Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Conversion Therapy

The issue of conversion therapy is brought up in the "Religion" section of the article, and I do think it's rather POV. The study cited states that of 882 subjects, only 22.9% experienced no change in orientation. Two issues here - firstly, this does not represent the mainstream psychological view (and there are many studies which support the opposite view: that conversion therapy does little or nothing to change sexual orientation; moreover, many psychological groups warn of the potential harm of conversion therapy). Secondly, the source states: "These responses cannot, for several reasons, be generalized beyond the present sample...", implying that the sample is not representative of the general population.

I propose a wee reworking of this paragraph (no need to make it much longer, if at all), mentioning the fact that conversion therapy is generally opposed by psychologists, and that many studies show it to be largely unsuccessful (if at all). But I'd like to see if anyone has any objections first. Darimoma (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this in the religious section? The whole paragraph and study only deal with sexual orientation, so I think it should remain on the homosexual orientation page, where it was placed in the malleability section. I do think there should be a section on ex-gays on this page, since many are against the idea that sexual orientation can be changed, but very actively promote that same-sex relationships can be avoided. However, this particular study is completely on changing sexual orientation, and should be confined to the other page.

Of course, that completely side-steps the issue, because it should still be corrected on the homosexual orientation page. I agree that the section needs to be reworked, but I disagree with many of your assumptions. First of all, the study is not about conversion therapy. It was about people with a ego-dystonic sexual orientation. The study happened to recruit people undergoing conversion therapy, as well as people attending ex-gay groups or ex-gay conferences, but nowhere does any of the authors contribute the reasons that the people changed orientation to conversion therapy. This section needs to be reworked to make it clear that in no way does this imply that the change came about because of conversion therapy, especially since some of the people didn't even undergo conversion therapy, and were simply attending an ex-gay conference.

Second, I do not know of one mainstream psychological organization that states conversion therapy does little or nothing to change sexual orientation. Most of them say that there is no conclusive evidence one way or another that sexual orientation can be changed by therapy. Saying there is no evidence is completely different than saying it doesn't work. By the way, there is no conclusive evidence that it causes harm either. The official statement by the American Psychiatric Association says "To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of "reparative" treatments."[1] It places both harm and efficacy on the same level. Although there is no conclusive evidence either way, there is anecdotal evidence for both harm and efficacy, and they counterbalance each other "Furthermore, anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm."[2] You are right, they warn of potential of harm, and have stated that the potential for harm outweighs the potential for changing orientation and have recommended that practitioners refrain from practicing conversion therapy.

So my understanding is the summary should indicate that change is possible for some people, but not necessarily through conversion therapy, though some anecdotal evidence indicates both harm and efficacy in therapy aimed at changing orientation. Therefore several American medical organizations have recommended against conversion therapy. The problem is trying to say all that succinctly without running into NPOV problems. Look how long the conversion therapy article is. That doesn't mean it the section doesn't need to be redone. However, this whole section is mute because I believe the whole paragraph should be deleted and this discussion should be moved over to the homosexual orientation page. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

How about deleting the paragraph in this article, and instead, changing:

"Presently, a large proportion of the Abrahamic sects view sexual relationships outside of a heterosexual marriage, including homosexual sex, negatively, though there are groups within each faith that disagree with orthodox positions and challenge their doctrinal authority."

to

"Presently, a large proportion of the Abrahamic sects, as well as sects from other religions, view sexual relationships outside of a heterosexual marriage, including homosexual sex, negatively. Partially because of religious reasons, some gay men and lesbians seek to change their sexual orientations through faith, religious practice and conversion therapy. However, there are groups within each faith that disagree with orthodox positions and challenge their doctrinal authority."

Or something along those lines. I added the other religions bit, because I don't think the rest of the section mentions any other religions.

Then, we can take the discussion over to homosexual orientation. Cool? Darimoma (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Putting it in the middle of that section makes it so that it seems the large portion of Abrahamic sects believe gay men and lesbians should change their sexual orientation, or worse, that a large proportion of the Abrahamic sects support conversion therapy. It also gives the false impression that people who seek conversion therapy are trying to change their sexual orientation. How about this?

Some gay men and lesbians seek to diminish same-sex attractions, avoid same-sex relationships, or possibly change sexual orientation. Some methods include conversion therapy, faith, religious practice, or attendance in ex-gay groups. Exodus International is the largest ostensibly ex-gay group. A major ally of Exodus International is Focus on the Family, who works with Exodus International in their Love Won Out ministry.

This new wording does not imply Abrahamic religions and ex-gay groups support people trying to change their sexual orientations, or that conversion therapy is the only way to do it. Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International says he has never met an ex-gay and that even he still struggles at times with homosexual "temptation" (his words, not mine). They have been getting away from the term ex-gay and focusing on biological causes for sexual orientation.[3] I don't like the paragraph being in the Religious section at all, because people seek to avoid same-sex relationships for a variety of reasons, and there are some completely secular ex-gay groups, like People Can Change, which have nothing to do with Abrahamic religions, but then I don't know where else to put it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, feel free to make the changes directly to the sandbox. Feel free to be brutal. We can be more aggressive there because it isn't live. I think it would be a better place to put the proposed changes. I have incorporated both your suggestion and my suggestion on the sandbox page. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I just clarify - you want to keep info on ex-gays in the Homosexuality article, because some ex-gays maintain a homosexual orientation, but avoid homosexual sex. Is that right? If it is, shouldn't it just be on the Homosexual Orientation page (as these ex-gays' only link with homosexuality is their orientation)?

I always thought conversion therapy was intended to change one's sexual orientation. Have you got a source for claiming it's not? (Not that it's particularly important - mainly just a curiosity).

I do think the controversial nature of conversion therapy should be mentioned (and also the controversy around groups like EI, FotF and LWO, if they're mentioned in the article). Darimoma (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The link to the homosexuality article for ex-gays is that they are avoiding homosexual sex, regardless of whether they have a homosexual or bisexual orientation. Really, if you look at the whole ex-gay movement, very little has to do with sexual orientation. A significant number of them are also shedding a gay and lesbian sexual identity, which again is different than a sexual orientation. Most of the aims and goals of these ex-gay groups focus on changing aspects of homosexuality besides sexual orientation. Discussing ex-gay groups at length on the homosexual orientation page gives the false impression that the main goal of ex-gay groups is to change the sexual orientation. I am completely fine with discussing both sides surrounding controversy. That might give it enough material to give it its own section.

Conversion therapy is poorly defined, and there are constant edit wars over what it means. The way it is currently defined on the conversion therapy page is (and I guarantee will continue to be changed) "methods aimed at changing a person with homosexual attractions to heterosexual, or at eliminating or diminishing homosexual desires and behaviors." Gender affirmative therapies, which you can read about on the conversion therapy page, do not focus on changing sexual orientation. Sexual Identity Therapy, for example, has as its goal to help clients "arrive at a healthy and personally acceptable resolution of sexual identity and value conflicts". This has actually been used both for clients who want to enter into same-sex relationships as well as those who don't. The goal is to arrive at a healthy resolution. That being said, I do think conversion therapy seems to be more about changing sexual orientation, and I would agree that conversion therapy belongs more on the homosexual orientation page than on this page. I would be okay with taking conversion therapy and anything related to changing sexual orientation completely out. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put up roughly what info I think should go into a section on ex-gays in the homosexuality article (if anything) on the sandbox. It is POV, but it does get across the anti-conversion therapy view. I think you ought to put in any info you think would balance it out. The study I quote is: Shildo, A., & Schroeder, M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumer's report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33 , 249-259. Sorry, not sure how to add citations. Darimoma (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The goal for these groups is not heterosexuality. I don't see what selected studies which say that only a few people can change their sexual orientation has to do with groups like Exodus and Focus on the Family. They do not advocate a change in sexual orientation. I think the points brought up in the Shildo study are important and should be discussed in the malleability section on the homosexual orientation page, but the way it is written, it makes it seem as if these groups advocate a change from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation. The Orange County Register reported that "Exodus president Chambers agreed that people can't necessarily change their sexual orientation, but he said they can "live in accord with their beliefs and faith" by renouncing homosexuality and not engaging in same-sex relationships."[4] These studies don't show anything that the Exodus leadership doesn't already agree with. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Chambers' position and that of EI are two separate things. Although http://exodus.to/content/view/43/25/ doesn't explicitly state that homosexuals can convert to heterosexuality, it strongly implies it, and emphatically states (with an exclamation mark, no less) that homosexuals can change their orientation (to what, it doesn't say). Exodus offers referrals to reparative therapy (http://exodus.to/content/view/736/0/) which, in my view, is fairly supportive of reparative therapy.

Exodus also claims that homosexuals are mentally unhealthy (http://exodus.to/content/view/323/25/ and http://exodus.to/content/view/310/25/), something condemned by the APA (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.pdf). Darimoma (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Chambers was speaking as president of EI, and hence was representing EI in the article. Exodus disagrees with mainstream medical associations on several points. I agree with that, and that should be in the article. I just want to make sure that it is clear exactly what the disagreements are on. If EI doesn't explicitly state homosexuals can change their sexual orientation to heterosexual, then we should not imply it. Just a clarification, changing orientation doesn't imply change from one orientation to another. The intensity and degree can change. If you are using the Kinsey scale, changing your rating from 6 to 5 is a change in sexual orientation, although both of them are still considered homosexual. EI considers reparative therapy a useful tool, but that is not where they believe a change in sexual behavior comes from. They believe a change in sexual behavior comes from Jesus Christ, and I don't think you'll find a study disputing that. Other groups, like Evergreen International and Courage International do not have a position on reparative therapies, so I don't know if that statement accurately represents the movement as a whole. Courage promotes celibacy, while Evergreen is very specific their goal is to decrease desires, not change orientation. They also don't view homosexuals as mentally unhealthy.

I realize I am being difficult on this point. The ex-gay movement is undergoing massive changes (like avoiding the term ex-gay altogether) and I want this article to accurately portray the current status of these groups, not what it was only 5 years ago. The EI of yesteryear is no more. Being precise on this topic I think is key for both sides of the issue. Do you understand how conservatives think? There are still many people out there who believe a homosexual orientation is unnatural and everyone can and should change their sexual orientation. By saying these groups believe that, even while discrediting them by pitting them against mainstream medical organizations, will only give fuel to their prejudice and homophobia. It is one thing to say gay activists don't believe everyone can change their sexual orientation. That they can easily dismiss as being part of the "gay agenda". But to say even the most conservative groups believe that for some people, their homosexual orientation is fixed and there is nothing they can do about it, will cause them to pause and reconsider their position. I think it is a very destructive myth that there exists an organization out there as big as EI that currently believes that everyone can change their sexual orientation. I've been accused of being anti-gay several times within the last several weeks, but the way I see it, what I am doing right now to dispel that myth is very pro-gay. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this will help you see my point of view. Suppose I were to make an edit that like the following:

"Some gay men, lesbians and bisexuals seek for equality by promoting gay rights. They seek for equality under the law, legal recognition of same-sex relationships, and promote the idea that sexual orientation is innate and fixed. However, the American Psychiatric Association has stated "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime."[5] Furthermore, they stated "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality."[6] The gay right claims have also been refuted by American Psychological Association. They said that "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles."[7]

Do you see how this edit violates NPOV? It invalidates a whole group of people based on one misconception which, admittedly, is prevalent in that population. Your edits are doing the same thing with gays and lesbians who want to avoid same-sex relationships. True, many of them believe sexual orientation can be changed, and a few of them even believe it can be changed through conversion therapy. However, many of them do not. By contesting conversion therapy right after talking about people who try to avoid same-sex relationships, you make it seem as if problems with conversion therapy logically results in a problem with people trying to avoid same-sex relationships. That would be like saying because some gay activists say sexual orientation is innate and fixed, and modern medical groups disagree with that, therefore the whole argument for equal rights has been refuted. That is homophobic and biased. Your edit is similarly heterophobic and biased. So what if conversion therapy is looked down upon in medical circles, doesn't mean people with a homosexual orientation can't be happy in a heterosexual relationship. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) That is a straw man, and we're back to the undue weight thing again. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to validate any group of people, large or small, and while invalidating anyone would be unfortunate, it is important that minority views don't receive more attention or prominence than they're due. We can debate endlessly about exactly how much they're due, but I don't think you've made a convincing case that the "ex-gay" movement (or whatever some of them want to call themselves) are anything other than a tiny minority pushing fringe theories. It seems clear enough that if that movement or those theories are to be discussed in a broader context, such as the Homosexuality article, we should take care not to assign them enough weight to put them on an equal footing with everyone and everything else.

You report that you've been accused of being anti-gay. I won't echo those sentiments and don't believe such accusations are constructive, and I also respect your willingness to talk civilly about what is clearly an emotional topic for many of us. Nevertheless, a number of your edits and talk-page comments appear dismissive of mainstream views while elevating deeply marginal views to a higher standing than they deserve. History and context mean a lot. Groups such as Exodus and Focus on the Family have spent considerable time, effort, and money over the years in a prolonged effort to prevent gay Americans from attaining civil rights. That some of such groups' rhetoric is couched in superficially benevolent terms, or that thev're gotten very clever at splitting hairs over the exact meaning of words like "change", is all very interesting, but you'll have to pardon me if I'm more than a little skeptical. We cannot and should not accept at face value any old thing that folks say about their organization; skepticism is healthy. Reality check, okay? We're talking about groups that advocate two sets of standards—one for straight people, one for gay people. Doesn't that seem even a little bit fringe to you? A little odd? How is it that the only mention in the Homosexuality article of Focus on the Family, a profoundly wealthy and influential organization that actively seeks to deny equal rights to homosexual people, doesn't say a word about that?

Gay people who want to call themselves "ex-gay" or have straight sex or renounce all sex are all perfectly entitled to their opinions, but for the purposes of Wikipedia articles, those opinions are not entitled to equal footing with mainstream opinions. At most, they deserve brief mention in this article, and sometimes with brevity come generalizations that cannot possibly reflect what's true for every individual. By all means, let's be as accurate and as fair as we reasonably can, but if NPOV for you means painting "ex-gay" groups in their own glowing terms, then I'm afraid you're going to be at odds with more than one of us. (Btw, with all respect, calling another editor's edits "heterophobic" is usually good for either a big laugh or a big yawn. Good-faith extremist that I am, I gave you a serious reply, as well.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Josh - I agree the edit needs sorting, but, although Courage and Evergreen explicitly state that homosexual orientation cannot always be changed into a heterosexual orientation, and although Chambers expresses doubt over it, I've changed my position on Exodus. They explicitly support reparative therapy to change homosexually-oriented people into heterosexually-oriented people. The article doesn't mention that Chambers was or wasn't speaking as president of EI at the time (though perhaps he was), but even if he was, he was expressing a personal opinion, and not that of Exodus. Moreover, Exodus offers referrals to ministries which offer reparative therapy to change from homosexual orientation to homosexual orientation. That is explicit support of orientation-changing therapy.

There are issues with both Evergreen and Courage (Evergreen offers false information on practising homosexuals, and some Courage ministries appear to offer conversion therapy; I'd also like to find, if there's any out there, some data on damage done by telling gay people or youths that homosexual acts are wrong, and also damage done to people who were in relationships/marriages with people with homosexual orientations). At the moment, though, I've got very limited free time, so if someone else could do a bit more research on Evergreen and Courage (as well as either of the other topics I want to research), that would be MUCH appreciated. Darimoma (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Until we get this sorted, does anyone have any objection to taking the offending paragraph out? Darimoma (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No objection. Rivertorch (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a sizable segment of the population and cannot simply be left out of the article because it is controversial. I think you underestimate the population of people who are attracted to the same sex yet do not act sexually on those desires. So let's work with resolving these issues. Is the reason the paragraph is considered an "offending paragraph" because it refers to people who are trying not to have gay sex or with ex-gay organizations? I'm sure there are issues with several organizations, but the main purpose of the ex-gay organizations is not to promote conversion therapy but to help people live a life that is in accordance with their beliefs. There are MANY different opinions within these organizations, and it shouldn't be marginalized by the worse of these opinions. Sure there are horrible stories of people whose lives have been devastated by wrongdoings of these organizations, but there are also stories of people whose lives have been drastically changed for the better. These stories, however, are anecdotal. I have no problem talking about mainstream objection to conversion therapy. However, it must be done in a way that does not imply that everyone who is trying not to have gay sex is going against mainstream psychology.

Darimoma, the article cited in the section actually does talk about 7% of the people who felt conversion therapy created harm. [8] Likewise, this paper[9] talks about the harms of counselors telling gay people who do not want to have gay sex that gay sex is okay. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason it's an offending paragraph is because it currently gives the impression that conversion therapy has a much higher success rate than mainstream psychological organizations consider it to, and because it refers to Exodus International and Focus on the Family without mentioning the controversial nature of those two organizations. I very much want this section fixed, and not just put to one side, but as the article stands, it's too POV. Do you object to it being taken out until the issue gets sorted? Darimoma (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as it gets put back in when it gets sorted out. How does the paragraph on the sandbox page look? Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be cleaned up and wikified, but generally fairly cool. There's still the issue that it talks about people who want to convert, and people who want to simply refrain, but then goes on to simply address conversion. I think the statement by the APA about the development of sexuality needs to be clarified (i.e. explain that changing sexual orientation can occur naturally). Also, I don't think the APA call conversion therapy unnecessary (or do they? I don't know), but I do think that, while it's certainly right to point out that the APA say there's not enough evidence for either the harm or the benefit of conversion therapy, they also state that "the nation’s leading professional medical, health, and mental health organizations do not support efforts to change young people’s sexual orientation through therapy and have raised serious concerns about the potential harm from such efforts." (in some words or other). I'm happy (as long as everyone else is) for the sandbox version to replace the current one (as a placeholder until the issue is sorted). Darimoma (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've included the stance on self-determination, which includes things other than conversion therapy. Also included the recommendation from the APA to refrain from practicing it. I agree that changing sexual orientation can occur naturally, but have not yet found a source for that yet. The quote you source is specifically talking about efforts to promote conversion therapy in schools. They worry that forcing the view that same-sex relationships are wrong among young people can cause prejudice against those who choose to participate in it. That is completely different from a well-informed individual seeking not to have gay sex, who may or may not seek conversion therapy, which is what this is about. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done a wee bit of changing on the sandbox para. Mostly I think it's uncontroversial, but two things which there may be an issue with - 1, I've put in a bit claiming that the APA warns of the harm of conversion therapy, and 2, I dropped the last bit, which said mainstream medical organizations didn't support reparative therapy being promoted in schools.

1, Reason I did this was the Just the Facts pamphlet, while being targeted at schools, does say "The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient." The concern isn't solely about prejudice - it's also about the mental health of the patient. Moreover, the quote appears to apply to people of all ages, not just those of school-age.

2, Reason I did this was it seemed a weak way of putting it (after all, lots of things lack support from mainstream medical organizations), but I couldn't think of putting it in a stronger, but still accurate, way without repeating what had already been said.

By the way, I've deleted the old paragraph in the article. If you're happy with the sandbox version, let's go for it. Darimoma (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Much better. I agree that many of the principles in the Just the Facts pamphlet can be applied beyond school age children. It was just the parts that are specific to young people that I didn't want applied beyond the target audience. Your summary is fine. I did make some minor tweaks. My main problem was I think the original version implied that self determination automatically implied conversion therapy. The right of gay men and lesbians to self determine their sexuality is separate from concerns about conversion therapy. Hopefully my edit accomplished this without raising other issues. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, where are we going to put it? It still doesn't seem to belong in the religion section. (However, I am still more interested in getting it back in, wherever we put it.)Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've put it back in, in the religion section. Perhaps it would be better off as a new section (perhaps 5.11)? With a link to the "main article" as Ex-gay?

Also, does anyone else have any thoughts on the new paragraph? Darimoma (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of having it as a separate paragraph. I don't like the idea of entitling it ex-gay. That assumes that being gay is something that can be changed. Also, the whole ex-gay concept is strictly Western, and has only been around in the last several decades, whereas people who are trying not to have gay sex have always existed, and is not limited to the West. Even in the West many traditional so-called "ex-gays" have denounced the term. That being said, I can't think of a better section heading, so maybe that will have to do until we find a better one. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy-sounding quotes from Catholics and Mormons

Josh, you know quite well that the quotes you've just added are misleading. In the context of religious groups that have moved toward greater acceptance, it is misleading to place first quotes from groups that have reiterated their unchanging opposition to homosexuality, including one that has just become less accepting by adding a new prohibition against men of homosexual orientation in its priesthood. The quotes could be made less misleading by the addition of greater context, but that would not be to the purpose in what is meant to be a short summary of something extensively covered in the main article linked at the top of the section.

This is a problem I see all over the place in articles on LGBT topics. There is a main article about a subtopic, but the link to it in the main article is accompanied by a section almost as long as the article itself. Over at Conversion therapy the subsection on the Ex-gay movement is longer than the main Ex-gay article.

It makes the articles unwieldy to read and navigate, and much more difficult to maintain consistently, leading to all sorts of sloppiness.

Anyway, rant over. The out-of-context quotes you've added are misleading as they stand, and the addition of context would only add to an existing structural problem with LGBT articles. In a short summary about a general movement toward greater acceptance, it most clear to mention as a single example a denomination that has moved dramatically from opposition to acceptance. Reform Judaism fits the bill. Catholicism and Mormonism, two denominations that have moved to softer language while maintaining condemnatory doctrine, are poor examples. So, I'm cutting your additions.

Dybryd (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not know quite well. The quotes are not misleading. They teach reaching out with love and compassion regardless of whether or not they are having gay sex. It is POV pushing to portray that the only way a church can be accepting towards people with a homosexual orientation is to be supportive of gay sex. It's like giving a list of here are the good guys and here are the bad guys. I do not think the doctrine is condemnatory, but regardless, what we think does not belong in wikipedia. It is significant these churches are reaching out towards gays, and they are both larger than Reform Judaism. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What was the prior position of the Catholics and Mormons on the best way to reach out to gay men and women? Your quotes were added as examples of denominations that were part of a trend towards greater acceptance among religions -- as part of a change in religious practice.

If previous editions of the catechism said "Not only is gay sex bad, but gay people ought to be treated with disrespect and unkindness," then you are correct that the new, softer language would make the two churches examples of this change in a broad sense, although still not the best examples of it (particularly given the Catholics having just now forbidden celibate gay men the priesthood).

Dybryd (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There's an excellent point here. There are a number of articles related to homosexuality on Wikipedia; see Homosexuality#See also, which I've just expanded. I think it's a mistake to give a "taste" of something in this particular article that isn't accurate, and you can't say anything in just a paragraph about, say, the interaction between Roman Catholic Church and homosexuals (normally I say LGBT, but this particular article is on homosexuality) that isn't misleading in some way. The subject just requires a lot more attention than that, which is why we have articles on it. If we want to say something as bland and noncontroversial as possible, that would be okay with me, but anything difficult should be spun off into one of the articles specifically involving religion, IMO. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the prior position was silence. The title from the Oakland Tribune was "Mormon church changes stance on homosexuality."[10] That is where I got the fact that they changed their stance. What I didn't like is that somehow "greater acceptance of gay men and women" implies a changing of doctrine to include homosexual relationships, and look, here are some people who are doing it the "right way". Maybe the whole section should be reworded to not imply either the Catholics, Mormons or Reformed Jews are more accepting of gay men and women. How about:

• Several churches teach love and compassion towards gay people, while still teaching against gay sex. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states they "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." The LDS Church denounced gay-bashing and has officially stated they "reach out with understanding and respect". Other churches have changed their doctrine to accommodate homosexual relationships. Reform Judaism, the largest branch of Judaism outside Israel ... Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That's better, yes. I think an alien just landing from Mars would say, "Love and compassion, except when they have sex? Whaaaa?" But this position is both the official position and where many heads are at (or at least, where a lot of people say their heads are at...I can't quite make sense of it), and that's as good a way as any to report it in this article...if we try to make sense of it in one short section of this article, we'll get stuck in a quagmire. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I meant to say. I don't want to misinform people so they think that they don't show compassion when they have sex. That would be very dishonest. How about this sentence: "Several churches teach love and compassion towards gay people, regardless of their sexual practices, while still teaching against gay sex." Is that more clear? Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, and in fact it's a contradiction.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It may appear to be a contradiction to you, but that doesn't actually make it contradictory. Most religions separate the action from the person. The orientation and the person are, in fact two different things. Look them up in the dictionary. That you want to combine them is not uncommon, but it's also a different viewpoint from the religious viewpoint. It's a conceit to think that you are entitled to invalidate the other side of the argument based solely on your own preferences. Bushcutter (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Maybe the whole section should be reworded to not imply either the Catholics, Mormons or Reformed Jews are more accepting of gay men and women. But Reform Judaism is more accepting of homosexuality. It's all about interpretations of Leviticus, and our doctrine is basically that most of the stuff in the bible that others use to condemn homosexuality isn't referring to homosexual behavior at all, but prostitution. Thus, homosexual folks like myself are allowed to join our congregations, be ordained as Rabbis and other similar positions, and many Rabbis will preform actual factual religious marriages for Jewish homosexual couples. Tell me another Abrahamic denomination that does that? I have sources if you need them. L'Aquatique[talk] 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Catholic priests can't be openly heterosexual or openly homosexual, but no one seems to be too broken up about that. 75.44.221.37 (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What's to be broken up about? Some jobs require that a person be neither heterosexual nor homosexual for security reasons. It's an entirely reasonable expectation in certain fields. In old times this level of security was obtained by castrating the job candidates; now it requires an undertaking at least as binding as castration. I think I'd prefer giving the required undertaking.Bushcutter (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What jobs, specifically? Exploding Boy (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion section

There are some problems with the section as it stands now. Joshua's edit [11] unfortunately seems to have killed the sentence the read, "The overall trend of greater acceptance of gay men and women in the latter part of the 20th century was not limited to secular institutions; it was also seen in some religious institutions". That sentence was useful in that it summarized things and linked them contextually to the rest of the article. Also, the part about Judaism should move to its own paragraph; the implication now is that Reform and Conservative Judaism are "other churches".

The sentence about Catholicism needs to be rewritten, since it's not adequately clear who "they" and "their" refer to. Same problem in the Mormon sentence. And it's pretty important that we show context here, I'd say. It's not just "gay sex" that these religious bodies are "teaching against" (the latter phrase might benefit from rewording, btw); it's gay relationships, which are fundamental to the lives and identities of many, if not most, gay people. Teaching against or denouncing: whatever we call it, it's very much about love as well as sex. At any rate, I'm not sure that these examples are useful to the article, but I don't vehemently oppose them if they're cleaned up and better placed in context. Rivertorch (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed many of the concerns that you've addressed. I've cleared up who they refer to and clarified it is gay relationships as well, though I don't know of any specific teaching of any church that would prohibit two guys or girls from romantically loving each other, assuming no homosexual behavior was involved. The problem with the old lead was that it was inherently POV. In essence it is saying a church would be more accepting of gay men and women if they would approve of gay sex. That would be completely favoring one side of the debate. Saying Reform Judiasm is more accepting while excluding Catholics and Mormons is POV. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a serious fallacy in the second sentence of the above paragraph. If two people of the same sex romantically love each other, that strikes me as a clear example of "homosexual behavior" (assuming the love isn't kept secret but rather is displayed in some way). Considering the reminders on this page that homosexuality need not involve sex, it's a little ironic to fall into that trap. Sexual activity is merely one type of activity that people who feel romantic love for each other engage in, and I guarantee it's not the only one that will generate outrage from assorted church authorities. Seriously, of all the gay people who have been expelled from or asked to leave their churches, in how many cases have the authorities had one shred of evidence that any sexual activity had taken place? Gay people run afoul of their intolerant churches because of rumors, anonymous letters, whispering campaigns, because one of their fellow congregants realized they live with someone of the same sex, because someone allegedly saw them embracing, etc., and because they have too much dignity to deny the truth when confronted. And their admissions—i.e., the altering of their status from closeted to open—seal the deal.

Regarding the POV assertion, I cannot agree. I don't feel strongly enough about retaining the sentence in question to put it back in, but I do want to emphasize that I consider the reason given for its deletion to be spurious. If one religious body makes its gay adherents comfortable by accepting them unconditionally without provisos relating to intimate matters, while another religious body makes its gay adherents uncomfortable by professing to welcome them and in the next breath telling them they, unlike their straight peers, must remain chaste, then it is reasonable to conclude that the first religious body is more accepting of gay people. Therefore, Reform Judaism (to use your example, although there are many others) is more accepting of gay people than Mormonism or Catholicism (or various other religions). It's not POV to say that; it follows logically. There are certainly exceptions in each of the examples we named, but it's a fair generalization. It's also worthwhile to note that the Roman Catholic Church has actively lobbied against civil rights for gay people (regardless, obviously, of whether they're sexually active) and the LDS leadership is currently attempting to mobilize its membership politically to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples (chaste ones included). Since Reform Judaism doesn't appear to be engaged in such actions, that lends further credence to the claim that it's more accepting. Is there really a reason-based argument to the contrary?

And yes, there are gay people who refrain from having sex (and kissing, holding hands, buying each other flowers on Valentine's Day, enjoy candlelight dinners and moonlit strolls with one another, and so on). It's important that the article acknowledge the existence of such people and point out the (generally) religious reasons for their chastity. But chastity in this day and age is unusual enough that to conscientiously avoid all such generalizations so as not to exclude its practitioners would be absurd. For the most part, gay people are like straight people: they have crushes, they fall in love, and they take pleasure from acts of physical and sexual intimacy with their partners. And, again for the most part, they don't feel accepted by institutions that seek to deny the validity of their relationships, spread vicious lies about their motives, and hold them to different standards than their straight peers. Not even when such actions are cloaked in a smokescreen of supposed tolerance.

My remarks may have gone beyond the scope of what's ideal for a talk page, and I apologize for their length, but I think it may be useful to identify the underlying assumptions that are driving some of the edits to the article. Rivertorch (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Here here. I used to think much in the same way Joshua does. I was raised Catholic, but the recent actions of the Church denying the priesthood to homosexual men *regardless* of chastity shows a distinct lack of acceptance, especially since half their current priests are gay. In contrast, same-sex couples can be wed or blessed in many churches/synagogues/congregations, and I think most people would definitely consider those groups more accepting, regardless of their personal views of same-sex unions.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confused about the church's role. The church's job is not to be accepting. The church is a teaching and licencing institution and is no more required to be accepting than a college is. There is a standard curriculum, and there's levels of qualification. If a "course" requires non-sexual behaviour, that doesn't mean the church is less accepting of anyone when it asks that participants be non-sexual. It's like insisting that a college be more accepting of slackers - it's not going to happen! Bushcutter (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, we can not deny the hatred and bigotry that has been used against community by the Catholic Church. Specific topics that we need to address are how the Vatican and specically Dominic during the inquistion was influencial in the torture of homosexuals. Please join us in the Dominic and Catholic Church section for this lively debate. Boy2boy (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Catholic Church's position on homosexuality is not as hateful and bigoted as people like to make it seem. People who disagree with the Church think it's hateful and bigoted because they can't accept dissenting opinions, so they latch on to the bad things some people did in the name of God and the Church centuries before as if it somehow proves something. The Church teaches that homosexual acts are disordered and sinful, but does not condemn homosexuals themselves, and in reality they don't hold homosexuals to any special standards. Anyone can be chaste and celibate if they are careful not to deviate from it, and homosexuals are not the only people who are expected to remain chaste. If anyone can be considered hateful and bigoted, it should be the city of San Francisco for its harassment of the Catholic Church and its members, which really shows the bad side of the homosexual movement.75.44.221.37 (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If a college denies your application for admission, it doesn't mean that the college hates you or that it is bigotted. And if a church maintains standards (like a college does) it, too, is not being hateful or bigotted. I think you need to actually meet some Catholic clergy, rather than making assumptions. Bushcutter (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And I think that the discussion in this section is starting to get dangerously off topic, especially since churches, the Catholic Church in particular, are rarely content to keep their opinions to themselves. People who choose to be religious have the right to live by the fairy tales they concoct and purport to believe in; whether they have the right to force those myths on others and uphold them as the standard for everyone is an entirely different matter. An organization that pronounces, based entirely on a collection of writings of dubious provenance and zero proof, flying in the face of all current scientific thinking, that homosexuality is -- what was it again? "Disordered"? -- has not only overstepped its bounds, it is spreading hate in the guise of religion, and it is bigoted. If those are your beliefs, you're going to have to defend them elsewhere. This article is not the place for an extended discussion of Western religions' views on homosexuality, and this talk page is not the place for an apologia for the spreading of dangerous misinformation masquerading as "love." Exploding Boy (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This Talk Page, like all Talk Pages, is for improving the article, not for going on and on about persional theories. When making a submission, it's very useful to have a dictionary at hand so that you're using the correct words. Hurling words like "hate" and "bigotted" about with no understanding of the meaning of the words just turns the discussion into a rant. And personal rants don't prove anything in Wikipedia. Bushcutter (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, If those are your beliefs, you're going to have to defend them elsewhere. If there's nothing to add to this section that is relevant to the article, then it can be archived. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Splitting off homosexual orientation page

This article is way too long and we need to do something drastic to cut it down to size. Part of the problem is, according to the lead, this is the main page for "sexual behavior with or attraction to people of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation." That is a lot to deal with in one article. I suggest creating a separate page for homosexual orientation, instead of a redirect to here. I think a homosexual orientation is an important enough topic to deserve its own page. This isn't to say homosexuality isn't a sexual orientation. The homosexuality page would continue to be about same-sex attraction, same-sex relationships, and a homosexual orientation. The only difference is we will have a page dedicated to just the sexual orientation aspect of it. We already have pages dedicated to same-sex attraction and same-sex relationships. Why not one on homosexual orientation? Sections dedicated to the homosexual orientation aspect, such as theories of causality, malleability, and parts of the demographic section, could be placed in the new article and summarized on this page, saving much needed space. Additionally, a homosexual orientation page could continue to grow and expand, to include sections such as the recognition of the existence of a distinct homosexual orientation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I like it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The obstacle I see is that, rather than breaking off chunks of the article that are already focused on one topic, this would pretty much require a ground-up rewrite, as stuff written in terms of orientation is now scattered throughout the article. Not to say that the article couldn't benefit from a ground-up rewrite, but it's quite the project. Dybryd (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Stuff can still be written in terms of orientation. Just because there is a separate article for homosexual orientation doesn't mean homosexuality is unrelated to sexual orientation, any more than just because there is an article on same-sex relationships doesn't mean homosexuality is unrelated to same-sex relationships. The intro will still read "Homosexuality refers to sexual behavior with or attraction to people of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation." We didn't take out attraction just because there is a same-sex attraction article. The only difference is that this won't be the main page for homosexual orientation, just like this isn't the main page for same-sex relationships. There are also things written in terms of same-sex relationships through out this article, even though there is a separate article for that. The only change that would be required for this article is to summarize theories of causality, malleability, and parts of the demographic section into one paragraph. Homosexuality will and should deal with homosexual orientation just as much as it does with same-sex relationships. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I had earlier said making a page dedicated to a homosexual orientation "will also clear up the marriage, parenting and other sections so you don't have to constantly distinguish between whether you are talking about same-sex couples or people in a mixed-orientation marriage. It could also clear up the religious section, we don't have to cover what the different religious views of homosexual behavior and sexual orientations are." I no longer think this is the case. Homosexuality will always be intricately linked to homosexual orientation, just as it is linked to same-sex relationships and a gay and lesbian identity. All three should play a major role in all of the paragraphs, but each deserve it's own page. So although I still think we should do a separate page for homosexual orientation, I do not think we should expunge it from the rest of the article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that creating a homosexual orientation article is necessarily the right thing to do. It might be better to see how much of the material in the article duplicates what is in the articles on sexual orientation and biology and sexual orientation (which are probably better places for it). Skoojal (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree about cutting duplicate information. That should be done whether or not orientation is given its own article. Dybryd (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Biological causes only affect the biological explanations section, which only contains the subsections Prenatal hormonal theory, Prenatal stress, Physiological differences in gay men and lesbians, and Cognitive differences in gay men and lesbians. The proposed split would also cut out Non-biological explanations, such as Environment and Innate bisexuality, as well as Fraternal birth order, Pathological model of homosexuality, and Malleability of sexual orientation. Plus that still doesn't address the need to grow the homosexual orientation aspect out more. If we cut all of that stuff out of the article, only a very little bit will actually be addressing homosexual orientation directly. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is semantic hell! There is no reason to have a separate article for "homosexuality" and "homosexual orientation"... in a basic informational sense, they are the same and a separation will confuse readers. What's to keep loads of cross-over information between the two articles and TWICE as much redundant discussion as we have now? I'm all for the above suggestion of severely paring down this huge article, and redirecting other issues to other articles, even create new ones if certain editors here believe they aren't represented on Wiki. I agree that not all people of a certain orientation are in a certain relationship, but can't we just mention that it does happen without getting caught up on specific numbers?Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"Homosexuality" and "homosexual orientation", even in a basic informational sense, are not the same and putting them in the same article does confuse readers. Many bisexual people participate in same-sex relationships, and to imply these same-sex relationships only have participants with a homosexual orientation is a form of bisexual erasure. It is human nature to want to have pre-conceived notions about people. Society wants to put us all into little boxes with little labels which dictate what we will and won't do with our lives. But that is far from reality. Especially with topics as complex as sexuality, people express it in so many different ways, and you can't just say homosexual orientation and homosexuality are the same thing even in a basic informational sense. According to this lead, "homosexuality refers to sexual behavior with or attraction to people of the same sex, or to a homosexual orientation." Homosexuality does not just have to do with a homosexual orientation, and I think it is confusing to imply such. Many sections of this article have nothing to do with a homosexual orientation. For example, the insemination rituals of the Etoro, practice of pederasty and the statement about the ancient Greeks that "relationships with women and relationships with youths were the essential foundation of a normal man's love life" seem to be culturally based and have nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the participants. Did every man and boy in the Etoro tribe have a homosexual orientation? Did every boy and man who was thrown into a pederasty relationships have a homosexual orientation? Did the normal man in ancient Greece have a homosexual orientation? Or is it simply that these men were involved in same-sex relationships? You can't confuse the two. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled across the "homosexual orientation" page the other day, and frankly I find it bizarre. What, precisely, is the difference between "homosexuality" and "homosexual orientation," or between "heterosexuality" and heterosexual orientation" (note the redlink)? We already have an article on Sexual orientation.

This has nothing to do with bisexual erasure. This is a clear case of reducing a single topic to an absurd number of sub-topics. What needs to happen is the "homosexual orientation" article redirected to this one and merged, and this article shortened ruthlessly to remove all the unnecessary information that's currently bloating it beyond all proportion. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Brokeback

This—

(recently some fashionable young Chinese tend to euphemistically use the term "brokeback," 斷背 duanbei to refer to male homosexuals, from the success of director Ang Lee's film Brokeback Mountain)

—doesn't belong in the History section. I tend to think it's not significant enough to be retained anywhere in this article, but I'm open to persuasion. Rivertorch (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny numbers

In the history section, we have the following sentence:

In a detailed compilation of historical and ethnographic materials of Preindustrial Cultures, "strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures; it was accepted or ignored by 21%, and 12% reported no such concept.

Arithmetic has never been my strong suit, but none of the percentages supplied seem to amount to a whole number. Even when I round off, it doesn't compute. I have no idea whether these figures are also sourced from the Bancroft-Reinisch work cited for the next sentence, but could someone please check? It probably should be reworded with actual numbers, not percentages, but if it's going to use percentages then they need to be accurate. Rivertorch (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(Found the eBook) The whole thing is a direct quote from Bancroft and Reinisch. So yeah, those are the figures they give. – Steel 14:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Heres the whole page: User_talk:Haiduc#Homosexuality Phoenix of9 (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Aaarrghhh. Then the whole thing is called into question, as far as I'm concerned. Consider: 41% of 42 is 17.22, and the last time I checked, it's pretty hard to quantify a fraction of a culture. Rivertorch (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, that kills it as far as I'm concerned. Remove it, please god, it is a monstrosity. Zazaban (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are both ignoring a basic tenet of statistics, which is that ratios in a subset are indicative of ratios in the main set. That is why we can poll 1000 people in a town on their party preferences and extrapolate from that the way that town leans. Unless you are prepared to show how the sample polled by Bancroft-Reinisch is NOT representative of the whole, we have to accept their numbers as valid. Haiduc (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not so sure. With nice round numbers like 1000 or 100, percentages are always easy to check and meaningful. In the case of other numbers, not so. In this case, we're talking about 42 cultures. If 17 of them disapprove strongly, then .4047619 of the cultures disapprove, and that should be rounded down to 40 percent, not up to 41 percent. Or supposing it's 18 cultures that disapprove: then it's .42857143, which rounds up to 43 percent. There is no whole number that rounds to 41 percent of 42. Yes, the 42 may a subset of the main set, but it is not clear why the sample was reduced to 42 for this particular question. Neither is it clear that the question was considered in the context of the main set. And even if it was, that still doesn't explain where the 41 percent came from because the largest set mentioned—186—can't produce 41 percent as a whole number either. I have no idea whether the research itself was sloppy or the presentation was sloppy or that there is something I'm totally missing here. It has been a while since I worked with statistics (in the context of analyzing political polling data, strangely enough) and the mind grows fuzzy. I can say this much: if the numbers are correct and there's just something arcane going on here that requires a statistician to understand, then it seems to me we should be paraphrasing in the article, not posting actual figures that are going to confuse the vast majority of WP's readers. (You know, all 53,842,106.7 of them.) Rivertorch (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The study addresses a question that has rarely if ever been studied in this way, and provides interesting information. I do not find it confusing, and we cannot take upon ourselves the onus of reader confusion, as long as we write clearly. If Bancroft-Reinisch felt the results are significant enough to publish we should not second guess them since they are the authorities, and not we. It would be different if they were critiqued by their peers. A short search shows nothing amiss with their standing as seasoned scholars and academics. Haiduc (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

All right. You make some good points, but I'm troubled by the idea of blindly accepting everything from a source verbatim just because the source is reliable. Seasoned scholars and academics aren't always good writers, after all, and they've even been known to make a mistake. By and large, it's not up to us to question what they write, but I don't think the taboo on original research extends to using a calculator. In a nutshell, my view is that even if we write clearly, the clarity of the article can be compromised if we quote others who write unclearly, and paraphrasing might be in order here rather than parroting these exact but confusing and questionable figures. If anyone else agrees, I'll attempt a rewrite; otherwise, I'm not going to beat a dead horse indefinitely. The article has bigger issues than this one yet to be addressed. 14:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

homosexual couples more likely to split than heterosexual couples?

The point about homosexual couples being more likely to split than heterosexual couples seems misleading or maybe irrelevant because when reading reference [38] it says:

"[the model] indicates that the excess risk of divorce of gay partnerships tends to disappear when the comparison is based on [both homosexual and heterosexual] childless couples."

what do you think?

130.88.243.132 (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)sian

Good call, I've cleaned up that section. -- Banjeboi 22:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just the conceptual definition

Nothing about the manner to express the sexuality and the role. Aren't dominants and submissives two different types? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.182.171 (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking, perhaps you meant to pose a question at Talk:Dominance and submission. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 11:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That's about the role within a BDSM relationship. Aren't homosexual submissives more likely to be "womanlike", physically weak, impotent and unlikely to switch roles or have sexual relationships with women? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.182.171 (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside any comment about unhelpful stereotypes, I'll say simply that your question seems to relate not to homosexuality per se but rather to individual roles within certain relationships which could involve same-sex partners of either sex or opposite-sex partners. If you're just curious, try the Reference desk. If you want to improve this article, seek out a reliable source or two that relates to your question and to homosexuality, then bring back what you found and let's have a look. Rivertorch (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If a lesbian is a "homosexual submissive" and she is likely to be "womanlike" then what does that have to do with her impotence, and what roles should she have if she switches her relationships with women? My hypothetical questions are intended to convey my being totally baffled by the ambiguity of 79.118.182.171's questions, so perhaps i have a language barrier or some blockage to my comprehension. This TalkPage is for discussing the improvements to the article about Homosexuality. I don't think we have room to go into Dominance and Submission and Womanlike and Impotent hypotheticals unless they pertain directly to our primary points about Homosexuality. Or so i've been led to believe. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 21:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that while in a sex act between two male homosexuals the one in control does it for sexual stimulation followed by orgasm and ejaculation, I do not understand the submissives especially if generally not seeking and desiring penetrative sexual intercourse acts where they're in control. An article about homosexuality should explain such things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.183.64 (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all gay sex is dom/sub. Very little of it is. I don't think you quite understand the dynamics of it. Zazaban (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Arabic wikipedia

i'm not exactly sure where to put this, but this looks like the best place i can think of right now. after looking at the arabic version of this article through google translate[12] i noticed how its extremely biased...more than you could imagine without looking. i know that most speakers of arabic live in a very different culture with regards to homosexuality, but wikipedia is still about free knowledge from a neutral point of view. we dont censor the chinese wikipedia, so why this? maybe someone on the english wikipedia with knowledge of arabic could assist in transferring some information? some collaboration maybe... 68.193.106.206 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it's a mess. Perhaps we have one or more Arabic speakers who will happen to see this and go work on the article, but the first place to comment is really on the talk page of the article on Arabic Wikipedia. Rivertorch (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

yeah, good luck with that. it looks like they view it as neutral for the most part. one user even proposes it be made a non-gay encyclopedia. i think maybe this should be taken to a higher body, like the wikimedia people or something. i probably should have done that in the first place, but in doubt of where to go i came here. thanks 68.193.106.206 (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is revolting. Somebody please do something about this. Their lead-in image is a picture of an anti-gay protest for god's sake! Zazaban (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is Wikipedia. You could try replacing it, but you'd have to write the caption in Arabic or put in a translation request, I suppose. Rivertorch (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It may make sense to simply translate our article but having someone watching that site would be the real issue. LGBT does have some interpreters and there is a whole translation project as well. Realistically that can't be the only wikiproject and article that is back-asswards. -- Banjeboi 20:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Freud

The article states, 'The earliest writers on a homosexual orientation usually understood it to be intrinsically linked to the subject's own sex. For example, it was thought that a typical female-bodied person who is attracted to female-bodied persons would have masculine attributes, and vice versa.[30] This understanding was shared by most of the significant theorists of homosexuality from the mid 19th to early 20th centuries, such as Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, Richard von Krafft-Ebing, Magnus Hirschfeld, Havelock Ellis, Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud, as well as many gender variant homosexual people themselves. However, this understanding of homosexuality as sexual inversion was disputed at the time, and through the second half of the 20th century, gender identity came to be increasingly seen as a phenomenon distinct from sexual orientation.'

I'm no fan of Freud, whose views I think are totally discredited, but I have to say in fairness that this information is not correct. Freud did not think that homosexual men were necessarily effeminate or had 'feminine attributes', and was in fact clear that a person's degree of masculinity/feminity is largely independent of his or her sexual orientation. I'll try and look up information about Freud's actual views and quote it here, to suggest some corrections. Incidentally, the way this is written implies that a person's degree of masculinity/femininity is the same thing as their gender identity, which I don't think is correct. Born Gay (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm uncertain about the accuracy of other information in this section as well. For instance, the article says about Richard Friedman: 'As a consequence, he reasons, male homosexuals are not abnormal, never having been sexually attracted to their mothers anyway.' This hardly makes sense. Being sexually attracted to one's mother is normal, according to standard Freudian thought, so to reason from people not being sexually attracted to their mothers to their not being abnormal makes no sense. It also seems inappropriately written, informal tone, etc. Born Gay (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)