches in my book... But I had a wonderful laugh reading the BadScience link above :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's great that there are people out there doing sites like BadScience. Journalists frequently trot out utter nonsense on scientific subjects - it's heartening to note that there are people out there ready to bring the publication to shame when they get it so horribly wrong. --Nmcmurdo 20:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This should be a lesson to anyone who uses newspaper articles to back up scientific arguments. Editors just want a story: 'Obscure study of farm animal sexuality yields inconclusive and uninteresting results' won't make the front page. 'Gay sheep made straight' willl. Journalists deliberately twist the facts, or make stuff up, to sell papers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.196.239.189 (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

question

If a guy stop liking guys and start liking girls only are they homosexuality anymore? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shirleybiscuit (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Probably not. Sofeil 05:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, so please refrain from asking questions like this. But while we're on the suject, I don't think "homosexuality" is as simple as deciding to be gay or not. I would consider them bisexual if a change in sexuality ever occurred. --Majinvegeta 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It depends whether you think these terms are useful for describing people. See the comment at [8] for example.--Nmcmurdo 00:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

'Uranism'?

Where does the name 'Uranism' come from? Sofeil 05:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean "Uranian"? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess you have answered my question now. Thank you. I was reading a translation of an essay in German. I guess it's more common to use "Uranian" as a verb in German. Sofeil 09:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As a verb? garik 09:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are "homosexual" and "gay" two separate articles?

I understand the history of both the terms, but don't they mean the same thing at this point? Do they each need their own article? (Asking at Gay as well.) Joie de Vivre 23:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's easy -- take a look at the two articles and you'll see. Gay is about the term itself, and discusses its use not only to describe homosexuality (a fairly scientific term), but ways it has come to be used for other things ("that's so gay"). The Homosexuality article is not about a word (though there is some discussion on it); it is about the condition. Add to that the fact that Homosexuality is overly long, and it's clear to me that extended discussion of the term "gay" is best kept out of the Homosexuality article. --Rschmertz 23:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Is it really necessary to have two separate articles for two words that have the same meaning? I don't think the discussion of the pejorative usage is particularly relevant; it could be pared down. Joie de Vivre 23:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but despite being about the word, not the phenomenon, the Gay article isn't really a dictionary entry. That should be clear from the style of it. I realise that almost any word could be taken from the dictionary and its history traced and explored in an encyclopaedic article like this - that could get silly if taken too far. I think this one's special though. The word's had a particularly interesting history. It's also an almost international word. Compare Okay. I think the section on the pejorative usage is another reason why there should be two articles - 'gay' does not always mean homosexual. garik 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not getting it

Don't know how to do this so here goes:
Why is the revised article not available at location Homosexuality. The Homosexuality article is vague, broad and biased in comparison to the revised article --Ismailova 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

~~I don't understand, can you explain?~~ Joie de Vivre 19:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that you prefer the older version? You are free to implement changes based on individual sections. If you are suggesting major changes, it would be better if you discussed them at the Talk page first. Sometimes changing an article does not improve it, if you think this article lost something, please tell us how it could be improved. Joie de Vivre 17:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Too many boxes

I just removed the "Sexual Orientation" box, as the info in it is generally covered in other boxes on the page. Aleta 00:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Split into separate articles

"Homosexuality" is an unfortunate umbrella-term which refers to both male love and female love. Note: Japanese has no term for "homosexuality," but it does have words for male love and female love.

I think we should split the whole thing into two articles. "Homosexuality" should offer the reader a choice between "male love" and "female love."

These are not the same. Just as one example, the "issue" of "homosexual promiscuity" is a male issue only.

At least, I suggest that we all wake up to the fact that "homosexuality" is just a silly word invented in the 19th century, as something more positive than "sodomy." The pagan cultures preceding Christianity had many more interesting terms for erotic relations between persons of the same sex.

egalitarian, gender-structured, age-structured?

The "egalitarian, gender-structured, age-structured" distinction plays a prominent role in the article. Does it deserve to? I'm not a scholar on this topic, but I've never seen the distinction outside of this article. Is there consensus amongst scholars that this is a defining part of the framework of how we should think about homosexuality? If not, I propose phasing it out. Fireplace 21:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be cited more rigorously. Murray, in his "Homosexualities" (2002) has an extensive discussion of the topic, and presents a lineage of thinking that supports and leads up to his work. Also, you can see another example on the U of Amsterdam website, here. Haiduc 04:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Haiduc. You reverted a change I made to the article on Homosexuality, specifically the removal of the third paragraph which is restated later in the article. I removed it from the introduction because being placed in the introduction gave it—I believed—an undue weight in the article. Given that the anthropological perspective stated is only one of the various ways of talking about homosexuality, it seemed strange to place it in the introduction, particularly as the idea of homosexuality as expressed by these anthropologists is pretty far from normal usage. They suggest three models in societies - one egalitarian, one gender-structured and one age-structured.

In contemporary use, you could argue that each of these three categories could be equally well used about heterosexual relationships (one where partners are equal, one where they are confined to gender roles and one where there are large age differentials between the partners, the latter being normally what we call paedophilia). There is no such passage in the introduction to the wikipedia article on heterosexuality however. I would suggest its presence in this introduction makes it see like homosexuality is an societal construct (which is debatable), that anthropology is the right way to explore it (which is highly debatable) and that it in some way is conflatable with completely different axes of identity - dom/sub, masculine/feminine, age-differential and the like. Particularly with regard to the age-differential aspect, I note that there is no written piece in the heterosexuality article which gestures towards heterosexual paedophilia (by far the more common of the two).

My suggestion was to remove the paragraph from the introduction, where it took on the apparent characteristics of notable truth, and to leave the exact same subject material in the section on anthropological views of homosexual relationships later in the page, where it could be contrasted with other interpretations and categorisations from other discipliens.

Posted by User:Tecoates at User:Haiduc's talk page, moved here for convenience.

I cannot speak for what is in the heterosexuality article, and I do not think that it is tenable to completely equate same-sex relations with opposite-sex relations, from any point of view other than orientation. Functionally, however, and socially, and historically they have clearly occupied different spaces in human experience. As for privileging anthropology, I am not sure what to say. It certainly falls within its domain, much as a discussion about the Rocky Mountains falls within the domain of geography, though it may well be covered also by botany and entomology and archeology and what not. But one has to make an editorial choice, and certainly we should attempt to have as wide a view of same sex relations in the introduction as possible, which is why I opted for that formulation.

To have the article begin with a narrow definition of homosexuality that describes well its construction in the modern West and relegates its other aspects to areas reserved for arcana seems somewhat ethnocentric and to be avoided. And finally, I am afraid that your insertion of the pedophilia red herring is completely off base. We are talking about homosexual behavior here as manifested in history. With few exceptions (Melanesia, perhaps) relations with little children were not the main focus of men's attention. Relations with adolescents, yes, but as you are probably aware, adolescents are welcomed into the gay community today pretty much everywhere, the list of gay youth programs is immeasurable, and as long as they are of legal age it is nobody's business who falls in love with whom. Ours included.

Finally, the partition of homosexual expression into various forms goes back a long way, is not only Murray, or Roscoe, who use it and teach it, and is commonsensical to boot. Haiduc 18:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I make it clear again here that I have no desire here to remove any of the content from the article, merely to put the paragraph on homosexuality as viewed by anthropology in the section on anthropology. As to your comments on homosexuality and heterosexuality being conflated, I repeat that it's pretty clear that there are different cultural ways of structuring heterosexual relationships that are (1) egalitarian (2) defined by different gender roles or age (3) age differential. You could argue that our current western culture is egalitarian, orthodox islamic countries are gender-based and ancient greece was age differential, for example. To single out homosexuality rather than sexuality in general for this kind of analysis emphasises homosexualities non-normativity, and to single out anthropologies contribution seems to be rather ridiculous given the amount of other material on sexual orientation that could inform the article.

I contest the idea that this is somehow ethnocentrically western to declare that homosexuality "refers to sexual interaction and / or romantic attraction between individuals of the same sex" or that "in modern use, the adjective homosexual is used for intimate relationships and/or sexual relations between people of the same sex, who may or may not identify themselves as gay or lesbian". In fact I see absolutely nothing in the first two paragraphs that privileges western attitudes except, perhaps, the concept of homosexuality itself which is—as stated—a fairly modern notion (and the notion being described in the article). That it doesn't touch on the various ways that society has framed homosexual relations through time is a problem with the article, although not with the introduction, any more than saying that an article on women that doesn't start off with a description of the various roles they've had in society is somehow ahistorical or privileges the present. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tecoates (talk • contribs) 11:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Non controversial problem

The section "Homosexuality" in Terminology of homosexuality has a {{main}} that points to Homosexuality, and the Homosexuality article has a {{main}} which points to Terminology of homosexuality... I'm not sure how this should be resolved. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it even a problem? That seems to be the optimal situation to me. garik 10:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Modified by garik 10:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Bieber Statement

The statement that he made in 1976 is ignoring a causality problem. He said "that a boy whose father is warmly related and constructive will not become homosexual," this is referring to the idea that one follows the other (namely the becoming of a homosexual because of a destructive father), while there is the possibility that the father is becoming destructive because of the development of his son. The correct statement from his data would be "in a household where there is not a destructive father, there will not be any homosexual sons of that father." 69.221.232.40 02:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Although, of course, that statement is just a non-studied belief and while I can see the educated thought process behind it, common knowledge and life experience has taught me that that statement is not true and that possibly the exact reverse could be more likely JayKeaton 14:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid it's rubbish. garik 14:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality in specific subcultures

Hi everyone! I'm tempted to add a category/paragraph to the article that outlines views and acceptance (Or lack thereof) in specific non-religious subcultures; I.E: The Rap community. Does anyone agree that this would be a good idea, or would it contribute to overloading the page with irrelevant information?

Just asking here first as it's best to get a wider view of a change as opposed to just going ahead with it and starting an edit war, IMO. :-)

GayGoth 12:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

(P.S: I do have a registered account, although not in this name due to reasons of annonymity - I'm pretty much a closet case you see. :-|)

Don't really think it's that important. There's lots and lots and lots of subcultures that involve homosexuality, to list any in particular would make the article too long. 66.240.35.207 18:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. :-)

Harepusbrenning 19:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Cause

Why is the cause of homosexuality not here? (It is a genetic disorder caused by too little testosterone being delivered to the male foetus. --My Name is Snowball 15:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The possible causes of homosexuality are very hotly debated, and are discussed in the article. Note that what you claim to be the cause is contradictory: you say it's genetic, but caused be environmental factors. Either way, I've not seen any good evidence for this. I hope you're not just trolling. garik 15:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC) modified by garik 15:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Because A.) nobody knows the cause (so why are you trying to sound like you do?), and B.), "too little testosterone" wouldn't be a genetic disorder, it would be a hormone imbalance - and it also begs the question of how much testosterone is "too little", because everyone has different amounts (and also your "theory" seems only to apply to males, not females") In short, you made that crap up, that's why it's not in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.114.224 (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Because that is not the only possible theory. There is no known "cause" for homosexuality at this moment in time, and therefore it isn't in this article. If you can find verifiable links by all means input the above theory, however if the links aren't reliable they may be removed. Jacobshaven3 15:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There have been tests done with homosexual identicle twins seperated at birth. When one identicle twin is gay there is a 50% - 70% chance the other is gay. The enviroment seems to have little to no impact on a child at all. --My Name is Snowball 15:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

- This would seem to imply a 30-50% effect from environmental factors - that's pretty large in my book, hardly "little to no". Now, just what those factors may be... I doubt we're anywhere close to teasing out all the potential factors. Aleta 02:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that it IS a genetic disorder. Saying it isn't is like saying dyslexia or sickle cell anemia isn't. It is a genetic malfunction which offers no benefit. --82.36.177.31 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

- DIsorder is a highly loaded term. At the level of the individual clearly it would have an adverse affect on that person's ability to have children, but at the level of the gene it has been well argued by some geneticists that any genetic component to homosexuality must necessarily afford close relatives with reproductive advantages. It this were not the case it would disappear from the gene pool. As someone has said below in the sickle cell anemia example, a gene that has evolved for a very specific reason can create disadvantages for some proportion of its carriers. In the meantime, gay people can clearly have very rewarding lives and you could argue that the combination of traits concerned may benefit society more widely (I'm a bit sceptical about assigning gay people particular creative or aesthetic or artistic ability, but many other people are not), so again 'disorder' seems a bit rich and complex. Moreover other people have argued that the genetic component may be evidenced in utero, with the mother's manifestation of her genes resulting in a proportion of gay children. These children may carry the genes for this kind of effect without it actually having any effect on them themselves, and non-gay children may pass it on to their children in turn.

Don't be silly. Homosexuality was the norm amongst the Spartan armed forces in ancient Athens. Would you have us believe that they all carried the "gay gene"?! The association is a category error. --Nmcmurdo 23:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Any scientific proof available? Futurix 02:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not great other examples either - sickle cell trait has known benefits of protection against malaria. Aleta 02:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole idea it's a genetic disorder is quite unscientific really. Unless every homosexual or bisexual (is that a genetic disorder as well?) has had an identical genetic mutation, then most of them must have a family background of homosexuality, since that's the only way a Genetic Anomaly could occur. Plus, if that was true, every child who had a homosexual or bisexual parent would have to also be homosexual or bisexual, or would have a very high chance at the very least. This has already shown to be not true in studies. I'd also like to add that if a child doesn't receive the usual amount of testosterone, that's an Environmental factor, not a genetic one. Jacobshaven3 10:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading a book by Alan and Barbra Pease, I think it was called "Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps" it may be outdated now but some research was carried out for that that supported the idea that homosexuality was genetic and that it is ingerited from the mothers side as the "gay" gene is located in the X chromosome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.177.31 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 18 February 2007

Well, I'll keep a look out, but such research sounds quite outdated and it could be a POV account. If the "Gay" gene is connected to the X chromosome, then every lesbian must have at least one homosexual parent. (If the gene is dominant then one parent must also be homosexual, and if it's recessive both parent's would need to carry the gene, meaning the father would be homosexual since he only has the one X chromosome. Although this is OR, I think it explains how, unless the currently accepted theory of Genetics is wrong, that the idea of homosexuality being genetic is quite difficult to adequately explain.Jacobshaven3 01:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Found the book! It says that they believe the 'gay gene' is 50% - 70% dominant. They go on to say that this explains how a gay's family members like brothers, cousins and uncles are sometimes also gay. (because homosexuality isn't actually all that common 1 in 20 people are gay(interessting fact here -> homosexuality has the same occurence as red hair and freckles.) 82.36.177.31 17:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just two small snippets from first review of this book I found:

"Unsubstantiated, unsubstantiatable, or just plain wrong"

and

"pseudo-scientific tabloid trash".

Looks like you have a better chance of getting reliable information from "The Sun" then from this book ;-)

Futurix 01:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Studies done about gays are so totally biased that rigid scientific studies really never stand up to long term scrutiny. Additionally, you all should know that this whole debate really chills relationships between people of the same sex, and by extension embitters relationships with people of the opposite sex as well. If you can't have close relationships with people of your own sex, it's going to be a lonely life, especially if you find yourself in an oversexed subculture. People all over the place are so demoralized by this discussion for this reason. That's a big reason we have such high suicide rates among youth these days.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.173.99.16 (talk)

To say that homosexuality is genetically determined (to whatever degree) is not the same as saying there's a "gay gene". Let's say, for example, that there are 10 genes that influence sexual behaviour, and that each of these genes come in 10 different versions, and that the actual expression of these genes is influenced by 10 different environmental factors.... Well, already you can see that the actual sexual behaviour of the adult is a non-trivial consequence of the interaction of a large number of causal factors.

And in reality, there's probably thousands of genes that influence (to some degree or other) sexual behavioiur, and thousands of environmental factors that influence (to some degree or other) the expression of those genes.

Also, in response to the comments about in-utero exposure to testosterone being environmental or genetic: the response of the fetus to testosterone is determined by the genes of the fetus (the testosterone itself is an environmental factor, the respose to it is genetic); but the production of testosterone by the mother is a genetically determined response to previous environmental factors, possibly the gestation of male fetuses (so the testosterone is a genetic factor, the environmental trigger being male fetuses). CaughtLBW 16:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you CaughtLBW, for some sense thrown in to the mix. Everyone is looking for a "cause", and this is a doomed fishing expedition, folks. There is no "cause". Everyone has a sexuality that is entirely individual, and entirely consequential of the expression levels of countless genes that influence sexual preference and other traits that affect whether one identifies as a homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual. Human sexuality is far too complex to be determined by a "gay gene". News snippets and media sound bites that grab you with tag lines like this are misleading glimpses into a far more complex topic. Discussions naturally blossom into which several people throw their opinions, not having sufficiently eduacted themselves on the issue. Our genetic disposition is gloriously complex, and far too sophisticated in design to be subject to the limited imaginations of the producers of the crap you see on TV. Even we in the scientific discipline of genetics are barely beginning to grasp the complex beauty of nature, and the vast networks that govern our very being.

The vast majority of traits we human beings express are governed by multiple signaling cascades and regulatory mechanisms, which are themselves controlled by the expression of the proteins that carry out the specific activities. These proteins are expressed by genes, a process that is governed by yet other genes and the proteins encoded by them. When a gene is mutated, oftentimes, not only is it just one copy (remember, we have two copies of everything - 46 chromosomes, arranged as 23 pairs of duplicates), which is usually compensated by the other copy, but oftentimes the mutation doesn't affect protein expression or function to a great degree. It is only in the rare instance where both copies are mutated, or the mutation is such that protein function is somehow disrupted that things go awry. Even then, it is very rare for such mutations to be the sole cause of a major trait. It is tempting for us, I think, to conceive of genetic mutations in the context of severely debilitating diseases caused by mutations in single genes, like Huntington's Disease or cystic fibrosis, and to apply this context to concepts such as sexual orientation when we get a whiff of buzz words like "gay gene". The truth of the matter is, most every biological process in our bodies is controlled by extremely complex networks that are supplemented by yet other redundant networks, and when something goes wrong, it is usually minor and controllable. In rare instances like Huntington's and CF, a mutation in a single gene was enough to cause malfunctions in gene expression and protein function whose consequences were dire for the unfortunate sufferers. In stark contrast, the vast majority of mutations that inevitably all of us carry have little or no consequence on our biological functions, and are therefore never "seen". In the case of sexuality and other complex traits, you can think of any variance as a "mutation", depending on your frame of reference, since variation is caused by differing degrees of expression and function of a great many genes, oftentimes caused by variance in the genes' actual DNA sequences.

And for the record, homosexuality is no more a disorder than is the desire to eat when hungry. It has been officially off the books as a disorder since 1973, which was far too late to begin with. And being gay does not result from a malfunction like a protein in the lungs that doesn't function properly in producing mucus, like in cystic fibrosis. It is an expression of sexuality and of love that is an alternative to that which comprises the "norm", and does not result in any deficiencies or dysfunctions. It is not a medically treateable, life-threatening, debilitating, nor otherwise discomforting state of being (except maybe to those unfortunate sufferers of homophobia). Therefore, I think all the concern as to the "cause" of homosexuality smacks a bit of sensationalism, and strikes at the core fear of "straight" America: "what if MY kid turns out to be gay? Can I stop it?" As a gay genetics graduate student, it pains me to hear people speak of homosexuality as some sort of unfortunate condition to be gawked at medically and socially, especially in the context of somehow being a genetic anomaly to be prevented. I am perfectly happy and absolutely content in my homosexuality, and would NEVER have it ANY other way. I think it does a disservice not only to homosexuals, but to sufferers of REAL disorders, to have homosexuality poked and prodded in the same fashion as are truly debilitating medical anomalies. Basically, if it truly is a mutation, then I'm more than happy to be a mutant. A "cure" is NOT necessary. Eganio 12:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of "Cause" is very premature, and silly

I am posting this as a man who has always been interested in the cause or causes of homosexuality. It was only very late in the game that I realized that the question itself was incredibly biased.

What "causes" heterosexuality? Discussion: none.

Now, let me back off a bit and ask you to think about two other species: the Bonobo chimps and the dolphins. Bonobo chimps live in a bisexual riot. Dolphins are gay (at least the most common species). But nobody at all is asking about the "causes" of "homosexuality" in Bonobo chimps, or in dolphins.

No, the question always returns to us. And by "us," I refer to the Christianity-obsessed populations of the world, who know, from Divine Guidance, that "homosexuality is wrong." Knowing this, just as they know (more correctly) that measles and polio are wrong, they have set off on an obsessed search for the "cause."

Well, folks, we don't know "the cause." These genetic arguments are amusing to some extent (and I speak as the editor of "Twins and Homosexuality: A Casebook"). The twin evidence is something that must be taken into account.

But so must the following. There is a guy who has discovered one "cause" of homosexuality in males. It concerns the number of OLDER MALE BROTHERS. Evidently some mothers get tired of birthing boys, and with every older brother the chance for the current male baby to be gay increases by 33 percent.

Forget for a moment whether this idea is correct or not. (I believe it might be, speaking as #3 of 4 brothers.) But here we have an entirely biological explanation of male homosexuality which does not involve that fabled Gay Gene! (We were all closing in on it 10-15 years ago? What happened?)

Nature is complex, and human nature is even more complex. I think that (rather than trying to find the "cause" -- although I would welcome that when it comes) we would do much better to try and deal with the following facts:

1. Every major society around the world is overwhelmingly based on heterosexual marriage and the family (90-95%).

2. Every major society around the world has a vibrant and exciting gay community. This society may be mostly overt (San Francisco) or mostly covert (Tunisia), but it's always there. Gay boys start to seek out this gay community around the age of 17 or 18, sometimes earlier.

These are FACTS.

Why does it happen? Why is the sky blue? Why are the dolphins gay? Why is it fun to go swimming?

It might surprise some readers here to learn that we do not understand, at all, how the genes for eye color result in the actual eye color of children. Put another way, in the case of eye color (or hair color), the path between genotype and phenotype is utterly unknown. Good luck with human sexuality! :-) JaafarAbuTarab 16:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think from a mainstream scientific point of view, at least, the cause of heterosexuality is relatively trivial: it tends to continue the species. If our ancestors hadn't tended to mate and produce children, we wouldn't be here. In this evolutionary context, homosexual behaviour is more puzzling than heterosexual behaviour, since animals that are exclusively homosexual tend not to have children. The word "exclusive" is of course important and questionable here, as is the underlying assumption of genetic transmission. I would also stress that this is not the same as saying that homosexuality is in any way unnatural. In fact it recalls the issue of so-called altruism in evolutionary biology: cooperative populations are at risk of exploitation by selfish individuals (free riders), so we might expect cooperative individuals to die out. Yet many animals cooperate, and human beings stand out among them. There are pretty good evolutionary explanations for how such behaviour survives. By comparison, selfish individuals barely need explanation. My point is: the behaviour that on a superficial level seems more unexpected, or less likely to transmit itself to future generations, is the one that seems to require more effort to explain.

One more thing would appear to require explanation here: if neither homosexuality and altruism seems entirely to be expected on a superficial level, why do religions tend to promote only one of them?

I don't think the answer's all that difficult.garik 18:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're making a lapse of logic there. We understand why heterosexuality has evolved, because we can see the clear reproductive advantages it should give an organism. But that's not the same thing at all as saying we know what 'causes' it. To use an analogy, although we may understand the genetic imperative for functioning legs, understanding the process whereby genetic instructions are turned in utero and in independent objects into functioning legs is another matter entirely.

Truth of the matter is, the mechanisms that result in a heterosexual male or female are pretty far from well understood. In fact, homosexuality should be interesting here precisely because in observing the biological, social, psychological and genetic differences between heterosexual and homosexual people, we should be able to better determine how heterosexuality 'works' as well.

The reason people argue about the ideology behind studies of 'homosexuality' are because while you'd think it would be best studied to understand people generally and in more depth, the treatment of it as something that requires explanation where heterosexuality is somehow 'obvious' puts more emphasis on the understanding of divergence from a norm, and as a consequence always implies behind the scenes some suggestion that it's a flaw that could be fixed. You see this a lot in scientific practice where unspoken cultural assumptions are used to inform studies. Over time, the scientific process tends to weed this stuff out, but it can't remove individual unspoken and unthinking prejudice. A hundred years ago the assumptions were that white men were somehow a default human worth investigating as representative of humanity and that non-whites and women were somehow either bastardisations or sub-classes or deviations. You'd never see a study of a large population largely constituted of 'negroes' in the 18th or 19th centuries that were about understanding what it is to be human, only what it meant to be of that racial group.

Most gay people, while completely aware that of course their sexuality constitutes a disadvantage reproductively (and often socially) are very uncomfortable indeed with the idea that their experience of the world is somehow broken and could be fixed.

It's reasonable to argue that heterosexuality and homosexuality both have causes in that they're both the end results of large series of (probably mostly) biological, genetic and in utero hormonal factors. It's also reasonable to argue that the massive predominance of heterosexuality is the clear effect of evolution and the tiny proportion of homosexual people a more puzzling phenomenon that doesn't yet easily fit our models of genetics or evolution. It's not reasonable to inquire about the causation of homosexuality as if heterosexuality were obvious and natural. Both behaviours have lasted a hell of a long time through the evolutionary process and manifest in a whole range of different species. We should no more explore homosexuality in isolation than we should explore the cause of blue eye-colour in isolation from more general studies in eye-colour. Tom Coates 13:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right. I didn't read JaafarAbuTarab's comment as well as I should have. There is a clear difference between the reason something evolves and its cause in the sense of the mechanism behind it. I agree furthermore that in this sense "it's not reasonable to inquire about the causation of homosexuality as if heterosexuality were obvious and natural"; I continue to maintain, however, that it's reasonable to assume that from an evolutionary point of view the existence of heterosexuality is rather less surprising than the existence of homosexuality, at least on a superficial level. Again the issue comes down to the difference between cause as in the evolutionary reason why something might exist and cause as in the mechanism behind it. Good point. garik 13:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't agree more. It's clearly a bit of an evolutionary surprise that—so many millions (?) of generations down the line—any genes that would result in diminished reproductive success should still survive. The best explanations I've seen of this are that characteristics or combinations of genes that are present in overt fashions in gay men or women create reproductive advantages when present in different combinations in straight men or women - that is to say, if three factors are present then the child may be gay, if two are present, or four then the child will be straight and with a sufficient reproductive advantage to even out the imbalance. Alternatively, the genetic component that 'causes' homosexuality may be in the mother and may result in changes in the hormonal state in utero that in turn results in gay children with slightly more frequency. If those mothers were also more generally fertile than other women then it's conceivable that they might produce more children generally, meaning more who were likely to reproduce even if one of their children were gay. There are a whole bunch of possibilities. Tom Coates 13:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There are indeed. On a different note, it would certainly be pleasing and entertaining if there were more examples of religions actively promoting homosexuality in preference to heterosexuality. After all, I can think of at least one strand of Christianity that discourages sexual activity in any circumstances, so going forth and multiplying doesn't seem as high on priority lists as one might have expected. garik 14:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there have been some pretty odd religious cults through the years, including some of the weirder Gnostic religions some of whom believed that reproduction was a sin that trapped souls in a prison-like world. Some of them advocated frantic non-reproductive orgies. Needless to say they didn't survive very long. Tom Coates 21:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why automatically assume diminished reproductive success of homosexuals? I think it is quite more common than anyone wants to believe that many gay people have had relationships with people of the opposite sex, and many have likely procreated as a result. It's easy to think in black-and-white terms, that a gay man could never have sex with a woman, and a gay woman with a man, but that's pure naivete. Sexual orientation is a preference, not a sentence (unless you're straight, it seems). I've known plenty of gay men that have had sexual relationships with women, even children by them. But aside from that, couldn't it be possible that homosexual "behavior" might be a means of controlling population expansion, or as I like to think, yet another means of providing sexual pleasure to both genders in order to increase the general rate at which human beings participate in sexual activity, thereby increaing the general rate at which procreative matings occur? I don't think nature makes the same distinctions we do about sexual orientation. I think we are very much like our animal counterparts on this planet (since we DID evolve from the, after all) in the sense that when we see something we want to fuck, we do our damndest to fuck it. Plain and simple. Eganio 12:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Scapegoating

I find this section quite unsatisfactory. Either it should be renamed to something like "Persecution", or the examples need to be tightened up to show how they demonstrate scapegoating. My understanding of this word focuses on the aspect of blame, quite specifically. In the Knights Templar example, what were they being blamed for? The lack of money in Philip's treasury? The Nazis were "blaming" homosexuals for the "problem" of the diluted purity of the Reich? They also targeted Jews, the mentally ill, physically disabled, etc. for this general reason. When multiple groups are involved, it's no longer scapegoating. Were gays being "blamed" for communist infiltration in the 50's, or were they just lumped together with the godless communists? And finally, in Egypt, it's not clear at all how the burning of 8th century homoerotic poetry was part of a plan to lay blame at the feet of homosexuals. It just seems like a run-of-the-mill political maneuver to me, to mollify fundamentalists or get them off the regime's back.

Here are two classic examples of scapegoating: the Roman emperor Nero supposedly claimed that members of the nascent Christian movement were responsible for a fire that devastated the city of Rome, and subsequently a great campaign of persecution was mounted against Christians. Another example is the Jews in Europe throughout the Middle Ages-- so many unpleasant things were laid at their feet, I don't have a specific case in mind. It has to be blame for something *specific* (in my opinion), or it isn't scapegoating.

Look, homosexuals have been so abused in so many places over such a long period of time, can't we put together a more cogent section than this? Jlaramee 17:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the Americn Heritage Dictionary, A Scapegoat is " One that is made to bear the blame of others."

This is true of Homosexuals in almost all of the examples you give as non scapegoats. Even if several groups are made to blame, if they didn't do it and it covers another groups back, it's still scapegoating. Persecution is merely being treated poorly, but being blamed for something, which happened in Nazi Germany. It was blamed that the people in Germany were only weak because Homosexuals weakened German masculinity.

As for the other examples, sometimes the Ends and the Means appear different. Philip wanted their money, and tortured them to get it, but forced them to call themselves homosexual in order to justify it. Being homosexual was a scapegoat reason for him to torture them. Jacobshaven3 18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Jlaramee, you eloquently argue semantics, and I agree that focusing on specific examples of homosexuals acting as scapegoats is an effort in futility when attempting to address the fundamental issue of deliberate persecution of a marginalized group. The issue of import is that homosexuals have been persecuted for millenia. I think what's really important, and why people often cry scapegoatism against homosexuals is the fact that we have serviced countless governments, religious groups, political movements, and private ordeals as convenient tools for blame for the ills of society. The same can be said for others, such as Jews. I think the fact that we happen to get lumped with other convenient groups du jour makes it difficult to specifically categorize it as scapegoating, since that implies a discrete target.

If you want a "specific" example, homosexuals have provided a convenient target of blame for the AIDS epidemic in America. Eganio 13:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are "homosexual" and "gay" two separate articles?

This has been copied directly from the Talk:gay page, garik said that he was going to bring the article here but obviously he hasn't so I have instead. Mrpowers999 22:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean bring the discussion here. It was here, and was archived. garik 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the history of both the terms, but don't they mean the same thing at this point?  Do
they each need their own article?  (Asking at Homosexual as well.) Joie de
 Vivre 23:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:Response here.  As
you've posted this question twice, I think it's probably best to keep all responses in
Talk:Homosexuality to avoid two discussions of the same issue. garik 23:56, 21
January 2007 (UTC)
::Oh, that does make sense.  Sorry.  Joie de Vivre 01:23, 22 January 2007
(UTC)

There are a hell of a lot of reasons why homosexuality and gay should be two distinct articles. The most obvious place to start is with the fact that while the two concepts clearly overlap, they have very different meanings and resonances. Homosexuality is considered to be a description of sexual activity between the same gender, whereas gay is considered to be an identity that some homosexual people choose to assume. Homosexual is considered by a lot of gay people to be a highly medicalised term, gay often considered to be one option, along with queer (for example) of the kinds of culture one identifies with. Gay people often, but not uniformly, reject the term homosexual, for example. Moreover, while you could argue that homosexuality is a concept that is understandable to all people, non-Western cultures have considerably more trouble with the idea of gay, having very differently structured relationships for same sex sexual relationships.

You can go further. The label of 'gay' and 'gay politics' is quite a contested one. There's a book called "anti-gay" protesting about the term and the movement associated with it. You could probably understand it as a difference like that between 'woman' and 'feminist', in that woman is supposedly a value-free category that is understood cross-culturally, whereas women choose to be feminists and there's a culture associated with those arguments, beliefs and ways of operating in the world.

Or you could look at the fact that homosexual behaviour is common in the animal kingdom, but that perhaps you wouldn't want to call those relationships 'gay' inasmuch as they're nothing like the way human homosexual pairings work.

But in a nutshell, the main reason they're different is because there are many different things to say about the term homosexual than there are about the terms gay and the queer and as a result any article that included them both would have to clearly demark the differences between them and their various meanings and history. And when you do that and you get long articles, the only sensible thing to do is to break them up.--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tecoates (talk • contribs) .

In any case, this has been discussed (albeit briefly) before—I don't think there's much support for merging them. garik 23:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is not there

"controversy" section in this article? Because homosexuality is infact perversion and a disease / mental deveploment malfuntion yet there is no mention of this. Just because difference is somewhere tolerated that doesnt make it natural or good, it just shows the weakness of the persons minds and lack of spine to resist the illness and temptations caused by it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

And why is this important is because i came here looking for few answers on the fact that what is wrong with people that are homosexuals and this article should have offered very clear ideas about that, but there is basicly none. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.248.159.240 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 4 March 2007.

That view was reasonably popular amongst western psychiatrists 50 years ago or so. It has fallen out of intellectual favour. But perhaps a section on the history of the idea of homosexuality could cover this issue. --Nmcmurdo 00:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A bit of a late reply, but nevertheless... It's fine if you think homosexuality is wrong. If you wish to express your views on some sort of whimsical knowledge about science rather than religion to make it sound more viable, then you go ahead and do so. Nevertheless, it is not a "fact" that homosexuality is a perversion or a disease anymore than it is a "fact" that homophobia is a view held by the ignorant twats still allowed to roam this planet. So careful on using that word (yes, using "infact" is just the same as "fact" on its own).

There certainly should be a theme of criticism throughout the article in compliance with an NPOV because it is, as with all things related to religion, ethics and morals, a possibility that homosexuality is wrong, sinful or whatever. But why should it be a prominent fixture within the article when other controversial minorities don't have such a section? For example, Black people?

Please remember that your homophobic views are clearly not in compliance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and therefore your opinions on new sections of this article should not be incorporated or considered. You thinking that homosexuality is "infact" wrong doesn't mean that it is. Quicker you realise that, quicker you get articles you're happy with ;)

Mentality 20:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Mentality, the statement previous yours made no mention of religion whatsoever.

The preced Techron (talk • 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

What is sexual orientation? I hate to quote a liberal but Bill Clinton did say he did not have sex with that woman - Miss Lewinsky. I believe that Bill was referring to "oral sex" as not being sex. I believe he is correct. Bill knows this is an act of sodomy - oral sodomy. From a law perspective, Bill is a lawyer, sodomy is defined in two flavors: oral and anal. So I ask the question about sexual orientation and I keep coming to the same answer, sex requires one man and one woman. Two men or two woman can only engage in sodomy. They are no different than my desk and the floor lamp in my office. A desk and a floor lamp cannot engage in sex either. By definition this group of people are not engaging in sex and are non-sexual. The non-word homosexual should not exist. The non-word heterosexual should not exist. People are either sexual or non-sexual. Whether one looks to the Bible or to evolution sodomy is not sex. Sodomy is just masturbation in stereo. Marriage is an institution created to protect the children who are the products of sex. Sodomy is much less than sex and is actually a selfish activity for the creation of orgasms. The performance of sodomy by two men or two woman seems to fall in the category of a hobby. Sodomy is just like bowling, less painful, and should not require "special rights" bestowed by soft-headed judges. People have many types of attractions in their lives, food, nicotine, drugs, alcohol, and orgasms. I don't see where "attraction orientation" is being created by soft-headed judges - yet. I would like wikipedia stop catering to the gay mafia. "Homosexuality" does not exist! There are many people (male and female) who practice sodomy - big deal, it my be less scary than sky diving. This argument also erases the dreaded "homophobia" word as well. Being a really fat guy I laugh like hell when people refer to someone as fat in conversation then stop speaking, look at everyone in the conversation and then tell me I'm not fat. It use to hurt my feelings but I get a kick out of their behavior now. I love who I am. I get the feeling that same-sex sodomites are actually exhibiting some sort of mental illness when they created "homophobia." There will always be someone to call you queer, fag, etc just like there are people who run for the hills when I go to a meeting or interview for a job. Mommy, mommy there being mean to me boo hoo! I have no expectation of those people of ever accepting my tonnage. While same-sex sodomites continue to try forcing acceptance on a group of people who would rather die than have lunch with them. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. So there you have it - my opinion, now the next response will be some nonsense about "hate speech", etc... just like in the 1984 book - oh no its the thought police!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Godzilla1138 (talk • contribs)

Your entitled to your opinion, though I ask you. who invented the term "Sodomy". Who decided that "Sexual Intercourse" only meant sex between a man and a woman, and who decided that it was immoral to wish to orgasm for any reason other than procreation? the fact is, no one recalls exactly who, except it was in the Bible / Whichever religious book the religion in question uses. Who created the Bible? A group of people that wanted to control a mass of people. In the end, nothing is inherently wrong about two people of the same sex engaging in sexual acts. It's their choice. I am naturally attracted to Redhaired individuals. Other people might not be. It doesn't mean I have a disease or disorder. Or that I'm insane, or Evil.

It's your own choice who you like, who you want to socialise. But in the end. Unless you have attributable sources and citeable evidence. Theres no place for it on wikipedia. Jacobshaven3 02:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. Arguing that sex cannot exist between anyone but a man and a woman as they can't procreate is ridiculous. As has already been said, what about those who are infertile? And please don't start speaking out against contraception. Not using such things as condoms or birth control pills results in record high teenage pregnancies (as in the UK) and a wide range of STDs circulating the planet. Stupid religious people lobbying against condoms and the like have caused nothing but problems. Humans have always had sex solely for pleasure and studies have shown that dolphins do too!

If you even look at the Wikipedia article on sexual intercourse you will see that the definition of sexual intercourse includes anal and oral sex.

Unfortunately, history has shown that society doesn't change unless it's forced to. Women and black people never got their rights without a fight, and I strongly suspect had they never stood up to the constant discrimination that was used against them by ignorant people like you, we'd still see women without the right to vote, and blacks-only water fountains. So whilst I don't like the idea of "us" forcing ideas upon "you", it seems to be the necessary solution to end the decades of discrimination, attacks and depression that has scourged the gay community because other people don't think it's "valid". To prefer to die than have lunch with someone who is gay is just... well, stupid. Pitiful, in fact. Also goes to show what a disregard you have for human life, including your own. I'm sure God would be proud!

Mentality 21:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Who gets to decide which source is better than another? The APA had lots of citeable evidence until the shrink profession got taken over by the people who were being treated and then put it to a vote. No one at the APA went back and showed that the evidence collected up to 1973 was wrong. You have no citeable evidence that the authors of the Bible wanted to control a mass of people.

Biology defines sex as in procreation. Animals don't engage in sodomy. Sex by definition in science requires a male and a female. Where it's the Bible or Darwin sodomy is a dead end and calls into question whether the biological unit engaging in sodomy is malfunctioning. Is this malfunction insanity - it has insane effects on society. By the way I have red hair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Godzilla1138 (talk • contribs).

What is "sodomy", exactly? If you mean homosexual sexual behavior, you may want to consult Animal sexuality#Homosexual behavior as you are in fact incorrect. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is evidence that is peer reviewed and reputable, than it has a place and should be available. If there is none, then there may be a reason. I'm sure you are not the only person in the world with your views. As for evidence that the Bible was written to control people. I don't know of any first hand. It could be a made up theory (I don't know, I still believe it to be true). But other than the bible itself, (which never actually says sodomy is wrong, people have merely read into several stories and presume it means it), what evidence is there that Sexual intercourse in any way other than reproductively is wrong?

You say animals in the wild do not commit sodomy. (I hate that terminology mind you). I think the article: Animal sexuality#Homosexual behavior, would have evidence conflicting that.

I wonder. If entering a sexual act where reproduction is not an outcome. Do you see sex with a Condom, or sex between an infertile couple, as wrong and selfish? She all people only ever enter a sexual relationship with the sole intent of having children. And if they can't, should they just give up all together?

That's interesting to know, my ex had Red hair. Jacobshaven3 03:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't take the above comments too seriously. Besides, sex in biology certainly does not require a male and a female by definition. This is just silly. garik 09:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just clearing up a it of information back there, I believe dolphins do partake in homosexual behaivors. To me, sexual orientation is partially what you want, and partially invoulentary. You may be attracted to the same sex, but if you wish to deny this and live as a heterosexual, you are entirely allowed. I read somwhere that it may something to do with the hormones you recieve while in the womb. Homosexual women get too much testosterone, and homosexual men too little (I'm not sure if this is proven, but it makes sense to me). This causes them to devolpe differetly on a mental level, and become attracted to the same sex. Denying that something like this exists, and denying marriage between people is not morally correct. Would it be right to deny a man and a woiman marriage if they both have Bipolar disorder? Or ADHD? Or deny the fact that people can be these people can be different? I think not. Also, keep in mind that I am a conservitive, though an atheist too. anonymous

"sex requires one man and one woman"

LOL gay people can't have sex? I've already disproved that theory a couple hundred times in my life.Rglong 10:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are not for debate. Furthermore, psuedoscience and personal convictions have absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Unless a statement attests to the scientific method, then it does not belong here. 74.242.102.135 08:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As for the unsigned comments: "Sex by definition in science requires a male and a female." I must have missed that part of all those science lectures I attended. Must have been the "Intelligent Design 101" course I dropped. Actually, the "scientific" definition of sex focuses on gender, not intercourse. We scientists use "coitum" to refer to sexual intercourse between organisms.

Oh, and this too: "Because homosexuality is infact perversion and a disease / mental deveploment malfuntion yet there is no mention of this. Just because difference is somewhere tolerated that doesnt make it natural or good, it just shows the weakness of the persons minds and lack of spine to resist the illness and temptations caused by it."

Oh, that's rich, isn't it? A perversion, a disease, a mental developmental malfunction, and a weakness of the mind and spine. Wow, I'm doing really well, then! To think I can live a normal life suffering from all those maladies! So why is this guy complaining about being fat? Hey, I'm supposed to be the one suffering from a "mental development disorder"...where's your respect? Do you go on autism discussion boards and taunt them as well? I think someone needs to get LAID!!! Eganio 01:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Suicide Section

Suicide is such a huge problem among gay youth (Pierre J. Tremblay) that I think this article needs more on it. This article is kind of long, so it might be best to put the issue in the coming out section ... but the coming out article makes no mention of suicide. We have good figures from public studies available, in fact, they are quite alarming and not generally well known. The Tramblay article cites 16 times the national average for gay youth aged 17. Not mentioning this fact is a genuine disservice to our community. Still, I didn't want to write a new section on an already long article without consulting the talk page first.

Qrk 04:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please contribute this important material. Possibly placing a new section between "Coming out" and "Sexual practices" may be appropriate. Haiduc 11:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Should it perhaps go in the Gay article? This one deals with so much more than those who self-identify as gay. --G2bambino 15:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary Models

I am intrigued by the evolution models in a recent paper published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society. I'm hoping a writer with greater skills than my own can summarize this. Here is a link to the paper: http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gavrila/PAPS/h.pdf It also provides a nice literature review of the data. evo 02:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Bieber -- title? first name?

Does anybody know the title of the book or study by Bieber that is referenced in the article, where it was published, and the guy's full name? The present version tells us what page the quote is from, but not what book!

It would be nice to get a source for the APA's criticism of the fellow as well, as that is completely uncited. DanB†DanD 22:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The 1962 study is in the Library of Congress: Homosexuality. A Psychoanalytic Study. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1962., but the 1976 one isn't. But there's an even later one (1988), so maybe you should look up that one: Irving Bieber et al.: Homosexuality: a psychoanalytic study. Northvale, N.J.: Aronson, 1988; ISBN 0876689896. As for Bieber's (1908-1991) titles and functions, google with his first name. It's rewarding. Soczyczi 23:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Homosexualities"?

Of course, there are numerous anthropologists who are social constructionists, but it is ludicrous to suggest that "numerous researchers" have suggested it would be a good idea call homosexuality "homosexualities" instead. Can we cite whoever it is did say it (assuming that this "numerous researcher" is not simply a Wikipedia editor)?

In general, there's a fair bit of slant to the anthropology section.

DanB†DanD 22:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all these are anthropologists who are saying that they need to be careful about recognizing the differences between different cultural manifestations of homosexuality in history. They are not suggesting that we ought to substitute the word 'homosexualities' for 'homosexuality' in our everyday usage in the West today. Rather, the linguistic prescription is obviously directed to the anthropological discourse about homosexuaity in different cultures and epochs. Second, I am removing the "dubious" tag because the different types of homosexualities are listed directly below along with clear citation of the anthropologist who identified them.--Agnaramasi 00:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Military: Nazi Germany and the "Death Penalty"

I changed the following two segments in "Homosexuality and society", "Military", "In modern times":

Attitudes world wide vary, from country to country and over time, with some countries—like the United Kingdom and the Netherlands — accepting openly homosexual individuals into the armed forces, and others — like the United States, Nazi Germany, and many nations in South America and the Caribbean — either quieting or discharging homosexual people.

Here I removed the reference to Nazi Germany (with external link to the Holocaust Teacher Resource Center) for two reasons. The first is that this is an historical reference, and while I may try to work it in its own paragraph later (as the sexual liberties of pre-Nazi Germany, esp. Berlin, and the subsequent Nazi witch hunt are important to the military history of Germany and homosexuals), it does not belong in a list of currently-existing nations and regions. The second, and perhaps most important, is that it is a "loaded reference"--it is designed to cast the nations and regions listed in the same light as Nazi Germany, which is historically viewed as Manichean "evil." This is, in my opinion, a more politically than historically motivated inclusion.

Most nations that adhere to the strict interpretation of Sharia (Islamic law) remove individuals from their armed forces who are believed to be homosexual, and may punish, torture, or subject them to the death penalty.

Here I changed "may punish, torture, or subject them to the death penalty" to "may have them punished, tortured, or executed." I feel that "death penalty" is not neutral, as it seems to portray them as legitimate and wholly defensible. By the same token, the phrases "kill them" or "have them killed" are also not neutral, as it portrays them as unlawful and wholly indefensible. I feel that "have them executed" is a reasonable compromise.—Kbolino 04:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Over Half Fortune 500

Hey, admittedly I don't really know how to add footnotes, but I do know that presently over half of all Fortune 500 companies offer same-sex domestic partnership benefits (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/30/BUGJNJMQ9C1.DTL). I fixed it in the article, but if someone wants to add the citation for me that would be cool.Rglong 10:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please provide a section name or link in the future, it makes life easier.—Kbolino 02:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Civil Partnerships

Could there possibly be mention of the first civil partnership or union law in Denmark in 1989?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_unions_in_Denmark —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.32.202 (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Same Sex Attraction Disorder (SSAD)

The phrase, "Same Sex Attraction Disorder", or SSAD, appearing in the first sentence of a previously vandalized version of the article is a bogus term intended to disparage homosexuality by the "ex-gay" and evangelical fringe. To refer to homosexuality as a disorder is incredibly insulting and demeaning, and is being used as a politically/religiously motivated smear here, and elsewhere. It's just not NPOV, regardless. I can't find any references to this being a legitimate disorder as recognized by an appropriate mainstream medical/psychiatric association. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Medical Disorders) by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973. See: http://www.counterbias.com/851.html I was in the process of writing this comment when someone repaired the vandalism to the article before I did. Thank you. Becksguy 08:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if damn America removed it then it must be right! It is also illegal in many countries, including in the Americas, and many states still prosecute for Sodomy! America may be big, but it's hardly an authority, but lets not get into that.

This entire article is POV in the homosexual favor, and needs to be dealt with accordingly. Homosexuals have a disorder, and just because some Politically Correct Americans from the corrupt northern states go on their gay marches doesn't make it right.

You can expect over the next few weeks a number of sections added to the homosexual article, with particular attention to sex crimes, especially those against children. It will all be completely referenced etc in accordance with wiki policy so you simply won't be able to revert it. A true and worldwide view needs to be imposed on this article. --Hayden5650 10:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Homosexuality. For Child Abuse and Sex crimes there are alternative articles. There is no verifiable scientific proof that Homosexuality is a mental disorder. The article doesn't take a POV "in the homosexual favor", it merely describes homosexuality without insulting it. Look at Apple, United States of America and Adolf Hitler. All the pages portray the subject in a Neutral Point of View, merely showing recorded evidence, why should an article about a sexual orientation be treated differently? Please remember that whether something is "natural" or not is subjective. You may believe homosexuality is corrupt, but that doesn't make it true. Many people used to think it was ok to enslave people of different skin colours and that the world was flat, it doesn't mean either was right or true. If you have evidence that follows WP:A, then by all means include it. However be warned that if it's not something which suits the article (something not directly homosexuality related) or if it's not verifiable, then it will be removed. Jacobshaven3 13:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm the person who reverted your POV edits to the article (I'm not American, BTW so there goes that theory). You're quite welcome to edit this article and improve it, but if you add blatant POV, unsourced/irrelevant information or downright hate-speech, it will be removed. Comments like, "People with this disorder [...]" and "They could never love" just aren't going to cut it. Sorry - Alison ☺ 18:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and please stop linking homosexuality with paedophilia. The two things are as different as oranges and swizzle sticks. The main perpetrators of paedophilia are heterosexual, not homosexual, but even that's irrelevant. JackofOz 08:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation problems

Over half of this article is unsourced. If this is not fixed, I will have to remove it from the GA list.--Sefringle 07:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is POV, merely because it doesn't treat homosexuality as an illness or disorder. If it did, then it would be. It needs sources thats true, but it's not because its full of lies and POV, merely because it should be as fully referenced as every other wiki page. Jacobshaven3 08:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, you're correct about sources and the GA criteria. It's a relatively well structured/written article, so I'll try to tackle sourcing... please hold off delisting for a week or so. Fireplace 13:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No more objections to delisting it. Having read the article more closely, confusions, weasel words, fringe views, and difficult-to-source statements abound. It's clearly not GA quality. Fireplace 05:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It is time to delist. According to Wikipedia:What is a good article?...

Contra Rule 1a: The current lead paragraph is ambiguous. It states, "Homosexuality is a sexual orientation which encompasses enduring affection and emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction toward others of the same sex." In other words, “Homosexuality is a sexual orientation that encompasses…sexual attraction”. Is there a sexual orientation that does not encompass sexual attraction??? And what if “romance” is not part of one’s sexual attraction to others of the same sex? Does that mean that he or she is not gay?

Contra Rule 2a and 2c: The lead paragraph contrasts homosexuality to heterosexuality and bisexuality without giving a citation. As noted in the Talk, a citation is needed as this idea of categories, as opposed to a spectrum, is debated. As the article stands, the statement appears to be either a gratuitous assertion or original research.

Contra Rule 2b: Although better than the previous attempts, the current lead paragraph is U.S. centric, of questionable accuracy, and the first sentence is based almost entirely on a non-scholarly APA self-help page.

Contra Rule 2b: Several bold but controversial statements later in the article are without citation (e.g. “it is commonly accepted that Julius Cesar and Michelangelo were homosexuals”).

Contra Rule 4: Based on the talk of other editors (not myself), it is clear that neutrality is in question.

Contra Rule 5. As evidenced in the History and talk, the article is highly-unstable and undergoing constant major revision.LCP 22:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections in seeing it delisted.Joshuajohanson 01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

”Sex” is inherent to meaning of “homosexuality”

FCYTravis states, "assertion that all homosexual relationships involve sex - this is not sourced or necessarily true." On these grounds, he deleted my additions: that homosexuality has a "sexual component" and, "While homosexuality can include romantic friendship, homosexuality and romantic friendship are not synonymous."

Firstly, as denoted by the word itself, "homosexuality" has a sexual component BY DEFINITON. Merriam-Webster’s defines "homosexual” as “1: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex. 2: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.” A statement to the contrary can be based only on POV or a fundamental lack of understanding of the English language. Therefore, based on the accepted meaning of the word in the English language, the demand for a citation is unwarranted. In asserting otherwise, FCYTravis is attempting to impose his own private language. This is contrary to Wikipedia’s POV rules.

Secondly, since homosexuality has sexual component by definition (even though it arguably is not necessarily only sexual), there needs to be a name for passionate friendships between people of the same sex when sexuality is not involved. The phrase for this in Wikipedia is “Romantic friendship.” Since this is a topic that is closely related to homosexuality, it belongs in the lead to help define “homosexuality” in contrast to other forms of same-sex love relationship.

Therefore, unless a better argument can be brought to bear against these revision, I am reverting.LCP 23:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are baldly asserting that two men who love each other, but who don't have sexual intercourse, are not homosexual. You are baldly asserting that sex is a definitive part of a gay/lesbian relationship, and that is at the least entirely unsourced and at worst, false and biased. FCYTravis 07:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think LCP is saying that. Two men, both of whom are homosexual, may be in a romantic relationship that does not include any sexual activity. The individuals are homosexual, but their relationship is not. It is asexual. To that extent, the relationship has little or nothing to do with homosexuality, heterosexuality, or any other kind of sexuality. This is in the same category as a man and a woman who have a romantic but non-sexual relationship. The individuals may be heterosexual, but the relationship is asexual. There could also be 2 heterosexual men (or women) who have a non-sexual romantic relationship. Basically, there is not a one-to-one relationship between kinds of relationships that exist and the sexuality (to the extent that is relevant at all) of the people involved in them. JackofOz 08:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks JackofOz. In response to FCYTravis, I again assert that he is trying to impose his own private language. The idea in question is homoSEXuality. I am not sure why he says my assertion is “bald” (or what would be wrong with a “bald assertion”), but my assertion IS unequivocal—as is the meaning of homoSEXuality. HomoSEXuality invariably has a SEXual component regardless of whether, as JackofOz points out, the lovers engage in sex. In contradiction to FCYTravis’ claim, I have provided a very cogent reference in my earlier comment (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual). Being from the dictionary, it does not require a citation. However, to appease FCYTravis, I will include the ref.LCP 16:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, yes, I assert that if two men love each other but that love does not involve sexual attraction (actualized or not), then they are not homosexual. For example, I love several men very deeply: my son, my father, my brother, my cousin, and my uncle--but I do not feel sexual attraction for any of them. Would FCYTravis say that I am homosexual because I love my son, father, brother, uncle, or cousin? If so, that is deeply misguided. If not, why not?LCP 16:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

FCYTravis has resorted to name calling ("rv homophobic edits which claim that homosexuality has no romantic component. false, biased and insulting") and reverting cited information. The changes I made do NOT and are not intended to exclude a romantic component from homosexuality any more than the current Wikipedia article on sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex) excludes romance from sex. I have limited the definition to authoritative sources. If another source could be brought to bear that supports that idea that homosexuality inherently has a romantic component, I would be happy to have it included in the def. Can someone please mediate here?LCP 18:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You are free to seek outside input through a request for comment at WP:RFC or request informal mediation at WP:MEDCAB. It may not have been your intention but you edits do seem to me to have the effect of suggesting that homosexuality is purely a sexual (and not romantic) inclination. This is highly WP:POV. As a side note, other wikipedia articles should not be used as references (as Wikipedia is a tertiary source). WjBscribe 18:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref to MEDCAB. I don’t understand why you reverted edits that were very well cited. Just like heterosexuality, homosexuality is "essentially" physical--by definition. The ONLY thing that differentiates homosexuality from heterosexuality, for example, is the object of its sexual attraction. Furthermore, that is what sources claim. Unsourced claims to the contrary are merely POV. If another objective source could be brought to bear that supports that idea that homosexuality INHERENTLY has a romantic component, I’d be happy to see it included. Regarding the romance of homosexuality, I personally do not care--except for the sake of accuracy. And the current definition includes information that is not warranted or cited by ANY authority that I have been able to find. So it seems that you have reverted the wrong edits.LCP 18:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

From the American Psychological Association: "Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others." [9]. Fireplace 18:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Include the ref.LCP 18:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I have two comments. First, homosexuality is not to be confused with sexual orientation. It has more of an empirical significance -- as referring to behaviours or practices -- than an identitarian one. Homosexuality does not necessarily need to have anything to do with self-identification. You do not declare yourself to be "homosexual" through a speech act, as in the case of coming out as "gay" or "lesbian". Homosexuality does not even refer to a characteristic of a person but merely to certain practices. People are deemed homosexuals -- either by their own speech acts or by those of medical/psychiatric/religious/political/juridicial institutions -- by virtue of their behviour. Thus, I am a homosexual only to the extent that I am have same-sex attractions or engage in same-sex sexual behaviour. Strictly speaking, you are not homosexual by virtue of a declaration that "I am gay or lesbian". This corresponds with the historical emergence of homosexuality, specifically as a legal and medical term. Cf. Foucault & probably many many others. (2) Insofar as sexual desire or attraction are empirical phenomena experienced by a person objectively (as diagnosable, for instance by a psychologist, doctor or priest), homosexuality finds a common roots with gay or lesbian identities. We often "come out" as gay or lesbian because of the same-sex attractions we experience -- but not necessarily because of sexual practices -- which, as empirical phenomena, can also brand us a homosexual. My conclusion: insofar as the defintion of homosexuality as presented in the article refers to BOTH sexual acts AND desires/attractions, it is sufficient. "Romantic friendships," precisely as "romantic," necessarily include some kind of sexual attraction. This would include them in the category of phenomena designated 'homosexual'.--Agnaramasi 19:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I am not sure that would I accept Foucault or the post-modernist view as the ultimate authority on “The History of Sexuality,” Foucalt is formidable and should be included in the article, and I follow you up until the last line of your statement. However, I think you are inadvertently taking too narrow a view of "romantic," perhaps the view promoted by Hollywood. In contrast, "romantic love" etymologically and historically is asexual as it is, "imbued with or dominated by idealism, a desire for adventure, chivalry, etc." I don’t think I would go so far as to say that it cannot include sex. Instead, what I am saying is that (in contrast to homosexuality, in which sexuality is at least an essential component) sexuality is not essential to romantic love or friendship. If you are versed in Foucault, I am sure that you can appreciate the subtleties of the distinction. Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s In Memoriam is a wonderful testimony to same-sex romantic love that was not sexual. I really like the Wikipedia article, Romantic friendship. I hope you’ll take a look at it.LCP 20:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. I guess I am just saying that you could call a romantic friendship homosexual only insofar as it involves sexual desire or attraction. In this sense, romantic friendship might exceed but not be entirely precluded from the designation 'homosexual'. Otherwise, I think the better word would be homosocial, which is the kind of friendship elevated to the status of virtue by Aristotle, for exaple, in the [[Nichomachean Ethics]. Of course in Ancient Greece such friendships might sometimes involve sexual activity and even more likely sexual attraction, albeit a form of sexuality far removed from the empiricial/medical understanding presupposed by 'homosexuality'.--Agnaramasi 02:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Self-contradictory and redundant lead paragraph

I've worked quite a bit with the lead over the past two days to bring it into line with authoritative sources, but it still has problems. It currently states:

"Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and it is defined as sexual attraction or behavior between individuals of the same sex. In modern use, the adjective homosexual is used for intimate or romantic relationships with a sexual component and/or sexual relations between people of the same sex, who may or may not identify themselves as gay or lesbian.[citation needed] Homosexuality, as an identifier, is usually contrasted with heterosexuality and bisexuality. The term gay is used predominantly to refer to self-identified homosexual people of either sex. Lesbian is a gender-specific term that is only used for self-identified homosexual females. While homosexuality can include romantic friendship, homosexuality and romantic friendship are not synonymous."

Here are the two main problems: (1) The second definition, that begins with "in modern use," is for the most part not needed or warranted. It is redundant--except for, "who may or may not identify themselves as gay or lesbian". (2) The claim that homosexuality is "self-identified" is also problematic. It contradicts the claim I quote in #1, and it also lacks a citation.LCP 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality generally is self-identified. How else would it be identified? Sexual behavior alone cannot define the term, because one can have homosexual sex and not be gay or lesbian. FCYTravis 18:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you need to fix "...who may or may not identify themselves as gay or lesbian." Also, please see Law of noncontradiction. I think it may help this discussion.LCP 18:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

'Homosexual' is not an identity at all. Historicallly, it refers to empirical phenomena of same-sex desire and sexual practices. Doctors, in the 19th century, would call certain desires/practices 'homosexual' and then -- only by virtue of engaging in these practices or experiencing these desires --- would call people 'homosexual.' In this way, people can have same-sex desire or engage in same-sex sex practices and be homosexual in that sense without ever identifying themselves as such, or as 'gay' or 'lesbian' either.--Agnaramasi 19:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So how would you fix the lead?LCP 20:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my intrustion. I just removed "self-identified" because it's simply not a requirement (particularly when the terms are used as an insult, in which case the term itself may or may not be true, but the gender-specificity is still appropriate). HalJor 21:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Agnaramasi's statement that "Homosexual" is not an identity at all. Historicallly, it refers to empirical phenomena of same-sex desire and sexual practices. Actually, the term homosexual was invented by guess who: a homosexual! in about 1860 as I recall, in Germany -- as has been documented by historian Jonathan Ned Katz. Katz also documents that the term heterosexual was coined after, and in reaction to, coining of the term homosexual. And yes, homosexual was originally coined as a term of self-identity, because terms descriptive of our self-identity were rather sparse at the time. Gay and lesbian as terms of self-identity followed from that, partly in reaction to the co-optation of homosexual and homosexuality by the 19th century doctors you mention.

In any case, it's innaccurate to say that Homosexual' is not an identity at all. Believe it or not, there are still homosexually oriented people who prefer that term as a description of their self-identity over gay or lesbian. --Yksin 03:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be an "identity" in a weak sense but not a "self-identity". 'Homosexual' refers to people who act and desire sexually in certain ways. It refers to people involved in certain empirical phenomena. I never said that it did not refer to people. Self-identity implies that one can declare oneself to be 'homosexual' in the sense that one declares oneself 'gay' or 'lesbian'. This is false. You are deemed homosexual by the empirical phenomena you are involved in. Historically, it was doctors and psychiatrists who did the "deeming," and not so-called "homosexuals" themselves.--Agnaramasi 13:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's nonsense. Plenty of us homosexuals have declared ourselves as such without the "deeming" of doctors and psychiatrists. Certainly one of the usages of "homosexual" is to describe certain empirical phenomena, but another usage is that of homosexuals themselves to describe their own feelings even when not sexually involved with others. An example off the top of my head: John J. McNeill, who was a celibate Jesuit priest at the time he wrote The Church and the Homosexual and, at that time, also identified himself as a homosexual -- though he was celibate. Your definition is far narrower than actual useage has been throughout the history of the word. --Yksin 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yksin, please re-read what Agnaramasi wrote and pay specially attention to "historically" in his last sentence. I am not sure that there is a genuine disagreement here.LCP 15:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The word was invented historically by juridicial and medical discourses and not by self-proclaimed 'homosexuals' (Cf. Foucault). Appropriating or revaluing an identity that has already been given to you by institutions is not the same as assuming an identity originally through a self-declarative speech act of coming out. There is a crucial distinction between sexual orientation labels like 'gay' or 'lesbian' and the designation 'homosexual'. Homosexual irreducibly refers to empirical phenomena; thus you can deny that you are homosexual while still being a homosexual, whereas you cannot deny you are gay because you only become gay when you come out, or admit that you are, irrespective of any empirical phenomena. There are thus important differences -- not to elide the convergences -- between the terms 'homosexual', 'gay', and 'lesbian'.--Agnaramasi 18:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Kinsey info

The lead may not be the best place for the following: "the Kinsey Institute asserts that ones sexual orientation should not be measured according to discrete categories. Instead, it should be measured on a continuum based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience in each period of ones life." Any other ideas of where to put it?LCP 18:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation vs. Sexual Behavior

The lead says that homosexuality is a sexual orientation, but then describes it as an attraction or an interaction. The APA states "Sexual behavior does not necessarily equate to sexual orientation. Many adolescents—as well as many adults—may identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual without having had any sexual experience. Other young people have had sexual experiences with a person of the same gender, but do not consider themselves to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual."[10] If someone is heterosexually married, and is only heterosexually involved, but has homosexual attractions, is that person heterosexual or homosexual? Likewise if someone has had homosexual experience, but orientation remains heterosexual, what would they be classified as? It seems to me that homosexuality should be distinguished between homosexual attractions and homosexual behavior. Right now, the article seems to blur the difference, assuming that those with a homosexual orientation have sex with their own gender.Joshuajohanson 22:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone has access to better scholarly materials. I also wonder if the lead could be modeled after Human sexuality. Otherwise, short of resorting to a strict dictionary definition of homosexuality (which I tried) and/or noting the ambiguity of the term, I have no suggestions to improve the current lead. Regardless, I do have problems with the way it stands and the way the APA text is being referenced and employed here ("Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others." [11]). According to the APA text, a man would be considered homosexual (or as having a homosexual sexual orientation) merely by the fact that he finds his son, father, brother, male cousin, or uncle "attractive"--regardless of the quality of the attraction. I do not think that is the intention of the APA article, but that IS how it reads. And that is ludicrous.LCP 22:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between finding someone "attractive" and having an "enduring...attraction" towards someone. In your example, the enduring attraction that you attribute to son, father, etc. is based on a familial relationship, and I would argue that there is no inherent "attraction" in that relationship -- it is more a "bond" than an "attraction". Your example also does not consider the attraction the same man might feel for his daughter, mother, sister, aunt, or anyone outside his family. One must consider the attraction a subject feels for all people, men and women, before applying the "homosexual" label, and that is implied by the word "others". HalJor 01:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "inherent", but I think you mean biological disposition. I am not sure that I agree with your distinction. While the "bond" (whatever that means) between father and son may precede attraction, mutual attraction definitely becomes a powerful factor in the minds of boys and fathers very early in the relationship. And this could easily be demonstrated to have strong survival value, and therefore, a basis in biology. I agree with you that the "attraction" between father and son or child and mother is not the same thing as homosexual attraction (if that is what you are saying). I see where you are trying to go in your explication of "attraction" vs. "enduring attraction", but I don't see any warrant for the distinction. My attraction for my son is very enduring. And in any case, the weakness in the lead is that, as you state, "One must consider the attraction a subject feels for all people, men and women, before applying the 'homosexual' label." A reader should not have to do that guesswork in an encyclopedia article. Instead, the lead needs to provide that context so that the reader isn't left guessing.LCP 16:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is all fine and dandy, but what I am talking about is the contradiction that the opening sentence says it a sexual orientation, while the Etymology and usage says it describes behavior and relationships. It seems to me that homosexuality is talking a lot more than orientation, and that should be explained in the top.Joshuajohanson 07:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current lead is too ambiguous. The current lead, being taken almost verbatim from an APA self-help page, is also too U.S. centric. Perhaps you can make a change and see if the junta controlling this page will let it stand.LCP 17:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The lead from the APA text needs more development; it was intended as self-help, not a scholarly definition

The problem with the APA text is that it does not differentiate between different types of attraction. There is certainly an implied context--and “everyone” thinks they know what the sentence means. But I am talking about what the words actually say. And while the definition is good enough for an APA self-help article, from which the quote is taken, it is not scholarly. It is not that I disagree with what the line says. Instead, I think the lead needs to be more specific in defining the quality of attraction. I tried to do this by contrasting homosexuality to "romantic friendship," by my efforts have been rejected. Even if RF is not included in the lead, the ideas in the lead nevertheless need explication.LCP 16:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Article length as compared to Heterosexuality

This article is very long when compared to Heterosexuality. The Homosexuality article far exceeds the 32k standard recommendation for article length, and far exceeds the upper recommended limit of 50k -- Homosexuality is 84k. Are there sections which can be broken out? Are there any summaries of broken out sections which have become bloated or redundant? Joie de Vivre 18:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for historical perspective, it should be mentioned that 'homosexuality' was invented as a word prior to 'heterosexuality.' The criminalization and pathologization of homosexuality in particular is what led to the solidification of a hetersexual as its normative opposite.--Agnaramasi 20:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. So, wouldn't such content, if that is the source of the greater volume, be better suited to things like "Criminalization of homosexuality" or "Pathologization of homosexuality"? Joie de Vivre 20:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The article should ideally be structured as a summary style article, and it may have been like that a long time ago. But over time, passing-editor-creep has turned the article into an unsourced, redundant assortment of disconnected snippets. I'm hacking away as we speak -- feel free to join the fun. Fireplace 23:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

But, this article will have a LOT of citations, which beef up the kilobyte number without making the article "too big." It's too bad the counter doesn't ignore what's between ref tags. Fireplace 16:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Object to recent restructuring

I noticed that all of the theories developed by Alfred Kinsey, Fritz Klein, Sigmund Freud and similar researchers have been removed. Their theories are critical to the understanding of homosexuality and are well respected by the community at large. They had previously enjoyed a rather lengthy discussion (perhaps too lengthy). It seems this article has been rearranged to promote a particular viewpoint of homosexuality. I object to these changes and request that their theories be put back in.Joshuajohanson 07:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Kinsey and Freud's work is important from a historical perspective (and should certainly be included in the article in that context), but their work isn't very prevalent in modern mainstream scientific discussions of homosexuality (especially Freud). Fireplace 16:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, that is YOUR opinion. The sources were well referenced from reliable, modern, mainstream medical organizations accompanied with modern research. Lots of people do not categorize sexual orientation into three discreet categories, but view orientation as a dynamic continuum between homosexuality and heterosexuality. This article is a highly controversial topic, and should be discussed before making substantial changes to further your own point of view.Joshuajohanson 01:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Before you added the information in alongside the modern scientific explanations, there was only one unsourced, passing reference to Klein, and Freud was only mentioned in a historical context. I'm not "making substantial changes to further my own point of view" - I'm clearing unsourced stuff out and also clearing out stuff too obscure to go into a primary, summary-style article. Fireplace 03:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Relevence to modern science is not the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. There is no reason that contemporary scientific theories should be any more emphasized than psychoanalytic accounts of the "cause" of homosexuality. Psychoanalysis is still quite important for queer theory, for instance. Please, someone restore the content that was unjustly removed!--Agnaramasi 13:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I would rename “Mental illness” to “Mental health” because the idea that homosexuality is psychologically pathological is POV. Second, I agree that the "Mental illness" section is now woefully inadequate, completely lacking historical context and much contemporary info. The APA does not have a monopoly on truth and is only a U.S. based organization. Since Wikipedia is an international resource and homosexual studies are mostly NOT a hard science, other theories need to be mentioned here even though they are fully explicated only in the Homosexuality and mental health page.

Alfred Kinsey had a whole section dedicated to him under behavioral studies, and the reference to Klein was sourced. There are both classical theories by Kinsey, Klein, and Freud, and modern theories by Lisa Diamond and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, that view sexual orientation along a dynamic continuum, and shouldn't be limited to just three classifications. The sexology box at the top right hand corner mentions both the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid and the Kinsey scale under other classifications. Limiting sexual orientation to three fixed classes is only one theory.Joshuajohanson 17:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a little hard to follow this discussion because it's not clear what contested text we're talking about anymore. I've removed content for a lot of reasons (unsourced, too obscure to give prominence in a primary/summary-style article, etc.) Of course the article should discuss Kinsey, and Klein too (although obviously much less, as Kinsey is more influential, famous, cited, etc.) -- just make sure it's sourced, doesn't involve OR interpretations, and presented in a context that makes clear its present-day status. Fireplace 03:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Klein's views can be presented in this article without reference to contemporary psychoanalysts. They are notable in themselves.--Agnaramasi 13:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey under theories

I've removed opinion poll results from the "Theories" section - what people tell a pollster they believe has no rational bearing on scientific observation and study. Those results (which are outdated, because there's a 2006 study out here) belong under a section about specific U.S. societal views of homosexuality. Science is not a popularity contest. FCYTravis 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Right... scientists don't talk about homosexuality as being unnatural, a choice, a perversion, etc... discussion of those topics belongs in the society, religion, or politics section. Fireplace 16:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see comments below, "A problem with assumptions about science and the APA"LCP 16:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision considerations

The Wikipedia etiquette guidelines stress the importance of the rule to "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible." Wikipedia is intended to be an open source for information that errors on the side of being inclusive. The articles are designed and intended to be a source of information from many voices. The articles are not intended to be caretaken by one opinion or perspective. These considerations are particularly true of controversial articles. Revisions that either limit access to additional information sources or silence minority positions should be particularly suspect.

It is also important that content in articles be primarily related to the article topic. However, it is not sufficient to argue that content should be censored if it relates to both the article topic and related topics. It is incorrect to suggest that content should be excluded because it is not completely within the article topic. Three external links that all primarily provided users access to popular media portrayals of homosexual issues and characters were removed yesterday for being 'indiscriminatory' - an ironic rationale used by the contributing editor, given that homosexuality issues are often focused on either disarming discrimination or being more tolerant of indiscrimatory boundaries.

I suspect the word 'indiscriminatory' was used in its meaning of 'non-selective' or 'not within categorical parameters,' but that assertion was invalid in this case. All the added links were websites primarily dealing with homosexual individuals, media portrayals, and related issues. That they may also discuss other social issues involving people who are both homosexual and heterosexual should not subject them to censure. Under the contributing editor's flawed reasoning, most of the other external links should be removed also because they are not discriminating enough and they don't discuss homosexuality exclusively, but also touch on related issues.

I can understand someone excluding a link to "The Ellen Show" website because even though it has a homosexual host, it does not primarily discuss homosexual people and their issues (although I personally would not exclude that link if someone added it). But that was not the case with any of the external links that were deleted. The intent of those websites and/or media were all primarly discussing homosexuality and closely related issues. Further, it is important and helpful for Wikipedia to link surfers to related mass media sources on the article topics, particularly on controversial issues.

A problem with assumptions about science and the APA

I agree that value judgments are not the purview science. I also agree with some of the recent edits, such as the removal of popular opinions about homosexuality from the “theories” section. However, I am uncomfortable with the way some editors are talking about homosexuality and science. First, while science can contribute data to ethical discourse, science has no competence in ethics. Second, homosexuality is not a medical condition, homosexual studies are--in general--not a hard-science, and hard science cannot currently make any claims about the origins of homosexuality. Furthermore, hard science does not and cannot make any claims about the moral value, social implications, or psychodynamics of homosexuality. At best, homosexual studies are, overall, a “soft science” which would be rejected as unscientific by many in the hard sciences. In other words, homosexual studies are highly speculative. And granted that, the APA does not have a monopoly on speculative truth. Furthermore, the APA holds many theories, including the entire DSM approach to mental illness, that are rejected or at least highly contested by the international psychiatric community. In terms of “science,” Queer theory (for example) is just as valid as any APA speculation.

I completely agree that controversial non-cited ideas need to be removed. I am concerned that the revisions taking place in this article are informed by a mistaken idea about the relationship between homosexual studies and science and are too narrowly APA based and, therefore, too U.S. centric.LCP 16:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Backing up, the previous version of the article was an awful mess (almost nothing sourced, no coherent organization, lots of redundant information, lots of information about obscure stuff, some soapboxing). Right now the article is in a state of flux and lots of changes are being made (most of them haven't raised controversies). There's some controversy over whether to include Freud in the "determinants" section or some sort of historical section... I wouldn't object to including it in with other theories about what determines sexual orientation so long as we cite to a significant group of researchers who currently hold that view. On the other hand, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health stuff seems too insignificant to include on a primary, summary-style article (afaict from reading the Centre's article, this centre isn't particularly important in the scientific community and it may just be the work of one doctor at issue).

I don't think your views about the ability to study homosexuality scientifically have much academic support? Certainly it is studied by a lot of scientists. If there is a significant camp who thinks such research is per se illegitimate, that can be discussed as well. Fireplace 03:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Freud's views are very notable and should be included. The proper source would be his "Three essays in human sexuality". Citing that text would be sufficient. No "current researchers" would be necessary. --Agnaramasi 03:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fireplace, I did not say homosexuality cannot be studied scientifically. I said, “science has no competence in ethics … homosexuality is not a medical condition, homosexual studies are--IN GENERAL--not a hard-science, and hard science cannot CURRENTLY make any claims about the origins of homosexuality. Furthermore, HARD SCIENCE DOES NOT AND CANNOT MAKE ANY CLAIMS ABOUT THE MORAL VALUE, SOCIAL IMPLECATIONS, or PSYCHODYNAMICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY.” The idea that science has no competence in ethics is taken directly from academia, so I am sure that academia would support the very specific assertions that I have made.

Please don’t get me wrong. I appreciate the work you are doing. As I said, “I completely agree that controversial non-cited ideas need to be removed.” And I did not intend that the APA view should be omitted. Nor did I mean to imply that "soft science" is of no or even only little worth. Even though much of psychology is soft science, it is generally systematic, well thought out, and much better than wild speculation. I just want to ensure that the APA wasn't mistaken to be the be all and end all. It is just one voice, albeit an important one, in the human understanding of homosexuality.LCP 15:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! I'm all for including citations to reliable sources besides the APA. Fireplace 23:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

This is now worse than it was before. As it stands, the lead paragraph conflates homosexuality enitrely with a sexual orientation. Homosexuality refers to sexual behaviour, orientation and attraction between people of the same sex but is not a sexual orientation in itself. For instance, people can engage in homosexual activity without having a homosexual sexual orientation.--Agnaramasi 19:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I just adjusted it slightly so it is more of an open list of what homosexuality can refer to, depending on who you ask.--Agnaramasi 19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My version was much more clear than the one you reverted to. It merely lists what homosexuality can mean, without first saying that it "is a sexual orientation" and then contradicting that statement immediately with "it can also refer to sexual behaviour regardless of sexual orientation". Because homosexuality can be any or all of those things (attraction, behaviour, or orientation) my version was much clearer in specifying the open-endededness of the term. Also, what is the point of differentiating all kinds of attractions, when the only one that determines a relationship to be homosexual falls under the category of sexual attraction. Romantic relationships necessarily involve sexual attraction. Emotional attachment is not homosexual unless it involves sexual attraction. What kind of relationships are homosexual without involving at least some kind of sexual attraction?--Agnaramasi 20:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying it is a sexual attraction and behavior is misleading, since it does not require sexual behavior. Whether you like the wording on the definition of sexual orientation or not, it is what is used.Joshuajohanson 22:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the latest version. VanTucky 22:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You said this as I was editing it. Which version did you mean?Joshuajohanson 22:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The version that refers to it as both an orientation and a behavior in the first sentence. the (maybe this is better?) version. VanTucky 22:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Homosexuality refers to the sexual orientation, which is what this article is about. (Also, re the single quotes vs. italics issue, see WP:MOS.) Fireplace 23:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What? Most of this article is about homosexual behavior. Except for hate crimes, most of the legal section is on behavior. If you define homosexuality as being just an orientation, then there isn't any law anywhere in the world that prohibits homosexuals from being heterosexually married. It is a homosexual marriage (which is an homosexual behavior) that is illegal, not the orientation. Even bisexuals (and heterosexuals for that matter) are prohibited from a homosexual marriage. Same with parenting. There is no problem with homosexuals in a heterosexual relationship having or adopting children. Religious views are mostly about behavior. Most religions are not opposed to a homosexual orientation, and would still view homosexual activity as sinful whether or not the person was bisexual or just Men who have sex with men. The section on animals is purely homosexual behavior. By human definitions most of them would be assigned a bisexual orientation. Most of the anthropology, premodern section and Etymology and usage section is on behavior. For example, traditional Melanesian insemination rituals have NOTHING to do with orientation. If you add the AIDS epidemic, that is also about behavior. (AIDS doesn't care about your orientation, it only cares about your behavior.) They really are two different things. The only sections purely on orientation is Theories on homosexuality, Coming out, and suicide rates. Many other people have noted the need to talk about sexual activity as part of the definition of homosexuality. Maybe we should split the articles, but the other sections are really mixed.Joshuajohanson 23:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation -- most of the article deals with the legal/social/academic/etc issues surrounding homosexuality and homosexuals. It's entirely appropriate to talk about homosexual activity in an article on homosexuality -- but still, homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not an adjective. Fireplace 00:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is appropriate to mention homosexual activity in an article on homosexual orientation. However, since most of this article is about behavior, to say this article is about homosexual orientation and not behavior is misleading. Regardless of what the "technical" definition is, most people would consider two men or two women having sex as homosexuality, even if the people involved were actually bisexual.Joshuajohanson 00:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm losing track of the dialetic. It seems like the technical meaning of the concept is of paramount importance. "most people would consider two men or two women having sex as homosexuality" isn't grammatical... Further, it's probably not true. If you (say) pointed at two straight prisoners having sex and said "That's homosexuality!" I think "most people" would say "No, those are two straight men having homosexual sex, but they aren't homosexuals." And to the extent that the article is "about behavior", that's because people whose sexual orientation is homosexual tend to have gay sex, not because homosexuality itself means gay sex. Fireplace 00:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify this discussion there are two major problems with the lead paragraph.

(1) The various things that homosexuality may refer to. It is of paramount importance that the lead paragraph does not say that homosexuality is definitively either a behaviour, attraction or orientation. It can refer to any or all of those things. The opening sentence or two of this article must clearly express this multiplicity. To reduce homosexuality to either an orientation, behaviour, or attraction to the exclusion of other components is POV.

(2) To ennumerate the various dimensions (enduring affection, emotional attachment, romantic love, etc. btw people of the same gender) of 'homosexuality' as sexual orientation is unnecessary. The sexual orientation that counts as homosexual must essentially involve some kind of enduring sexual attraction between people of the same gender. Some might think that to reduce homosexuality as sexual orientation to sexual attraction somehow debases the idea of a sexual orientation, which does indeed involve all of these dimensions and more. Nonetheless, homosexuality as sexual orientation is defined essentially by enduring sexual attraction involving people of the same gender. This is the aspect which distinguishes homosexuality as sexual orientation from heterosexuality. A homosexual person might have mutual affection and emotional/romantic ties with people of the opposite gender. What makes a person homosexual (or heterosexual) is whether or not they experience enduring sexual attraction with those of the same gender. I do not think that homosexuality as orientation is debased by the fact that it involves, by definition, some form of sexual attraction between people of the same gender. That is not to say that sexual attraction is all homosexuality as orientation involves. Of course it has emotional, affective, sociological, etc., dimensions. But these apply to all kinds human relationships, and do not mark them specifically as homosexual.

(3) All references to 'sex' should be to 'gender', which has a significance beyond the biological.

Consequently, I propose this wording:

Homosexuality can refer to both sexual behaviour andsexual attraction between people of the same gender and sometimes describes a sexual orientation involving either or both of these. When descrbing a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to enduring sexual attraction toward others of the same sex, but does not necessarily involve sexual behavior.[1] Homosexual behavior includes any sexual activity between people of the same sex, regardless of sexual orientation.[2]

Please comment about the strengths/weaknesses of this so we can arrive at a consensus.--Agnaramasi 02:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine, but the phrase "and romantic" should also be added to the section "refers to enduring sexual attraction toward others of the same sex". Homosexual orientation isn't just about sexual behavior, but defined by a exclusive romantic inclination towards the same sex. VanTucky 03:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok I will add "and romantic," and make the edit. Could other editors please discuss before reverting?--Agnaramasi 13:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable, mainstream source describing homosexuality this way? Fireplace 20:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And, by the way, I'm happy to work toward consensus, but don't claim it (as you did here) when you obviously don't have it. Fireplace 20:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, the current lead seems to me to do a very nice job of incorporating all of the views expressed here so far, including the APA view. Here are several other URLs that, with the APA's def, support the current lead very nicely:

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/gay

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3781

http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/homosexuality

http://web4health.info/en/answers/sex-homo-what.htm

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/homosexual

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Homosexual

http://mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=7862&cn=55

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/h/h0260200.html

LCP 23:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first, second, fifth, and sixth are definitions of 'gay' or 'homosexual', not 'homosexuality' (and, furthermore, each one is consistent with my position and do not support the current lead). The third, fourth, and seventh support my position and not the current lead. Only the eighth kinda-sorta supports the current lead, but the source is "yourdictionary.com", and then only as a secondary definition. I'd be fine with a disambig link of the form "This article is about the sexual orientation. For homosexual sex, see Human sexual behavior." Fireplace 01:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So we really should change the page on Homosexuality laws of the world, since by your definition, homosexuality is legal in every single country in the world. Maybe we should change this article to reflect that.Joshuajohanson 01:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether homosexuality is legal in every country. Certainly homosexual sex is illegal in some countries, and certainly that is relevant to an article dealing with laws relating to homosexuality. Fireplace 01:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Heck, if you change the article to make it clear that homosexuality by itself is not illegal, and include all aspects of homosexual sexual activity and culture (like being a closeted heterosexually married homosexual) and include a redirect page, I wouldn't mind saying homosexuality is purely an orientation. This article would need A LOT of revisions before that happened though.Joshuajohanson 03:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So, asking again, is there a reliable, mainstream source describing homosexuality as the current lead does? Fireplace 14:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As I illustrate below, along with references already noted in the lead, the URLs I provided (above) amply support the current lead. Below, I have copied each definition (from the URLs that I listed above) and designated each with a letter (A-G). Next to each claim in the lead (copied below), I have referenced the definition(s) that supports it. I would point out that the lead should not be a direct quote (or near-direct quote--such as the previous APA-only based lead), and that the definitions I found are not mutually exclusive.

When you differentiate between “gay” and “homosexual” AS THEY ARE USED IN THE URLs I CITE, I think you are splitting hairs. Same with “homosexual” and “homosexuality.”

Regarding the last ref, “yourdictionary,” the def comes from The American Heritage Dictionary and Roget's II: The New Thesaurus. I think these are about as mainstream as you are going to find.

The current lead: Homosexuality can refer to both sexual behaviour (A, D, F, G) and sexual attraction between people of the same gender (A, B, C, D, E, F) and sometimes describes a sexual orientation involving either or both of these (F and APA). When describing a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to enduring sexual and romantic attraction toward others of the same sex, but does not necessarily involve sexual behavior [1] (A, B, C, D, E, F). Homosexual behavior includes any sexual activity between people of the same sex, regardless of sexual orientation [2] (A, C, G). Homosexuality is contrasted with heterosexuality, bisexuality, and pansexuality (F). While the term 'gay' often refers to a homosexual man, it sometimes refers to homosexual people of either gender (A, B, C, D, G). 'Lesbian' denotes a homosexual woman (B, D).

References (in the same order as listed above):

A. Gay someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex

B. Homosexual: A person sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. Homosexuals include males (gays) and females (lesbians).

C. A sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex

D. Homosexuality is to have a preference for sexual relations with and feel attracted to persons of the same sex. Women who are homosexual are called lesbians. Bisexual people don't have a preference for a sexual relationship with a certain sex, but feel attracted to both men and women.

E. A person sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. Homosexuals include males (gays) and females (lesbians). Homosexual can also be an adjective.

F. According to researchers Susan Cochran and Vickie Mays, sexual orientation includes the following dimensions: sexual attraction; sexual behavior; sexual fantasies; emotional, social, and lifestyle preferences; and self-identification. The term "gay" has traditionally been used to represent a diverse group or people who are attracted to people of the same gender or are in a relationship with someone of the same gender. It is important to recognize, however, that different groups within the gay community exist, and that the term "gay" is not all-inclusive. For example, transsexuals and some people who are bisexual do not consider themselves to be gay. Also, research has found that men who have had relationships with other men do not always identify themselves as gay. There is also a tremendous ethnic diversity among our lesbian, gay, and bisexual communities, and this contributes to the different perceptions of the term "gay."

G. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex; Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

LCP 16:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to accept dictionary definitions as authoritative with respect to encyclopedic concepts. But, the academic encyclopedias I was able to access often redirect entries on homosexuality to sexual orientation, making it hard to find a clear source. I'll let this one go for the time being. Fireplace 19:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Reflecting how words are used in print, dictionaries are generally a good starting point. I think the problem here is that the idea of homosexuality is itself so muddled. It is understood according to several diverse and not always convivial intellectual traditions. Science (genetics and neuroscience) views it one way, “soft-science” (theoretical psychology and sociology) looks at it another, history another, religions yet another (and not necessarily in agreement with each other), and the average Joe in a way that is probably an accretion of all of the above combined with personal experience. And where science has no authority in morality and ethics, religion has no authority in science, and history tries to stand apart from and understand both and itself. Granted all of this, I think the lead does a fair job representing the spectrum of views without contradicting itself. The problem with it now is, I think, a want of conciseness (that is probably impossible to attain).LCP 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So is Fireplace is the only user who is against the current lead? He seems to think that homosexuality is first and foremost a sexual orientation before referring to behaviour and attraction. I think that it would be a mistake and POV to define homosexuality first as a sexual orientation before mentioning that it refers to behaviour and attractions also. I think it is important to present homosexuality as behaviour, attraction and orientation without prioritizing any one of these categories over the others. The fact that we are debating which of these is more essential to homosexuality attests to the fact that the lead must do justice to all of these different POV on what exactly homosexuality is. So who supports the curerent lead?--Agnaramasi 16:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:VOTE and WP:DEMOCRACY. Fireplace 18:19, 24 May 2007(UTC)

Please do not refer me to Wikipedia policy assuming I am not familiar with it. Also, I fail to see how you could think that my comment -- at the end of a very long section on this talk page initiated by me -- is somehow a "substitute" for discussion, when it is actually an attempt to summarize it and come to some kind of conclusion. Why don't you try to cooperate with other editors instead of simply stating reiterating your position without compromise?--Agnaramasi 08:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fireplace, I can see why you took Agnaramasi's comment as you did, and I think you missed his intention. I read what he wrote NOT as a call for a vote but as an invitation to other editors, who might support your view, to chime in. Because the current lead is demonstrably supported by a plethora of sources, includes multiple views, and is NOT self-contradictory, I think it would be unfair to suggest that it is the result of WP:VOTE or WP:DEMOCRACY.LCP 18:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Putting homosexuality in premodern times in its own page

As has been mentioned, this article should be a summary article. The premodern history is taking up a lot of space, and I think it is weird that it has more space than modern history. I think a summary and a link to a main page would be sufficient for this page. What do all of you think?Joshuajohanson 22:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Support I concur. VanTucky 22:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I fail to see the logic of one hundred years of history taking precedence - or pride of place - over three thousand years of history. It might make more sense to split out the stuff on modern behaviors and call it Modern interpretations of homosexuality. Let's try to keep an ecumenical view here. Haiduc 22:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Discuss The article is in a state of flux and its final organizational structure is still unclear (we don't, e.g., have a clear layout for a history section, there's very little on culture, very little on the AIDS epidemic -- how these will be organized remains to be seen), so I don't think we should start splitting off articles *just* yet -- but certainly down the road a bit. Fireplace 22:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, note the existence of LGBT history. Fireplace 23:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with Haiduc. Why should we emphasize modern history? I think the Ancient history of homosexuality is extremely relevent to this article. Also, the history of homosexuality (from antiquity to present) is definitely not the same thing as LGBT history, which indeed has a more modern focus (pretty much 20th century only)--Agnaramasi 03:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I think the history of homosexuality extends beyond its existence and "practice", if you will. The sexuality itself has not changed over the millennia...the attitudes toward it have. I think to separate homosexuality "ago" from homosexuality "today" insinuates a progressive change in the state of being of homosexulity itself, rather than in the inherent propensity of a homosexual individual to express their true nature in any given social milieu (episteme, as Foucalt called it). Homosexuality in modern times exists only because of the willingness to view it in secular terms, rather than the mortal sin it has historically been portrayed as by the dogmas of many organized religions. This came from the modern era, and the reductionistic and positivistic ideologies it embraced. Therefore, I feel the entire history of homosexuality is a necessary component of any narrative on the topic. Eganio 00:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, as per Haiduc — OwenBlacker 08:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

history section

I strongly feel both that (1) there should be a history section, and (2) the topical sections should not be subsumed into the history section. A topical organization is much more reader friendly and makes for easy use of {{main}} templates in summary articles. I feel like the best solution is to create a history section, but to be very clear that where content could either go in the history section or a topical section, it should go in the topical section (with perhaps a quick mention in the history section). Fireplace 23:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Support A general history section makes much more sense than just premodern. I also wanted to point out that there is plenty of mention to premodern in other places in the article, so I don't think we are showing favoritism to modern history. I suggested the split because I didn't want to lose the information, but if we merged it with LGBT history, we would be able to save the content.Joshuajohanson 00:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just want to see what shape this section takes before siphoning off content. Fireplace 00:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Support but discuss all changes. Please don't reorganize content significantly without discussing first. The edits to this article have generally been too sweeping too quickly. Editors need to give time for others to absorb what kind of changes they are proposing.--Agnaramasi 03:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Support I agree that a history section is warranted, and should not be cordoned off into seemingly arbitrary "cut-off" points like premodern/modern...it should be considered as a whole, IMO. Eganio 01:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Support May I also suggest that we include a brief overview of modern developments in the history section - we are even now part of history. Haiduc 02:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said. I second. Eganio 04:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Support, and I agree with Haiduc (again) — OwenBlacker 08:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Does not necessarily involve sexual behavior"

'but does not necessarily involve sexual behavior this.' In the opening paragraph. Should be 'but this does not necessarily involve sexual behavior' 81.178.248.161 15:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed.--Agnaramasi 14:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Violence

Hi! Im new to Wikipedia, and not quite sure how to do it, but I found a source for the list of countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. It is: http://www.modelun.org/naimun/bggs/Torture.pdf Again, sorry to push it off on someone else, but Im still learning! Thanks :)

68.240.122.28 16:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

What's the etymology of "homosexual"? -Rex Imperator

Added a bit about it. Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~). VanTucky 17:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Domestic partnership and civil unions

'Domestic partnership', an almost exclusively American concept, is used for some laws of the Scandinavian countries since the late 80's. I think 'Civil union' would be more appropriate. I think Denmark was the first Scandinavian country legalizing same-sex civil unions, but I don't know about Sweden, Norway and Finland. Maybe someone more knowledgeable could offer some enlightment. Soczyczi 17:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the text, Fireplace. There's a max of five Scandinavian countries (according to your definition of Scandinavia), if you include Iceland. So do all five have civil union laws? In that case you can change 'Most' into 'All'. Soczyczi 13:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, according to Scandinavia, the Faroe Islands are sometimes also considered a Scandinavian country, and they do not seem to have any civil union/gay marriage laws. The other five do. Fireplace 17:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Also see this wiki page

The 'gay love bomb'. [12]

Homosexual vs. Gay/Lesbian terminology

User IloveMP2yea (talk) changed most instances of either of the words "gay" and "lesbian" to "homosexual", and the word "straight" to "heterosexual". Apparently for correctness, based on one edit comment. I fail to understand how that change is supposed to be more correct, as many members of the gay community prefer to be called "gay", a word that has been hard won in civil rights struggles and gay pride activities. Lesbians, I believe, prefer to be called lesbians, rather than homosexual or gay (due to gender inequality). So, assuming good WikiFaith intentions, my question to ILoveMP2yea is: What was the reasoning behind this change, and what is it supposed to accomplish? Becksguy 07:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual is a sexual orientation, gay / lesbian is a person whom identifies as a homosexual. in general I think the terms gay / lesbian should be used. Jacobshaven3 11:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And convention on wikipedia seems to be using gay/lesbian instead of homosexual. I'd reverted the edits back, but didn't want to get into an edit war over it. Kolindigo 18:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted. I would rather this be done piecemeal rather than wholesale. In one of the recent edits, ILoveMP2yea even changed "gay and lesbian" from within a direct quote of an APA statement. That's just unacceptable. Silly rabbit 18:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, everybody needs to remember that this is a new user we're dealing with, furthermore one with obviously good intentions, so let's be careful not to bite the newcomers shall we? As to the edits: while gay (and to a lesser extent lesbian) are becoming less favored in the GLBT community than queer (as queer is a more inclusive term) for talking about individuals, homosexual is a very...clinical/scientific sounding term, and doesn't really take into account people and emotion. So I support the reversion. VanTucky 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Returns*

I'm sorry for the inconvenience! Homosexual sounded a bit less...offensive to me. "Gay" and "Lesbian" are what is used within the workplace, streets, especially high schools, etcetera, to be a highly offensive term. To me, it looked better and I do indeed prefer it to be "clinical/scientific sounding". Thank you for correcting me, though. I'll leave the article alone from now on...pretend that you never encounter the bump in the road that is me ^.^

And I'd like to comment on how well this article is written. Superb writing. IloveMP2yea 02:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

ILoveMP2yea, thank you for responding with your thoughts about the changes. I can see that you gave the changes consideration and that they made sense to you. If I had thought for one second that your intentions were anything less than completely honorable, I would have just reverted the changes with a short comment, and moved on. You made those changes in accordance with the Wikipedia "be bold" philosophy, so you have nothing to be sorry for. In fact, I commend you for doing what you did and your grace in accepting the reversion. All I initially asked was for you to provide your reasoning after the fact, which you did. So please don't refrain from editing this, or any other article, and please don't refer to yourself as a "bump in the road". It takes time to become aware of the culture and processes here, as well as in any other organization. The only people that are never criticized are those that do nothing that can be criticized, so making changes is highly preferred to doing nothing, safe as that option is. You were most definitely not an inconvenience. The only "bad" thing you did was to change an actual quote, and that was just a mistake. Think of it as a learning experience, and I hope you come back and improve this article as well as others. Every time you edit an article, you become a better editor, since writing is the art of applying one's butt to the chair. And if you have questions, please ask an experienced editor (no, not me, I'm still a newbie) and/or post comments/questions in the appropriate talk page. I'm sorry I was upset in my original comment, and I apologize for that. Also, the gay community is far from monolithic on this issue, so it's hardly surprising that the greater community doesn't always know what terminology to use either. So this is an entirely suitable topic for discussion with potentially a wide spectrum of opinions and attitudes about it, some very strongly held. Yes, I agree with you, the article is well written. Help make it even better. Becksguy 03:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll be sure to take that advice there :) IloveMP2yea 05:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Although there is nothing inherently problematic with the term "homosexual," I think think we should generally seek to apply WP:MoS#Identity in this article, and opt for self-identifying terminology. -Severa (!!!) 09:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, Severa, I believe that the use of the term homosexual (or heterosexual, for that matter) is inherently problematic. However, thank you for supporting self-identifying labels. Here is my reasoning for that viewpoint.

The terms are clinical/medical in nature and not well suited for a subject as socially and personally complex as sexuality, regardless of orientation.
Many members of the LGBTQ community find the term homosexual offensive, since it's a term that tends to be used by their oppressors, including the Evangelical and anti-gay agenda groups.
It's use is deprecated by The National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association [13] in their stylebook, except in parallel constructs, such as in a medical context. [14]
The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) [15] referred to the use of homosexual as "offensive" saying "Because of the clinical history of the word “homosexual,” it has been adopted by anti-gay extremists to suggest that lesbians and gay men are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered - notions discredited by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s." [16]
As an indication of the power of semantics, an article in The Advocate [17](a national gay newspaper) mentions the results of a 2005 survey in which the responses were 9-10 percentage points higher when the terms gay and lesbian were used vs. the term homosexual. [18]
Much of the above from the Ex-Gay Watch website here and the provided links. However, I suspect that the offensive nature of the term homosexual is probably not well known outside of the LGBTQ community, so I am assuming good faith intentions (like a good little Wikipedian should). And, as I said above, the gay community is hardly monolithic on this issue, and there are those that prefer others terms; Queer being one of the more popular ones. And yes, there are those that find the term gay offensive also, especially when used to describe something not liked, as in "That's so gay". Describing any minority group without causing some dissension is very difficult. I hope this comment will be taken as educational (my intention) rather than as a rant. Maybe I should add this topic to the article (after some further work). Thank you. Becksguy 19:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Terminology of homosexuality#Currently prescribed usage may provide some answers for the curious. Joie de Vivre ^T 21:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Becksguy, I never intended to imply that I advocate exclusive use of the term "homosexual" in this article, just that, in certain contexts, I think the word is acceptable. I think we should probably default to "gay" or "lesbian" when referring to individuals, but, as an adjective, I don't necessarily have a problem with using the word, particularly if it helps to alleviate repetition and make the prose more readable. Some examples I've made up:

"The history of homosexual art goes back to the Greek and Roman period."
"It was not until the latter half of the twentieth century that Western cinema began to openly explore homosexual themes."
"A 2006 study compared the pet ownership of gay couples and straight couples. It found that homosexual couples are less likely than heterosexual couples to have a dog, but, at the same time, that they are more likely to have a cat."

I understand the delicate nature of semantics. When the introduction of same-sex marriage was being debated here in Canada, I found that opposing commentary tended to use "homosexual marriage," while supporting and neutral commentary tended to use "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage." In the above constructions, "gay and lesbian art," "gay and lesbian themes," and "same-sex couples" would work just as well, but all I intended to do was clarify that the term "homosexual" is not necessarily inappropriate to use in all contexts. I can't think of another single-word descriptor, and, thus, my inner grammarian informs me to keep the door open on "homosexual." "LGBT," as an acronym, applies not just to gay and lesbian people, but also to bisexual people and to transgendered people (who, in my experience, can be straight, gay, or bi). I hope this clarifies what I originally intended to say. -Severa (!!!) 14:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It does clarify quite nicely, Severa, and thanks for eloquently responding. We don't have a basic disagreement, I think, as exemplified in your comment on Canadian marriage debates. And as I said, the gay community is not unanimous on this either, so how can the greater community always know what is preferred. To me, there is an element of "not what is said, but how it is said" that applies, so that the use of homosexual in a mean spirited or derogatory way should not be tolerated, but other uses may be, depending, especially in a medical context. And as IloveMP2yea noted above, the use of gay can be offensive under some circumstances also. Becksguy 21:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

question

why does tinky-winky redirect to this article?tinky-winky is a teletubbies charecter:shouldn't it link to the teletubbies article instead of homosexuality?67.185.26.89 01:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The redirect had been vandalised. Now fixed. WjBscribe 01:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality vs homosexual behaviour

Someone went through and changed lots of occurrences of "homosexuality" to "homosexual acts/behaviour." I find this to be problematic when in many causes what it referred to is BOTH homosexuality as an orientation and as sexual behaviours. Please do not introduce this distinction into parts of the article without justifying or explaining it.--Agnaramasi 18:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in many cases it can be referred to as both an orientation and as a sexual behavior. In those instances, I didn't change it. However, sometimes it can't be both. If homosexuality refers to both an orientation and a behavior, it should not be used in contexts where only orientation or behavior is being referred to. These are the instances to which I changed to homosexual acts/behavior/activity or homosexual orientation.

For example, to say "Homosexuality is punishable by death in ... Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen" is incorrect and misleading, because only homosexual behavior is punishable by death. To say otherwise unfairly misrepresents those countries. Same thing when you say a religion forbids homosexuality. To say in Persia, homosexuality was tolerated in public places, obviously should be behavior. When you are talking about insemination rituals or other religious homosexual practices, those were universally practiced regardless of orientation.

On the other hand, when you are discussing the causes of homosexuality, you are most assuredly talking about the orientation. Medical organizations have been very clear that an orientation does NOT necessarily involve sexual behavior. To apply their research to homosexual behavior is misleading. When you are discussing the malleability of homosexuality, again that only refers to the orientation, because homosexual behavior is very malleable depending on moods, age, and relationship status. No one argues that.

Now there are times when both orientation and behavior are being discussed. For example, when you are talking about general attitudes, such as societal or religious, that often includes both. Also medical organizations agree that neither a homosexual orientation or homosexual behavior is caused by a mental illness. These are times when the use of homosexuality is appropriate. These distinctions need to be made in order to correctly reflect the issues. I think I have generally explained the distinctions I have made. Of course, there may be things I don't understand and may have misinterpreted, in which case I would appreciate being enlightened. Joshuajohanson 20:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What is homosexual behavior? If it's male/male sodomy that's illegal, then, imho, write that. If it's another sexual act, then write that. Calling it homosexual behavior opens up a huge can of worms. Kolindigo 21:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual behavior is sexual behavior with those of the same gender, regardless of orientation. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals and pansexuals can all participate in homosexual behaviors, and even heterosexuals can become involved in situational homosexuality. I think most sodomy laws only prohibit penetrative sex, but I know in some countries even kissing in public is outlawed. It would still be illegal even if the participants were actually bisexual and not gay. Homosexual behavior is meant to cover all of that. Religious views also differ on what homosexual behavior is forbidden, some prohibiting all sexual behavior, including kissing, while others only prohibit penetrative sex. I have tried to use homosexual behavior only when it includes several forms of sexual behavior, or when when the scope of sexual behavior is unclear.Joshuajohanson 22:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Joshuajohanson presents a good case for distinguishing within the article between homosexual behavior, orientation, etc. All the while, each clarification should be carefully considered, so that the most inclusive term is used in each specific case. Homologeo 09:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Your changes to the legal stuff makes sense. Obviously it is behaviour that is criminal and not an orientation. Other changes you made were not so justified. For example, changing 'homosexuality' to 'homosexual relationships' in the sentence "Homosexuality has been a feature of human culture since earliest history" in the second paragraph. Obviously homosexuality in all its dimensions has been present throughout history. I was especially concerned about your substitution of 'homosexual behaviour' in the discussion of social construction of homosexuality. Sociologists and queer theorists claim that it is homosexuality, in all its dimensions, that is socially constructed, not just homosexual behaviour. I am reverting your changes until you justify them case by case because in their present state they do more harm than good.--Agnaramasi 13:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: I reverted, but I left in your changes to the stuff on the criminalization of homosexual acts, where I agree the distinction between acts and orientation is valuable. But I don't agree with many of the other places you introduced the distinction. It is up to you to find consensus for these changes by justifying them on the talk page prior to reverting to them again.--Agnaramasi 14:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sociologist study all aspects of homosexuality. That probably should have been reverted, but whether you practice Egalitarian, Gender structured, or Age structured homosexuality has more to do with homosexual behavior, which can be influenced by society as opposed to a homosexual orientation, which is more biological. I am most concerned about the reverting of homosexual orientation in the sections on causes, malleability and frequency of a homosexuality. This is clearly talking about orientation and not behavior. Frequency of homosexual behavior will vary drastically depending on the society's view on homosexual behavior. I am also concerned about the statement about religions and homosexuality, since most religions do not object to an orientation, just behavior. I am also concerned about the several legal instances that were reverted. I am also concerned about statements like religious groups being against LGBT community. There are religious and celibate LGBT members of the community. I would still like to change other instances were the article assumes everyone with a homosexual orientation has homosexual sex. Medical organizations have made it very clear that that is not the case.[19] I made these objections in my previous post. While you agreed with the legal aspect, you do not address my other concerns.Joshuajohanson 01:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My responses to the specific issues you raised:

Why is egalitarian, gender structured, or age structured homosexuality a matter of behaviour and not attraction/orientation? I do not think your claim on this point has any basis whatsoever.
I would argue, contrary to you, that the frequency of homosexuality refers more to acts and not identity. It is difficult if not impossible to quantify identites, whereas the frequency of specific acts can be empirically measured (they are physically observable empirical phenomena) and do not vary as widely across cultures and history as identities do (i.e. sexual orientation is a historically specific development in the West since the 19th century and refers to nothing beyond that specific historico-cultural context). Also, the claim that the frequency of homosexual behaviour is somehow correlated to prevailing social attitudes about homosexuality is completely speculative and original research (and I would argue is likely false).
I agree with you that religious and legal proscriptions of homosexuality generally refer to homosexual acts, and that should be clarified [I thought I left the legal stuff as you had it..]
Finally the possibility of people identifying as homosexual and not partaking in homosexual acts should not be elided in the article. Do you have any examples of what needs to be corrected?--Agnaramasi 04:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "sexual orientation is a historically specific development." Even though we might not have put homosexuality in terms of a sexual orientation before the 19th century, it still existed. There has always been people who had an "enduring sexual and romantic attraction toward others of the same sex," whether or not they called it a sexual orientation. Now I agree that the modern sexual identity is a historical development, but that is completely different than a sexual orientation. Sexual identity does vary widely across culture, but I have not seen any evidence that sexual orientation does. Frequency of behavior does vary between cultures. For example, in Melanesia, insemination rituals make homosexual behavior almost universal. Prisons have also seen an increase in homosexual behavior through prison rape. I don't think the frequency of a homosexual orientation is drastically different in Melanesia or in prisons, but homosexual behavior does vary. Compare that to places were homosexuality can bring on the death penalty. That won't stop people from being attracted to their own sex, but it definitely can discourage homosexual behavior, or at least the frequency and publicity of it.

As far as frequency is concerned, consider the sentence "Measuring the prevalence of homosexuality is difficult because ... research must measure some characteristic that may or may not be defining of sexual orientation." Homosexuality has to be used as an orientation there, don't you think?
The sentence "In some cultures homosexuality is still considered "unnatural" and is outlawed" is wrong. Homosexuality is not outlawed, only homosexual sex.
The phrase "None of the East Asian countries today have specific legal prohibitions against homosexuality" implies that other countries do.
So does that mean I can put back in the changes I made to the religion section?
What is your interpretation on the causes of homosexuality? That has to be talking about orientation.Joshuajohanson 02:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that we don't know if homosexual orientation (or a homosexual demeanor), per se, is illegal in any one or more jurisdictions anywhere homosexuality is, or has been, illegal (either judicially or extra-judicially). Or if it's only same-sex sexual acts that are illegal in all those places. In other words, I don't think we can verify that only homosexual sexual conduct is illegal. For example, I don't know enough about Sharia (the fundamentalist Islamic legal system) to get if there is any distinction between orientation and conduct there. Becksguy 04:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Should the link "Kinsey and the Homosexual Revolution"[20] be in the external links list? Anyone who reads the content of this will notice its non-neutral nature, especially when it says somewhere "Challenging Darwin's Myths" [21]. I also think it is too specific if it is meant to portray a religious point of view on the topic, or at least it should be stated along with the link that the web site has religious affiliations. Gavriish 00:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

FCYTravis decided to remove links to PFOX and NARTH...but Narth is the only research-based group of psychologists I know of, and PFOX is one of the most supportive groups for Homosexuals and for encouraging parents to support and love-on their children I know. They're also some of the most respected groups among homosexuals and psychologists...but I've noticed in some GLBT literature lately the demonization of them both. FCYTravis seems to have a bone to pick according to the commetns made on this discussion page, and I don't appreciate the removal of these links. I also don't appreciate the attitudes in the GLBT literature lately to ex-gays: I've seen published papers of very unprofessional behavior and even systematic harassment to people who have decided they were no longer going to be in the gay lifestyle: these people want to be left alone, but they now get harassed not only by heterosexuals, but other homosexuals, which makes life twice as hard as it already is for gays: this is one of the important aspects of groups like PFOX.

Further, NARTH is one of the only groups acceptable in academia for citation in research on homosexuality, among liberals and conservatives, gays and heterosexuals, public universities, and private universities, so what's the problem? I'm pre-med and by the time I make it to psychology and if and when I take a class on human sexuality I consider it a valuable resource. It's not irregular to see it in paper. FCYTravis, please leave these links alone! They may be beneficial to someone, and they're pertinent to the subject in this article.Infinitelink 22:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to "leave these links alone." They don't belong on the page. They are properly linked at Reparative therapy. FCYTravis 03:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

FCYTravis is correct. These links do not belong here. In addition, NARTH and PFOX are essentially evangelical organizations with anti-gay agendas. Basically they believe that being gay is a sin, a disorder, a choice, and can be changed, none of which is true. As ReligiousTolerance.org says to a list of NARTH beliefs: "Each of these beliefs totally contradict statements made by all other professional mental health associations." And no, I don't believe they are well respected by the gay community and sexology professionals. Becksguy 06:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Only the U.S.?

Quoting from the "Parenting" section:

"Gay and lesbian parenting enjoys broad support from medical experts, including the American Psychological Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the American Bar Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians."

While that's dandy, it does give the slight impression that only organisations in the United States support same-sex parenting. Could at least one of the nine examples listed be changed to an organisation not solely active within the United States? In the extremely unlikely case that it's true that only U.S. organisations support same-sex parenting, I'd say that fact definitely warrants a mention in the section. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreement: I agree with GeeJo's observation, the citations are USA-centric. A few citations from other countries should be added, perhaps from The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and other places that have been generally supportive of gay rights and same-sex parenting to provide a wider world view. I suspect that they might be more supportive, or became supportive earlier than the American organizations. Becksguy 22:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I didn't write that paragraph, but I have made some significant additions to the LGBT parenting article in recent days. You're right, it's mostly North American sources in these articles. If you fellows want more sources from other countries, why don't you go do the research and add them? The same goes for Becksguy's comments about the anti-gay-parenting objections. Instead of just complaining, why not do the necessary work and add some great content, huh guys? :-) --Textorus 20:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't the objections to same-sex parenting be expanded a bit in this section to provide more balance, rather than having to read the main article, LGBT parenting? One sentence indicating that there is a controversy in many Western countries doesn't seem to be enough here. (Interesting... I find myself, in the interests of being NPOV, promoting a position that I don't personally believe in.) Becksguy 22:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing, what exactly qualifies the American Bar Association , the North American Council on Adoptable Children and the National Association of Social Workers as "medical experts"? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point, GeeJo. The problem is with the phrase "medical experts". I think the phrase should be changed to "various professional and advocacy groups", or something similar. There is nothing wrong with the listing of the groups, the more varied, the better. As long as they have recognized expertize and legitimate standing in the area of adoption and childhood development, whether it be from a medical, social, legal, or child advocacy perspective. And when I say child advocacy, I mean those that advocate for the best interests of the children, not those that advocate for an idealogical viewpoint.

I don't think the objections need to be specifically mentioned, as they are all unscientific to begin with. All the common misconceptions about gay parents - that they make their kids gay, that they molest them, that their families are all going to burn in hell, blah blah blah - they are all just myths fueled by ignorance. Most of all, they lack any reputable evidence whatsoever, and should not be elevated to the same height as reliable, objective evidence. Objectivity doesn't mean everyone gets an equal say regardless of their reputability - in fact, that would make it skewed. Misconceptions are not equal to facts. There is no scientific debate on this subject, only a religious/political controversy. If people want to learn more about history and ongoing current events of that hot button topic they can go to the other article and learn about it in depth. Otherwise the specific objections of anti-gay Americans in the modern age should not be given the same attention as the decades of meaningful scientific research.Rglong 04:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Decriminalization of homosexuality - forgot to mention Soviet Russia

I noticed in the "politics" section that it said this: "homosexual acts were decriminalized in some parts of the Western world, such as in Denmark in 1933, in Sweden in 1944, in the United Kingdom in 1967, and in Canada in 1969." Although homosexual acts were recriminalized by Stalin, it is still worth noting that Denmark was not the first country to decriminalize it. The exact law was made in 1922, but there was a de facto decriminalization starting in 1917 : "the criminal code of 1922, which decriminalized same-sex relations between consenting adults" (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_4_36/ai_104635113) .

136.142.173.169 19:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Physiological differences in gay men and lesbians

This section claims that "Gay men have slightly longer and thicker penises than straight men." While the source is cited and such, and I personally don't have access to it, I must wonder how such a conclusion has come about, and whether it truly represents a factual statement appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I question whether such a widespread conclusion can even be accurately made, similarly to how it is difficult to impossible to make sound conclusions regarding differences in intelligence and athletic ability between races. --Agent of the Reds 19:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it actually claims that "There's evidence that... gay men have slightly longer and thicker penises than straight men." The source is from a respected journal, and the conclusion is encyclopedic insofar as, if true, it may "provide additional evidence that variations in prenatal hormonal levels (or other biological mechanisms affecting reproductive structures) affect sexual orientation development" (quoting from the article's abstract). Fireplace 12:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have read the article (one of the benefits of being a grad student in genetics is access to scientific journals!). The data are derived from the studies performed by Alfred Kinsey and colleagues from 1938 to 1963, where roughly 5,000 self-identified gay and straight men were asked to provide both an estimate of their penis size and an actual measurement. The results found that, on average, the men who identified as homosexual (i.e. having "extensive" sexual experiences with other men) reported longer and thicker penises. I looked at the data myself, and there is statistical significance to the differences. The probands ranged widely in age, height, and ethnicity. So, as far as I can tell, these data are true, but I don't think anyone should scream from the rooftops that gay men have bigger cocks: I am gay, and admittedly do have quite a large penis, but the sexual partners I have been with (also gay men, of course) have all possessed smaller penises than mine, more along the averages reported for straight men, according to this study. So there really is no direct correlation, as far as I can tell. The referenced article represents a subset of the population (i.e. those willing to take part in such a study), and I would imagine that on average, taking all men into consideration, you would not find too much of a difference between gay and straight men, to be honest. Eganio 18:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hehehe. I can relate to your biases. You may be right about the reliability of the data, but that'd count as original research. Fireplace 21:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So does this mean I can go and edit the article on Africans to say something like "there is evidence that people of African descent often have lower IQs than those of other races"? I saw some study that showed that once. Or is it only okay to add when it's something good (i.e. black men typically have bigger penises than men of other race)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.6.23 (talk) 23:58, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

You're probably talking about The Bell Curve, which has been widely criticized by reputable scholars in reliable sources. I'm not aware of any such criticism levied against this study. Fireplace 00:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that my own personal experiences would fall under the heading of OR, and I agree we should defer to the referenced study. I am just cautioning against such a limited comparison providing fodder for absolutists who seek to categorize people in a binary manner, just because it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Eganio 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the whole African descent vs. intelligence issue is akin to such things as phrenology, biological anthropology and eugenics, which were very popular amongst those practicing pseudoscience in the 19th and even 20th centuries. Such things have historically been used to justify institutionalized and popularized racism, and are understandably highly ridiculed by the scientific community, although I'm sure adherents still exist. The issue under discussion within this heading is a report of a simple physical measurement, rather than the ill-conceived correlations made by pseudoscientists to support their own biases. Someone's IQ is far more difficult to measure than penis size, and is itself an issue of debate in the scientific community. I would venture a guess that any study relating ethnic origins to intelligence is regarded as highly questionable, even among the peers reviewing such a study, and would be of little value to an encyclopedic resource such as Wikipedia. Eganio 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Coming out" in the US in the 21st century

Nmcmurdo was right to be concerned about this sub-section header. The section does lack a world view. However, I strongly disagree with a title that limits it to the 21st century (only 7 years?). The process of coming out has existed as long as there has been a closet to come out of. At least since Stonewall within a relatively similar cultural context in the US (at least compared with the anti-gay horrors that existed before that), and that's since 1969, or so, at least 35 years ago. Also, isn't the coming out process similar in other western cultures? (I know, for example, that Asian and Oriental cultures are different, and we can't speak for them.) If it were renamed to something like "Coming out in the US since Stonewall", or "Coming out in the US in the modern gay rights era" I would be OK with it, I think, or at least enough to not complain. But I think it's misleading as it is. Alternatively, could the section could be recast by someone knowledgeable to make it less US (or Western) centric without taking away from the main article "Coming out"? Then we wouldn't need qualifiers in the title at all. Comments? Becksguy 00:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've taken care of that problem, and moved sections into what seems to me a much more logical, encyclopedic order. (Whew! I should NOT have started this at bedtime, which I'm way past now.) By way of explanation, I ended up lumping "Law, Politics, and Society" together after several attempts at keeping them separate--because most of the subsections rightly partake of all three areas. Maybe somebody else can figure out a way to make distinct categories there, but I couldn't at this very late hour. And BTW, IMHO, this sprawling article is just too damn big, and needs to be cut way down, with a lot of this good, detailed material being spun off into separate wikilinked articles, many of which already exist--as is suggested at WP:NOTPAPER. Well there's my "bold" deed for the day. Revert if you don't like it. :-) --Textorus 09:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I like the new ordering. I don't have a problem with the length, however, since this is the central article on a major topic. Fireplace 15:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fireplace. Nice job, Textorus. It appears more organized and it's easier to read now. Very long articles are often hard to organize for the knowledgeable, and even more difficult to organize in a way that makes it easier for the reader that is just looking for information (which is what we are here to do). Especially on this subject which touches on so many areas of life. Thanks. Becksguy 20:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I agree it should be a big article, though there's a difference between BIG and TDB, in my mind. Some sections could be condensed, and the detailed material put in the wikilinked articles. But hey, I've just contradicted myself by inserting a few paragraphs on terminology, early gay rights movements, and pre-Spanish Conquest sexuality. Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. And you can quote me on that. ;-) --Textorus 00:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

With topics like these, length is required. Although it is a hefty read, the article is concise, NPOV and well written. Nice job to all. Trodaikid1983 07:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Disingenuous

Damn. There's gotta be a better place for me to note this but at present this is all that appears on the main talk page for this subject. In any event, I wanted to make a quick note to the effect that I find this article in its entirety to be disingenuous. The article is so full of disorganized information that the most basic question that a querier would want resolved in an article entitled "Homosexuality" is damn near impossible to find and even when you do come across the information it's written in such a way ("some scholars believe", "a theory is" etc.) that only the most analytical and discerning mind will not be mislead. - The basic issue to be discusssed on "Homosexuality" is whether it is indeed something biologically mandated that is inherent at birth (as modern westerners generally believe) or whether its manifestation is largely dependant on environmental circumstances. People want to know, "WHAT IS HOMSEXUALITY?" An encyclopedia ought to have the courage to face the issue honestly and to state what every non-biased scientist knows: That people self identitify as homosexuals for a very very wide variety of reasons and that under radically different circumstances the vast majority of these people would NOT self-identify as homosexuals and indeed would not be lacking in heterosexuals desires as they so often believe themselves to be. I realize of course that what I'm saying differs quite radically with what all right thinking people are supposed to believe but the scientific evidence does appear to lead to just these conclusions and I think that this ought to be put displayed simply and plainly before the masses of people who come to this page for reasons other than any historical interest. Right now, the view under fire that is itself "in the closet" and that no respectable scientist dare "speak its name" is the one that every byte of science and common sense points to. Should not Wikipedia therefore be on the forefront in expressing this view in an unambiguous manner? - mnuez

You should be careful what you read. Really, this also differs quite radically from what many scientists believe. Scientific knowledge about sexuality really is very very limited. And this is not because they're scared of publishing results that implies homosexuality is a choice (or indeed that it's not). It really is because finding the necessary evidence one way or the other is very hard, particularly in an area as complex as human sexuality. But look: Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia you can edit yourself. Don't curse the darkness. If you have good, reliable sources (ideally from peer-reviewed journals) just edit the article yourself. But I stress the citation issue. What Wikipedia is not about is original research. garik 09:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is not neutral!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Compwhiz2000 (talk • contribs).

Please point out specifically what you feel is not neutral, so we can fix it, if that is actually the case. Thanks, 68.6.46.209 04:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

molestation and sexual orientation

There seems to be a very non-negligible number of people who believe that homosexuals are homosexual because they were molested when they were children. Is there any information about how prevalent this belief is? If it's fairly common, it needs to be included in the article, probably in the "Theories on homosexuality" > "Non-biological explanations" section, with references to reliable studies about the validity of this belief. Herorev 02:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That looks like a remarkably stupid belief. I'd like to know how anyone arrives at such a conclusion. Not through any scientific study, I'm sure. Soczyczi 03:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it should be included in the homophobia article given that it is not a credible theory as such.--Agnaramasi 00:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're familiar with this guideline, but please check out WP:MOS:Identity. It's not considered good form to refer to groups of people using nouns, e.g. rather than "gays, blacks, Jews", we say "gay people, black people, Jewish people", etc... Popkultur 04:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Teenage Homosexuality

Many teenagers, maybe those who are questioning whether or not they're homosexual, want to know more on the subject. Perhaps a page should be made by someone who knows more on the subject than I should make a page about it for those searching for more information. Rikkiatia 22:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In consideration that Wikipedia is not a place for advice or how-to content, and that all articles must be verified with reliable, published sources, I seriously doubt an article specifically on teenage homosexuality would be fitting. Seeing as technically such an article would fall under the purview of Child sexuality, it would be extremely controversial and might even fail the notability test. Thank you for making a suggestion though! VanTucky ^(talk) 22:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you edit the "Other Languages" links?

I just noticed that in the Languages links at the top of the page, the Russian link goes to an article dealing specifically with Soviet-era perceptions of homosexuality, rather than to the main Russian article that discusses homosexuality in general terms. Throbert McGee 10:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The links are placed at the bottom of the article proper, usually, and are of the form: [[ru:Гомосексуализм]], this one for example being Russian (language code ru). I'm assuming that ru:Гомосексуальность is the proper link, but I don't read Russian and therefore cannot attest to the accuracy of my own statement.—Kbolino 17:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kbolino! I've fixed the Russian link so it goes to Gomoseksualnost, the more neutral term, rather than Gomoseksualizm, the Soviet-era usage.Throbert McGee 06:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Information hidden in "Prenatal hormone theory" section

I have a question concerning the "Prenatal hormone theory" section. It appears that the section consists only of a single blocked quote. However, I noticed in its edit box that there's a whole paragraph below the quote nestled in comment fields, making it invisible in the article. I am to understand that the use of comment fields generally serves as communication among editors, indicating what in the article they think shouldn't be tampered with or how they got the information, etc. Now, it seems to me that this has been accidentally used to hide information intended to be included in the article—the hidden passage even contains links and references, as well as much pertinent info. I think its inclusion would improve the article. I will withhold editing this section until I'm sure if this was done intentionally or no. If it is intentional, I would like to know why; if not, may I request permission to fix the error? Thank you. Velvetron 01:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Skimming the archives, it appears this topic was discussed in Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 9#"Biology is destiny" and Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 9#Hormones. I didn't really read it, but it seems someone considered the subject tangential, pointing to Fetal hormones and sexual orientation. ZueJay (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I added the Levay quote and (I think) commented out the other language. The Levay quote is extremely clear, which is why I didn't bother rewriting it in my own words. The quoted-out passage, on the other hand, seems too technical and confusingly written (especially for a summary-style article). Fireplace 04:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Pedophilia

An editor reverted without a proper explanation this section added by me. He claimed that the theory that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia is WP:Fringe. "One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject."

However, "Archives of Sexual Behavior" is a peer-reviewed journal and the authors are respected academics.

Some scientific studies indicate that there is a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. According to Blanchard et. al. "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles." The high prevalence of homosexuality in pedophiles indicates that that the factors that determine sexual preference in pedophiles are not different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults.^[1]

The abstract: Whether homosexual pedophiles have more older brothers (a higher fraternal birth order) than do heterosexual pedophiles was investigated. Subjects were 260 sex offenders (against children age 14 or younger) and 260 matched volunteer controls. The subject's relative attraction to male and female children was assessed by phallometric testing in one analysis, and by his offense history in another. Both methods showed that fraternal birth order correlates with homosexuality in pedophiles, just as it does in men attracted to physically mature partners. Results suggest that fraternal birth order (or the underlying variable it represents) may prove the first identified universal factor in homosexual development. Results also argue against a previous explanation of the high prevalence of homosexuality in pedophiles (25% in this study), namely, that the factors that determine sexual preference in pedophiles are different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults. An alternative explanation in terms of canalization of development is suggested. http://www.springerlink.com/content/hh300395g834h386/ MoritzB 20:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is just gay bashing and as such inappropriate for this article, indeed extremely inappropriate, merely sourcing isnt enough, nor is edit warring, SqueakBox 21:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize that it is totally irrelevant whether it is "gay bashing"? Political correctness is not a reason to censor scientific studies according to any Wikipedia policy.MoritzB 23:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but drawing your own conclusions from such studies is WP:OR and therefore not welcome. According to the abstract, the study only suggests a factor in homosexual development, not a specific link between homosexuality and pedophilia. The section which is quoted earlier (but unverifiable from the posted abstract) provides some additional statistics but again claims only that the factors of sexual development may be linked -- not the preferences for age and gender themselves. We're here for facts, not what you infer from them. HalJor 23:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I drew no conclusions and simply reported the findings of the study. MoritzB 02:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I realise it isnt. We dont do gay bashing here, I suggest you get a better understanding of how things actually work here before making silly comments. Gay bashing is illegal in many places and an extreme fringe belief that is likely to get the ediotr blocked if it persists, SqueakBox 23:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. This a mainstream scientific study published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Nambla members might use the study to show that pedophilia is just as normal as homosexuality. Some other people might have other conclusions. But Wikipedia does not censor information because it is "politically dangerous".

MoritzB 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It certainly isn't illegal in the United States, and in any event, as far as I can tell, he isn't gay bashing. Some people feel threatened when studies show something that is a bit discomforting, but just because studies show that blacks are a full SD lower than whites in IQ tests doesn't mean that all black people are stupid, but rather that on average blacks have a lower IQ than whites. In any event, if it is well sourced, from a good scientific journal, peer-reviewed, and relevant to the subject matter (which this appears to be, though doubtful as more than a single paragraph, if that - this is more appropriate for the Pedophilia article) it should appear in the article. Titanium Dragon 06:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for what I'm sure are good intentions Moriz, but this has been argued over before, and it is not acceptable. First off, just because something has been published or been advocated by academics does not protect it from falling under the purview of WP:FRINGE. Nazi eugenics got plenty of academic support in their day, and we certainly don't give white supremacists equal weight with the scientific consensus on racial issues. Second, by your quote there, they are obviously flawed studies. They are both begging the question and confusing correlation with causation. Hardly good science. Frankly, creating a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia is a pet project of the conservative christian lobby one would find on Conservapedia. One peer journal article out of multitude that oppose the idea is not the mainstream. According to the contemporary scientific consensus is a patently fringe concept. Not to mention being completely bigoted. But most importantly, the reason your addition is unacceptable is that it takes statistics from a reliable source and then draws its own conclusions. That's original research. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but most the best scientific studies available indicate that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia.

“approximately one-third of [child sex offenders] had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls.”

“Interestingly, this ratio differs substantially from the ratio of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature males), which is at least 20 to 1." Freund, K., Watson, R. & Rienzo, D. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. The Journal of Sex Research, 26, p. 107

According to the literature, findings of a two-to-one ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles have been documented." John M. W. Bradford, et al., “The Heterogeneity/Homogeneity of Pedophilia,” Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa 13 (1988): 225. Elsewhere the study notes: “Researchers have variously estimated the incidence of homosexual pedophilia between 19 percent and 33 percent of reported molestations,” p. 218.

A study of male child sex offenders in Child Abuse and Neglect found that fourteen percent targeted only males, and a further 28 percent chose males as well as females as victims, thus indicating that 42 percent of male pedophiles engaged in homosexual molestation. Michele Elliott, “Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What Offenders Tell Us,” Child Abuse and Neglect 19 (1995): 581.

MoritzB 23:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that to establish the link between paedophilia and homosexuality we not only need to look at paedophiles gender preferences in children but also their sexual preferences amongst adults.

If a male paedophile predominately abuses boys they may still consider themselves heterosexual and their adult partners may all be female (Pi 00:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Moritz, you're still failing to understand a basic definition of original research. Taking the stats you just quoted, which at best contain a numerical correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia, and then assuming that homosexuality is a causation factor for pedophilia, is original research. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

These academic studies simply report a correlation. (Although Blanchard proposes that homosexuality and pedophilia have a common cause). The findings were relevant and should be included to the article in a neutral manner.

MoritzB 00:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is wrong for us to discredit the report simply because it doesnt fit with our beliefs about homosexuality, if the statistical collection is good then we must surely consider it as a valid piece of evidence in the academic study of sexual behaviour. It isn't however any kind of proof that homosexuals are all paedophiles, or that they are more likely to be so. I disagree with Sqeakbox, i think that if we use this study reasonably and don't read meaning into it that isnt there then using the data from the study in the article is not gaybashing, it is simply reasonable academic study.

After all, wikipedia is supposed to be impartial and fact-based.(Pi 00:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

I think that the original section by MoritzB certainly doesnt constitute gay bashing as it males clear the source of the statistic and does not present the link as a fact, which would be unreasonable as it isnt proven. I think that the section could still be included in the article if written in an impartial way without using unfounded conclusions from the data(Pi 00:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

I'm inclined to agree with this fellow... I really haven't been able to see what the problem is, here. I haven't quite been reading it the same as you other folk, since I saw it. "More male pedophiles are attracted to boys than male non-pedophiles", that doesn't really seem like gay bashing to me... gay bashing would be more like... "Gays are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals." I dunno... if there is gay bashing going on here, I don't see it... Lychosis ^T/C 00:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not looking at it from the angle of gay bashing at all; I'm looking at it from the angle of OR and drawing unwarranted conclusions, whatever they may be. A statistical correlation is a far cry from any kind of causal link. Taking another example, there are more red cars involved in high-speed automobile collisions than any other color car (that's actually trivially but factually true). Would you say from this that red cars are more prone to accidents? I wouldn't expect you to, and you would be absolutely right not to draw any conclusions as to any kind of causality whatsoever. Just hoping I made a clear analogy here.--Ramdrake 00:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there some OR in the section I proposed? It simply reports the findings of a scientific study. MoritzB 00:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the word "link" as you used it suggests some kind of causality, which is an unwarranted conclusion from the study, therefore, OR.--Ramdrake 00:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Some scientific studies indicate that there is a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilic tendencies." Much better.

MoritzB 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is no "gay bashing" in the section I added.MoritzB 00:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ramdrake on this. I don't think its fair to call the content an intentional attempt to gay bash. But it is quite obviously original research. The following passage

The high prevalence of homosexuality in pedophiles indicates that that the factors that determine sexual preference in pedophiles are not different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults.

is an insufferable and obvious attempt to equate homosexuality and pedophilia in a direct, causal fashion. Taking the correlating statistics and using that to draw a causal link between homosexuality and pedophilia is not what the study does. Moritz's addition is unacceptable POV-pushing and gives undue weight to a fringe theory. Even without the improper OR analysis of the numbers, including stats from a single rs and saying it's a mainstream, conclusive correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia is intolerable undue weight. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just stupid, but I read that in a completely different way. I thought it meant more along the lines of... "The factors that determine sexual preference (male/female) in pedophiles are not different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults (male/female)". Am I looking at this absolutely wrong? Lychosis ^T/C 01:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I read that too. In clear, I'd translate as "the mechanisms that control sexual preference in paedophiles are not different than those that control sexual preference in normal adults." The mechanisms that make a bowling ball fall to the ground are the same as those that make a feather fall to the ground. Does that mean the bowling ball has anything to do with a feather, besides being subject to the same physical laws? That's the foundation for my OR objection. Hope this is clearer put this way.--Ramdrake 01:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotcha. I just didn't quite see that they were saying "There's a link". Still don't quite see it, by the way, but thanks for confirming that I'm not the only person who read it that way. :3 Lychosis ^T/C 01:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The passage you quote is Blanchard's view which was expressed in the peer-reviewed study. Your claims that the study isn't mainstream or doesn't indicate general scientific opinion are OR.MoritzB 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha. OR guidelines don't apply to talk comments, obviously. Let's be frank here. Creating a link between homosexuality and pedophilia is a pet project of the conservative Christian establishment. Letting this article use the statistical evidence of a single statistical study to further push such a WP:FRINGE concept is a stain on Wikipedia's neutrality. The content is question is only being pushed on this article because it was rejected at the main pedophilia article, which is where it would belong if it didn't contain the OR metaanalysis. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this information has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Thus, WP:Fringe does not apply. There is nothing political in the proposed section.

MoritzB 01:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually... if you look at his contribs, this was originally placed here before it was removed from the pedophilia article for the first time... I think... just thought I'd point that out. Lychosis ^T/C 01:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually added this section to both articles at the same time. MoritzB 01:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this should be here. Including an unadulterated version of the stats in the pedophilia article might be in order. But it's just not relevant here. It doesn't have any implications for homosexuality, at least not without including OR analysis. To make it sufficiently relevant, you have to say that the stats imply something about homosexual physiology or psychology, and that's OR. Besides the fact that it's so enormously bigoted I can't even begin to explain why. It's like including stats on the high correlation between blacks or latinos and incarceration rates. It implies that there is a causal connection that lends weight to a fringe racist pov. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The statistics do imply something very relevant. Blanchard: The high prevalence of homosexuality in pedophiles indicates that that the factors that determine sexual preference in pedophiles are not different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults.MoritzB 01:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia is also sometimes debated in the MSM and is a common anti-homosexual argument.MoritzB 01:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So you're freely admitting that you think the statistics should be included because they imply that there is no substantial difference between homosexuals and pedophiles? VanTucky ^(talk) 01:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My motivations are irrelevant.MoritzB 01:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. But, since we agree here, that the content implies that there is no difference between homosexuals and pedophiles, I think it's clear as crystal that we will not be including what is a fringe, bigoted perspective not supported by a majority of sources. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your motivations are not irrelevant. You should be motivated purely to make a better encylopedia, you appear to be motivated by an agenda that equates pedophiles and homosexuals while calling those who oppose your gay bashing agenda with pro-pedophile activists. And Van Tuckey is right about non-inclusion, you were immeditately reverted by an number of editoras both here and at pedophilia none of which were Van Tuckey or myself, SqueakBox 01:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: The original addition was reverted by a total of two people. Just to clarify. :3 Lychosis ^T/C 02:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ad Hominems are irrelevant. I don't equate pedophiles and homosexuals. There are even some homosexuals I admire.MoritzB 02:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if you dont equate the two why add the information that does? SqueakBox 02:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither I nor the study morally equates them. MoritzB 02:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Moritz, just so you're aware, canvassing for opinions to a talk page such as you did here, here, and here is not ever okay. Also not acceptable is making personal attacks and slander such as calling opponents in a content dispute "NAMBLA members". This violates WP:NPA and will not be tolerated. And just so you know, not everyone opposes or supports content because of their political affiliations, some of us actually are interested in creating a NPOV. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The comment about Nambla members described the general history of this article, not this content dispute. It did not apply to you.MoritzB 03:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Another study: It has been established that the probability that a man is homosexual is positively related to his number of older brothers, but not older sisters when the brothers are accounted for. This is known as the 'fraternal birth order' effect. In the past, efforts have been made to explain this phenomenon in terms of several alternative biological hypotheses and a psychosocial hypothesis. This note examines how well these hypotheses accommodate the fraternal birth order effect. It is concluded that: (1) the evidence for the hypothesis of maternal immunoreactivity to the male fetus is weak; (2) the evidence for the intrauterine hormone exposure hypothesis is also weak; (3) the evidence for the hypothesis of postnatal learning is stronger. Lastly, there seem likely to be causes common to male homosexuality and paedophilia. They may include sexual (or quasi-sexual) experience in childhood or adolescence.

James WH: The cause(s) of the fraternal birth order effect in male homosexuality, J Biosoc Sci;36(1):51-9, 61-2, 2004 Jan. MoritzB 03:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is the link to the study? VanTucky ^(talk) 03:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

http://bases.bireme.br/cgi-bin/wxislind.exe/iah/online/?IsisScript=iah/iah.xis&src=google&base=ADOLEC&lang=p&nextAction=lnk&exprSearch=14989531&indexSearch=ID

MoritzB 03:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The rest of the site is in Spanish, what journal was this published in? The cited studies in the article were published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, and it looks as if this, which is a refutation of the majority scientific consensus that fraternal birth order does have a biochemical origin, is also a fringe view. Just because you can find a link on the net to an abstract that looks scientific doesn't mean it was peer-reviewed and reliable. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Journal of Biosocial science which is a reputable journal: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=JBS

A PubMed link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14989531&dopt=AbstractPlus

MoritzB 03:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately payment and/or registration is required to view the article via these links, so they are not much help. I think we are also off the topic a little - surely the issue is not whether either study exists but:

whether the results of the first study are being misinterpreted to confuse correlation with causation; and
whether including details of one or both of these studies in the article is giving undue weight to their findings compared to the massive volume of research on the other side.

I acknowledge being a late arrival in this debate so if I have missed a key point please let me know. Euryalus 04:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for putting us back on track. I would say that both are true. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternative studies

The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study.

This study might help sort out this disagreement. They state that heterosexuals are at about a 20:1 ratio with homosexuals amongst people who are attracted to adults. In contrast the ration falls to 11:1 in the paedophile population. Therefore, although heterosexual paedophiles are about 10-fold more common than homosexual paedophiles, homosexuals are slightly over-represented amongst paedophiles than you would predict from looking at the general population.

In practice, this small effect seems not to be significant.

Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals?

This study addressed the question directly and found no increased risk of sexual abuse by homosexuals, with the vast majority of sexual abuse being carried out by heterosexuals.

Hope this helps sort things out. Tim Vickers 04:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does, thanks. When a study shows that only about 9% of pedophiles are homosexual, it makes a big difference in this discussion. Or should. — Becksguy 04:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the method used was phallometric testing.

I agree that we should include all these studies to the article. MoritzB 05:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim Vickers, thanks for the links, they are indeed helpful. On the general point raised above, I don't think we need to add any further comment to the article on this issue, beyond the sentence that exists at this point:

Gay men are also often alleged as having pedophiliac tendencies and more likely to commit child sexual abuse than the heterosexual male population, a view rejected by mainstream psychiatric groups and contradicted by research.[28][29][30]

This adequately covers the facts - that there is a minority view that male homosexuality and pedophilia are linked, and that view is not generally supported by research. At best, the sentence might be edited to say "contradicted by most research", but anything beyond that would seem to me to be giving undue weight to what is clearly not the predominant scientific view. Euryalus 05:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The issue is often mentioned in MSM and one of the most common arguments used against the right of homosexuals to be teachers etc.

Even if there is no link between pedophilia and homosexuality there should be a section to debunk this association.

MoritzB 06:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The association is debunked in the above sentence from the article. I have suggested a slightly modified wording if you think the minority view needs more recognition. Beyond this slight modification, I think undue weight would be applied.

Also, pardon my ignorance but what is MSM? Euryalus 06:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that pedophiles being significantly more likely to be gay doesn't mean gays are significantly more likely to be pedophiles, right? Titanium Dragon 07:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My educated guess is that in this case, MSM = Mainstream Media, i.e., the press. — Becksguy 07:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it means men who have sex with men.--70.53.153.65 12:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT to say that "Scientists" or "Science" as a whole rejects a contention when there are non fringe scientists or studies advocating such a position. It is best to let the facts speak for themselves and simply state that "Study A says..." but "Study B says..." and provide a possible explanation for the discrepancy (which must also be sourced). Suggesting that someone putting forth a position contrary to yours is necessarily "Gay bashing" isn't helpful at all. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the Blanchard paper

There are two problems with the paper MoritzB originally used as his source: Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles.

One is common to all academic papers, in that the abstract is essentially a long directory entry, designed to give an idea of what's inside for those searching for sources. In other words, it's a search aid, and "sells" the paper, as it were. Using an abstract to draw conclusions is irresponsible, unwarranted, dangerous, and not supported by the intended use of the abstract. It is a bit like reading the blurb on the back of a book, and then discussing the conclusions in the book without reading the book. The blurb is not the book, and the abstract is not the article.

The second is that studies are usually tightly focused, designed for one purpose, to prove/disprove the stated hypothesis. In this paper, based on the abstract (since I'm not going to pay $42 just to read the whole article) the subject of the study was to see if fraternal birth order had an effect on the orientation of the pedophiles included in the study. The first sentence from the abstract says: Whether homosexual pedophiles have more older brothers (a higher fraternal birth order) than do heterosexual pedophiles was investigated. Any other purported conclusions reached from this are just not supported, and are original research. All that one can honestly say is that the paper seems to be about that subject. — Becksguy 06:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If that helps, I have access to the full text. Of course, that doesn't mean I can just distribute it but at least I should be able to answer basic questions about it. Pascal.Tesson 07:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have the access, too. MoritzB 07:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain why you assume they don't have access; I may well have access as well, but I don't really have much desire to read the paper. Titanium Dragon 07:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable assumption that at least some of us don't have access to papers behind a subscription wall. In any case, having full access doesn't change the nature of an abstract. And I think it's important to emphasize their limitations, regardless. I'm not interested in pedophiles either, but I am interested when statistics are quoted that would seem to disagree with generally held scientific views about gay sexuality. — Becksguy 09:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"The proportion of pedophiles in this study who were exclusively or primarily interested in boys, as assessed from their offense histories, was 25%. This result is consistent with previous studies that suggest the prevalence of homosexuality is about 10 times higher in pedophiles than in teleiophiles (Blanchard et al., 1999; Gebhard et al., 1965; Mohr et al., 1964)." Gebhard, P. H., Gagnon, J. H., Pomeroy, W. B., and Christenson, C. V. (1965). Sex Offenders: An Analysis of Types, Harper & Row, New York.

Mohr, J.W., Turner, R. E., and Jerry,M. B. (1964). Pedophilia and Exhibitionism, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. MoritzB 07:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You're conflating homosexuality and pedophilia without evidence. The fact that a pedophile is attracted to boys does not necessarily mean that said pedophile is a homosexual adult; i.e. attracted to adult men. An attraction exclusively to underage children may be entirely separate from adult sexuality. FCYTravis 07:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

True. "Ordinary (teleiophilic) homosexual men are no more likely to molest boys than ordinary (teleiophilic) heterosexual men are to molest girls." (Blanchard)

MoritzB 07:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A biological explanation to homosexuality

"Pedophilia and homosexuality tend to occur in the same men because these individuals are generally less resistant to factors that divert psychosexual development from the species-typical outcome of sexual interest in receptive, physically mature females. This hypothesis is consistent with evidence that other sexually variant behaviors, for example, exhibitionism, are also common in pedophiles (Paitich et al., 1977; Raymond et al., 1999; Rooth, 1973). This hypothesis proposes that the clustering of sexual variations results from the absence of a single protective factor, rather than the presence of multiple pathogenic factors, or a single pathogenic factor with multiple effects. The missing protective factor could be analogous to, or an aspect of, the biological phenomenon known as canalization—that is, the tendency for feedback loops to return a developing system to its usual pathway, when that system has been diverted to a minor extent from it."

(Blanchard et. al.). MoritzB 07:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Every so often someone hauls out these studies that the Family Research Council and NARTH love to point to. Here is a nice webpage that walks through each article and debunks the homosexuality/pedophilia link. And, more importantly, here is what the mainstream health organizations say:

"Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children."

Fireplace 13:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the APA's opinion. Of course that too should be mentioned. But you can't exclude various non-fringe studies that contradict the apparent majority viewpoint. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The quote is misleading because it talks about teleiophilic homosexuals. They don't molest children. However, there are relatively far more homosexual pedophiles than teleiophilic pedophiles.MoritzB 14:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I came here from the ANI post about MoritzB expecting more of the same trouble, but this time I don't see what's wrong. The sources appear fine, and his most recent version doesn't appear to make any controversial interpretation from them (though I can see replacing "link" with "correlation" unless a source actually supposes a "link"). The whole reason that researchers look for a correlation on this point is because it is an issue - I think it compromises the quality of the article to fail to mention these studies about this critical point. The Behnam 14:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the section, but used 'correlation' instead and also added the APA opinion for balance. I'm hoping that this compromise will allow us to start serious work on that topic, as I definitely think it is one of the topics that readers may really be wondering about when they read about homosexuality since they've probably heard stuff to that end. They'll go to Wikipedia to see if there is any truth to the alleged association of homosexuality and pedophilia - now they'll be able to find the topic addressed in the article. The Behnam 14:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Behnam's suggested section doesn't present the mainstream view as mainstream. I agree that there should be a paragraph or section mentioning this topic, but WP:UNDUE requires that the mainstream scientific view be given the most coverage and priority, followed by a short mention of the existence of a minority view. Fireplace 14:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a matter of order. Would it be acceptable if we mention the APA opinion first, and then mention Moritz's source as the "however"? I believe that would give the mainstream view "priority." If you agree please restore the content but make the switch. Thanks The Behnam 14:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors, but here's a draft:

According to mainstream health organizations, there is no evidence that gay people are more likely heterosexuals to molest children.[22] The American Psychological Association states: "The perpetrators of child sexual abuse or assault are overwhelmingly adult heterosexual males. In one study, 88% of the adult perpetrators were identified as heterosexual whereas less than 1% were identified as possibly homosexual. In addition, three-quarters (75%) of these heterosexual male perpetrators were or had been in a close relationship with the child's mother, grandmother, or another close relative. This research is consistent with other studies that indicate that individuals who commit child sexual assault or abuse are rarely homosexually identified persons."[23] One researcher explains: "Gay men desire consensual sexual relations with other adult men. Pedophiles are usually adult men who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. They are rarely sexually attracted to other adults." (ref to Stevenson 2000) A minority of researchers, most famously Paul Cameron and Ray Blanchard, have published articles disputing the mainstream view.

Fireplace 15:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like roughly the same set-up (mainstream then non-mainstream), except that for some added OR and exclusion of the actual findings of the minority. By OR I refer to such framing statements as "a minority of researchers," "most famously," etc. We'll need a source to state that they are a minority, as we aren't supposed to use our own judgment for that sort of claim. Also, why should we actually exclude the minority work? The reader may actually be interested in that, perhaps more so than the APA's work alone. The Behnam 15:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Behnam - Please wait to make changes until there is consensus, when those changes are under discussion. Thanks — Becksguy 15:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm worried that the reverts I'm seeing here, with their call to consensus and, ironically, a request to use the talk page instead of reverting, suggest that this page is subject to gang rule. As for my changes, I tried my best to incorporate concerns about Moritz's proposed inclusions at each step. First, I added the APA opinion for balance, then when Fireplace complained about priority, I adjusted the content to treat priority properly. I believe that the approach of 'fixing the problem' is much better than closeting it. In fact, I'm wondering why you didn't simply try to adjust it - is it that you think the topic is not appropriate to even discuss in this article? Even Fireplace doesn't seem to think that. Yes, it may be a contentious issue, but it is a fairly notable one that deserve fair coverage in this article. The Behnam 15:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just coming back to the discussion from a break, I have to say that Fireplace's addition would be fine. The problem that made Moritz's addition completely unacceptable is that it presented a fringe idea (and yes, two studies out of all the evidence available and the statemens of the APA is fringe) as the mainstream, factual truth. The studies he cited don't contradict the statements of the APA and such. They're just numbers. Using Moritz's POV interpretation of the stats to form an original research minority opposition based in scientific fact that doesn't exist is unacceptable. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I made no interpretations or original research. You are well aware of that. MoritzB 18:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No I am not "aware of that". You took studies and information, which included reliable statistics, and used them to prove your point causally connecting homosexuality and pedophilia. That's OR. Correlation is not causation. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I have a question about process and policy. Does the fact that MoritzB referred to the people who disagree with him as "NAMBLA members", "'LGBT'" people (LGBT in quotes, possibly implying derision?) and "left-wingers" have any bearing on whether or not his perspective is considered POV-pushing or OR? In other words - assuming for a moment that MoritzB has an agenda - does the fact that he has an agenda have any effect on the assessment of his edits? Also, does the manner in which his POV was discovered have any implications? I ask because this is a very interesting scenario that I haven't encountered before, although it may be more common than I realize. Thanks! Popkultur 22:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

While his canvassing, use of perjoratives, and history of conflicts on other sensitive issues is convincing to me, this is not the appropriate forum. Generally, we are admonished to stick to content, not contributors in discussing articles. Issues of user conduct may be brought up at WP:ANI and WP:RFC. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Popkultur 23:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Important comment. Blanchard agrees with the APA. He says that "ordinary (teleiophilic) homosexual men are no more likely to molest boys than ordinary (teleiophilic) heterosexual men are to molest girls" although he supports this statement with no evidence.

However, Freund says that "homosexuals are at about a 11:1 ratio in the pedophile population and at a 20:1 ratio in the general population".

Thus, Fireplace's version would misrepresent Blanchard. Blanchard's data indicates that 25-40% of pedophiles are homosexual, i.e. they are attracted to boys.MoritzB 18:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find the abstract for the Freund paper, but here's what Fireplace's link says:

"In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989)."

So to present that study as supporting a link between homosexuality and pedophilia is indeed OR, at best. In fact, according to the wikipedia article on Kurt Freund, he used his studies to support the decriminalization of homosexuality in Czechoslovakia. The Blanchard study is about attractions to children, not adults, and, being Freund's student, I'm sure he'd be aware of the importance of this difference. I think when they refer to male "homosexuals" they are having in mind two largely non-overlapping groups: pedophiles who are attracted to children and teleiophiles/androphiles who are attracted to adults. This is why e.g. Kurt and Watson (1992) can conclude: "This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children." - even if there are more pedophiles among homosexuals than heterosexuals, there's no reason to conclude that teleiophiles are more likely to be pedophiles. Since this article is really about teleiophilic homosexuality, just like the article on heterosexuality is not about pedophilic heterosexuality, there's no reason to include the Blanchard paper either. They could appropriately be included in an article about the details of the developmental psychology of pedophilic sexuality.Bargolus 18:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Animal section

Why is there information about animal sexuality forked into this article? This is supposed to be about humans, not other animals (as there are other articles for animal sexuality), so I find it to be quite irrelevant to the article. I'm not sure why it is there - is this simply a confusion about the article's scope or a more sinister attempt to use the naturalistic fallacy to support homosexuality?

I propose removal of the section. We can just have an italicized sentence containing a link to animal sexuality for anyone who came this article but really wanted to read about gay penguins. The Behnam 14:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The section seems relevant to me, but it could probably be trimmed and turned into a bullet list rather than a series of subsections. Fireplace 14:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How is it relevant? The article clearly indicates that it is discussing people. The Behnam 14:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The article about about homosexuality. We mostly care about homosexuality in humans. But, there is also a fairly rich study of homosexuality in non-human animals. Some social constructivists might have views about how non-human animals cannot be homosexual or exhibit homosexual behavior for social identity reasons, but on a simple understanding of homosexuality as relating to same-sex sexual activity, non-human animals are not exlcuded. Fireplace 14:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But we already have an article on animal sexuality that discusses their homosexuality. My understanding of the lead is that we are addressing the human orientation here, which receives wildly different treatment than other animals. The Behnam 14:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that my previous comment responds to that point in full. Also, you're being very aggressive about making contentious changes to the article while discussion is ongoing. Is that really necessary? Fireplace 15:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that your previous comment responded to that point in full, unfortunately. I've left a note (w/ link) at the top of the article for any readers who actually want to read about the animals, and I've removed the irrelevant information. I don't really see how inclusion can be justified unless we are working specifically from studies that compare human homosexuality with animal homosexuality, and associated conclusions. That section would probably be about the comparison, rather than being a list of information about arbitrarily selected gay animals. As for the hurtful characterization of my editing as 'aggressive', please read by response to that other guy above. The Behnam 15:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Truly aggressive editing may be this [24]. A "new" user (a "gay activist" for that matter!), but no edit summary, no valuable addition to the talk page discussion. The only reason it can stand is because the 'weight in numbers' approach prevails in reality, even if it against Wikipedia policy. I also notice that you others haven't been saying much as of late. For now, I shall assume that this is simply because you are too busy... The Behnam 17:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already responded to you. This is a summary-style article about homosexuality per se, and non-human animal homosexuality is an aspect of that. I agree that the section is too long relative to the article, and can be trimmed. You seem concerned about a "naturalistic fallacy" -- you're welcome to add a sentence or two discussing the role that animal homosexuality has played in public debates over LGBT issues. Fireplace 18:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm concerned that the section is a barely coherent and arbitrary list of various gay animals. The animal sexuality does not remain within the scope - if you really think that we should devolve the article by widening the scope, please adjust the lead to reflect this. For now, this article is about a deviancy in people, and should only discuss points relevant to this. As such, I'm willing to discuss any RS comparison relating human homosexuality to animal homosexuality (regardless of whether or not the naturalistic fallacy is present), though I'm not familiar with public debates on the issue. Has the naturalistic fallacy come up in them? Somehow I think that you may know more about this aspect.

Anyway, if I assume that you want to widen the scope, I can take a hand at trimming the section. What I think may help is just removing the subsections devoted to certain animals, and perhaps discussing the comparisons instead. Overall I think it would be a mistake to widen the scope, as it would push this article closer towards a 'grab-bag' article rather than a concrete and unified narrative of the subject. The Behnam 19:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that no one is "widening the scope of the article" -- the homosexuality in animals section has been around for over a year (if not longer) without incident. Fireplace 19:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that its presence in the article has been inappropriate all of this time. The Behnam 20:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The studies and information done on animals is extremely relevant to a discussion of human homosexuality for one very important reason: opponents of homosexuality as a legitimate sexual orientation determined by biology often argue that homosexuality is not found in nature, or is not the same as human homosexuality. Humans are animals too, and a comparison of a human sexual behavior to its counterparts in the animal kingdom is relevant, especially considering the comparison is made in the media and science. Plenty of reliable sources consider human homosexuality in the context of the larger animal kingdom. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you for being honest with me. I suspected that this section was designed to advance one side of the debate over whether or not homosexuality is "natural." As VanTucky said, some critics say that it is not natural and therefore 'bad,' while apologists respond by saying that it is natural and therefore 'good.' I've brought up the naturalistic fallacy because it is the mistake made by both sides of that debate. The issue is within the article's human scope, but only if presented properly.

Anyway, now that the true purpose of the animal section has come to light, the section should be revamped to reflect this. Right now, generic information about animal homosexuality is being used to sneakily bolster one side of the silly naturalistic fallacy debate. It might make sense to use these particular studies in support of the apologetic side, but it is not our job to do their work for them, as this synthesis of claims to advance a position violates WP:SYN. As such, we should only use RS that directly discuss the comparison between human homosexuality and animal homosexuality and any conclusions they draw from it. Of course we should be neutral in that we cover both sides, etc.

If the section is thus changed, I believe that it will not only be more encyclopedic (by removing the OR issue and scope concern), but will also provide a better picture of homosexuality and issues surrounding it to the reader. The article will ultimately be improved. The Behnam 19:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're reading too many bad faith/scheming motivations into other editors. The article is about homosexuality, and animal homosexuality is relevant both per se and insofar as it enters into the LGBT rights debate. Fireplace 19:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I don't really insist that it was a scheme - I suppose "sneaky" wasn't the best wording since it may have been an inadvertent projection of beliefs via synthesis into the article. When I saw the section, which didn't appear to directly fit into the article's scope (clearly about humans), part of WP:OR's lead came to me... "The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." In this case, a synthesis that appears to advance a position. VanTucky's statement about why it is really relevant confirmed this to me. So there is a problem, but there is also a solution.

To be completely honest, I don't care if it was a 'scheme' or not - all I want us to do is fix it. Are you with me? The Behnam 20:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the animal section is now overly short. It was fine as it was for at least a year (according to Fireplace), which implies consensus that it belonged in it's longer state. I'm OK with a bit of judicious trimming, but not this much. I think some of the verbiage on sheep should be put back in. — Becksguy 20:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free, just keep in mind that this is a WP:SUMMARY-style article, and we merely need to provide an overview of each topic. Fireplace 20:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You've totally misinterpreted what I said Behnam. Just because science deals with animal cases of homosexuality doesn't mean they use it in the same way that opponents try to, and this not what the section does. It never once makes an affirmative statement alluding to the idea that if animal homosexuality exists, then human homosexuality is moral. Animal sexual behavior has nothing to do with human morality, especially considering most opposition to homosexuality stems from a practice completely foriegn to the rest of the animal kingdom, religion. Presenting facts on animal homosexuality to put human homosexuality in a scientific context doesn't mean it morally approves of the practice. That's your conclusion, not the article's. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware that it never makes the affirmative statement, but it aims to provide the groundwork for one side of an unmentioned debate (hence I considered it 'sneaky'). As far as your statement, what I'm looking at "is extremely relevant to a discussion of human homosexuality for one very important reason: opponents of homosexuality as a legitimate sexual orientation determined by biology often argue that homosexuality is not found in nature, or is not the same as human homosexuality" - As such you admit that the information is relevant to human homosexuality because of a particular debate over whether or not it is 'natural'. The section of the article that you are claiming as relevant on this account does not actually use RS directly addressing the debate itself, but instead simply lists some of the studies that proponents of the 'gay is natural' position use to support their position. This grouping of studies appears aimed to advance their position (regardless of whether or not a conclusion is plainly stated), and hence violates WP:OR (and NPOV). This must be fixed. If the debate is what makes it relevant, let's use sources (from both sides) discussing the debate itself. BTW, disregard the stuff about the 'naturalistic fallacy' unless we find a source pointing this out - it was my personal opinion of the debate and was not intended to be a proposed inclusion. The Behnam 04:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The animal section is also a highly relevant place to discuss current studies on model organisms and the genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation. I've added a paragraph discussing this in Drosophila. Tim Vickers 17:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

!!! Gay foster parents abused young boys !!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/5109518.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/23/ngay23.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/23/ixuknews.html

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/06/the-horrors-of-political-correctness/

Two men who sexually abused young boys placed in their foster care have been sent to prison.

You need to add this to the article ! The horrors of political correctness ! We need to stop it and let the true be free !

--Greetings [[User:Krzyzowiec|Krzyzowiec]] 22:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear whether you're serious (the trouble you've gone to with the links says you are, the exclamation marks suggests you're not). If you are serious, it is very unlikely that there will be consensus to add this material to the article because among other reasons:

While the BBC source at least is reliable, it does not make any claim regarding homosexuals or homosexuality in general. As this article is about homosexuality in general, the details of these sources do not appear relevant.
Inclusion of news about a single gay couple would give undue weight to their story compared to those of every other relevant individual.
Caution is required when including news reports on current events. This is not to say that current events should be ignored, but it sometimes important to let the dust settle. See both WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:DUST for more detail.

Hope this helps explain why this story doesn't belong in the article. If you disagree, feel free to discuss further and/or seek consensus for any changes. Euryalus 01:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the exception not the rule. There are many more heterosexuals who abuse their foster children. Sheesh. - Jeeny ^Talk 01:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. WP:SYN again, as with the lengthy MoritzB discussion above. Euryalus 01:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me started on MoritzB, yuck. - Jeeny ^Talk 02:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It most definitely does not belong in the article as it is, since it's very POV driven, and about one case only. — Becksguy 03:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethical aspects of homosexuality

We should create this section and article to examine philosophical arguments for or against homosexuality. (NPOV: 50/50)

Cf. Ethical aspects of abortion MoritzB 03:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a really bad idea to me. There are no ethical issues, except for that tiny minority of extreme=ists of course, many of who try and support pedophilia by equating it with homosexuality. Just charming! SqueakBox 03:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There certainly are ethical issues. Plato condemned homosexuality. Thomas Aquinas condemned homosexuality. The views of these philosophers are relevant because they shaped Western attitudes towards homosexuality.

It is also relevant that Friedrich Engels condemned homosexuality and consequently thousands of homosexuals were imprisoned in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries.MoritzB 03:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Another trolling attempt by Moritz in order to play with people and his racial philosophies and extreme prejudice to make this project a joke. Ugh. I think a ban is in order. He is very disruptive to Wikipedia. Look at his contributions. A troll is a troll.- Jeeny ^Talk 03:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, countless books have been written on the topic: http://browse.barnesandnoble.com/browse/nav.asp?visgrp=nonfiction&N=355113&Ne=182068+178075+355103+355113&z=y It is certainly notable. MoritzB 03:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

See Societal attitudes toward homosexuality. Arguments on both sides of specific gay rights issues are discussed on their respective articles. Fireplace 03:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Also abortion is a choice, homosexuality is not. - Jeeny ^Talk 03:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added the above wikilink to the "See Also" section. Euryalus 03:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

However, there is the philosophical discussion is very shallow in that article and not even in its scope.MoritzB 03:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As always, if you feel an article needs improvement you should seek consensus for changes on its talk page. However, given a detailed article on your proposed topic already exists there is no need to create a new one. Euryalus 04:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean that each side gets the same weight, space, prominence, quality of text, depth of detail, number of references, or number of words in an article. Quoting the first paragraph of the the undue weight section in the policy on NPOV:
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.
So there is no 50/50 NPOV split unless there actually is a 50/50 split in reliable sources, as per above. And that's not the case here. Lets refer to this as the WP:FLATEARTH concept. Read the whole policy on WP:NPOV. — Becksguy 05:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

True. The views of philosophers who pass a certain threshold of notability (Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Engels) are overwhelmingly anti-homosexual. Do you mean that the section should be 90% anti-homosexual because of the lack of pro-homosexual philosophers? MoritzB 05:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are using outdated sources and opinion, when this is the 21st century, where biology, science, and opinions have changed since and have been disproved. Now you're going back to Plato? Please stop going back in time to help your POV which you continue to push using outdated science, genetics, opinion and views. This is an encyclopedia, not ancient history revisited. - Jeeny ^Talk 05:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It might surprise you but students of philosophy actually study Plato, Kant and other great philosophers. Their views are certainly notable enough on Wikipedia although the views of some modern philosophers might not be. MoritzB 06:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, of course it doesn't surprise me, as I have studied them all. Of course "they" are notable in their own right. Yet again, this is the 21st century. If you want, then add it to "Plato, Kant, and other great philosophers'" articles about their views. It does not make it so NOW, as things have changed, like....um, science, biology and genetics. As we have advanced in technology and knowledge since. BTW, I still enjoy reading Plato, Socrates, and other notable philosophers using my "critical thinking" abilities. Maybe you need to take course.- Jeeny ^Talk 07:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You are taking people out of context, MoritzB. True, Plato was apparently anti-homosexual, but he was an extremely small minority within a culture that overwhelmingly and famously celebrated homosexuality. And what about pre-19th century Japanese culture with the flourishing of Samurai warrior and Buddhist monastic homosexuality. Or the thousands of homosexuals that were burned at the state during the Inquisitions (which wasn't just about heresy). There are times, cultures, states, and persons that are anti-homosexual, and others that are the opposite. Using a different argument, Plato most likely subscribed to the general viewpoint of his culture in which women were property and not citizens. Assuming that's true, does that viewpoint support anti-feminism today in a notable, verifiable and neutral way? I don't think so. Bottom line: I agree with much of what Jeeny said above. And more importantly, about your repeated POV pushing. — Becksguy 08:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh, Athens had very strict laws against homosexual prostitution. Plato did not think that women were "property". However, Plato's views of homosexuality and women are definitely relevant in describing the evolution philosophical views.MoritzB 08:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The US has very strict laws against heterosexual prostitution, so based my understanding of your logic, does that mean heterosexuality doesn't exist in the US? And Plato apparently had a couple of boyfriends. But you seem to be missing the point Jeeny and I are making. Plato's views on homosexuality are really only notable in an historical context, such as an article on the history of homosexuality, or on Classical Greece. In other words, that was then, this is now. You even essentially admitted to that when you referred to "...the evolution [of] philosophical views." Which means history of... — Becksguy 10:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, also historical ethical views should be included to the article. As billions of people in the world still condemn homosexuality this position is still mainstream. 42% of Americans say that homosexuality should not be accepted and in the Third World the opposition to homosexuality is even stronger. There are a lot of contemporary philosophers who condemn homosexuality in the tradition of Plato et. al.

For example: http://www.cofc.edu/hettinger/Intro_to_Philosophy_Sp_06/Levin_Homosexuality_Abnormality_Civil_Rights.htm MoritzB 11:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael Levin is not "a lot" of "contemporary philosophers". He is at the extreme margins of the philosophical establishment. There are, in fact, far more philosophers who condemn heteronormativity than homosexuality.--Agnaramasi 14:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

To present Plato as anti-homosexual is just plain wrong. He wrote the Symposium which is one long endorsement of homosexuality (suggesting that the Greek army should consist of paired homosexual partners) and his often misquoted phrase "against nature" in Laws (para physin in Greek - literally "outside nature") meant in context man-made and non-procreative rather than contravening some kind of natural law. The concept of natural law as we use it now only arose a whole millenium later. Male prostitution was prevalent in Athens, see the wikipedia article on [[25]], and as in Rome, the social stigma attached to male prostitution had nothing to do with homosexuality itself, but rather the notion that free men should not submit to the work of slaves. As in Rome, there was no social stigma attached to using slaves whether male or female for sexual services. See e.g. Boswell (1980) on this. As for historical viewpoints of homosexuality, we already both have History of homosexuality and Societal attitudes towards homosexuality which are more than adequate for this purpose. The list of books provided are political rather than philosophical books with the word 'ethics' in the title. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bargolus (talk • contribs) 13:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, any claim that "Plato [or any other philosopher] condemned homosexuality" is highly interpretive. As such, it is WP:original research and cannot be included. The only way Plato's views on homosexuality could be included is by citing the different interpretations of various philosophers and philologists that lend credence to the views that he did / did not "condemn" homosexuality.--Agnaramasi 14:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of Plato's views would be tangential to the article topic. While the act of sodomy existed during his time, the social construction of what is known as homosexuality has its roots in the late 19th century beginning with the publication of Freud's work on sexuality. That is the period during which the term is coined and one begins to see differences between the "sodomite" and the "homosexual" as psychologists began to differ the whole person from the sexual act in order to categorize human beings. --Strothra 15:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

All of the argumentation about this is moot. Including comprehensive info on moral views surrounding homosexuality is already in Societal attitudes toward homosexuality and Plato specifically would be more appropriately included in the History of homosexuality. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)