Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Erroneous characterization of Plato

How about this: 1 Timothy 1:9-10: The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible translates verse 9 and 10 as:

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."

The emphasized term translates the Greek word "arsenokoitai."

The ambiguous term "arsenokoitai:" The original Greek word "arsenokoitai" was apparently created by Paul when he wrote 1 Corinthians about 55 CE. No record remains of any writer using the term before that time.

The word is often translated in English versions of the Bible as "homosexual." That is, a men or women who is sexually attracted only to persons of the same sex. Some theologians are fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey, since the idea of a homosexual sexual orientation only surfaced in the 19th century after the start of the scientific study of human sexuality. Also, "arsen" in Greek means "man." Thus, it is most unlikely that "arsenokoitai" could refer to both male gays and lesbians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.189.49 (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the term is simply, literally, and as used: "men who lay with men": and the sense of use in the Greek is analogous to english usage of homosexuality (any act thereof, period). No offense, and maybe I wouldn't be taken as neutral since I have a lot of interest in articles on the churches and on scripture...but part of that is also getting the sense of it right: and this isn't one that is arguable unless someone has a bent to prove first. The idea isn't of "orientation" but of the act, or of lifestyle. Comments?Infinitelink (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The article reads:

The condemnation of penetrative sex between males, however, predates Christian dogma, as it was frequent in Ancient Greece, whence the theme of "crime against nature," traceable to Plato, originated.

However, Plato certainly did not condemn anal penetration on the basis of it being a "crime against nature"--rather, it was considered shameful and "womanish" to accept penetration, not befitting a free man who should have more pride. The relevant text is the Symposium. Of course, Plato also condemned sex generally, hence the "Platonic relationship." The Greek conception of sex was virile, it took no account whatever of the other, the penetrated was merely an object to be used. Anyway, nowhere in Plato will you find the concept of a "crime against nature," that is simply not the sort of ethics that Plato had. I would fix this myself, but the article is protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.160.124 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There is some talk on the subject within Laws, ‘adducing as proof the nature of the beasts and showing that a male does not touch a male for such purposes because this is not natural’ (Leg.836c). I'm not sure this can be interpreted as representative of Platonic notions though. The concept of 'crime against nature' is much more significant in Plutarch, and it becomes something of a joke in later Hellenistic writing. The idea that condemnation was 'frequent in Ancient Greece' seems like overstatement; it was, at best, a common debating point. There is also a danger of suggesting that Platonic/philosophical dialogues are truly representative of the Ancient world in this statement. 82.32.198.119 (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The view that The Greek conception of sex was virile, it took no account whatever of the other, the penetrated was merely an object to be used, a Dover - Foucauldian theory, is no longer unquestioningly accepted. It is actually debunked by Hubbard and James Davidson, among many others. Davidson in particular discusses the biases that led to that view (Dover's well-meaning but homophobic "defense" of Greek "normality" and Foucault's conflicted attitude towards his own, never admitted, love of being penetrated - a passion which sadly caused his death from AIDS, another fact long hidden by him and his supporters), itself a historical aberration. Haiduc 15:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The part of the article you quoted has now a citation and reference. Chiloa (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Perversion or divine wrath

I am somewhat uncomfortable with this snippet: "the law and the church established sodomy as a "perversion" of sexual behavior," since it seems to me that it was written off the top of the head and simply repackages modern ideology in an old bottle. The problem with sodomy was not that it twisted sexuality, but that it angered God, who was liable to deal with the town as he did with Sodom and Gomorrah, which is why instant purification by fire was applied, before all got hurt. Haiduc 22:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think you have a point. Although I think there are probably several reasons for being uncomfortable with homosexuality, or oppression and persecution of it. These include feminization (or fear of it), loss of male power, and religious ones. In some Christian viewpoints historically, homosexuality does anger God, and sodomites were often blamed for disasters. As an example, in Homosexuality & Civilization by Louis Crompton (Harvard University Press, 2003), he talks about how in early 15th century, Venice went paranoid out of fear that God's wrath, as a result of a homosexual scandal, would lead to flooding of Venice and the sinking of their fleets. So they embarked on an full scale attack against sodomites, burning them at the stake. In other words, a witch hunt. So what do you suggest for a change in wording, or additional verbiage? — Becksguy 01:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I would definitely remove the back-reading about "perversion" and discuss the essentially religious (as opposed to sexual) nature of the objections. Haiduc 00:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Gay men have slightly longer and thicker penises than straight men" ???

This is completely absurd and should be removed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.220.59.164 (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC) I totally agree (~~Willieboyisaloser~~) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willieboyisaloser (talk • contribs) 15:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Where the heck did this rubbish come from?! At least give it a citation people! (Willieboyisaloser 15:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)WillieboyisaloserWillieboyisaloser 15:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

The standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The claim is sourced to a mainstream academic journal and, as far as I can tell (having looked), no one has criticized the research. Fireplace 21:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The article says that gay men REPORT having larger penises than straight men, as such I would change the wording to "Gay men report having slightly longer and thicker penises than straight men"72.196.251.116 01:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed here under the heading "Physiological Differences in Gay Men and Lesbians". The probands used in the referenced study were asked to both estimate and actually measure penis size, and the data derived from their measurements are conclusive. You are arguing semantics, IMO. Eganio 21:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This whole article is a racist non-sense in the way of 19th century bubble. Gay peoples are normal men made like every other. I suggest to remove absurdities. Val from Europe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.177.175 (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The info on longer/thicker came from an after-the-fact resorting of Kinsey data. Penis size was 'reported' by all respondents, not just the gay ones. That doesn't mean that it's true, but it doesn't qualify as absurd, either. There are any number of possible variables which could have influenced the results of the study. It is, however, as valid as most of the other references that appear on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.37.214 (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I laughed out loud at this dispute. But it does highlight the absolute boneheaded obstinacy of certain Wikipedia editors -- you know, the ones that take ownership of a page and their idea of a neutral point of view is their own. There is absolutely no credible source of information for this statement of fact about physiology. It had a certain group of males would "report" on the subject is laughable, but kind of understandable. That Wikipedia would refuse to accurately include the word "report" -- as in "in surveys homosexual men report that" blah blah blah. The way it is written now, particularly with a citation, one would think that a bunch of scientists went out with measuring tapes and did a bunch of well, measuring, as scientists are want to do. ROTFLMAO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.149.243 (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Scientific Evidence for Willful Homosexuality?

Perhaps I have only missed this argument within the article or talk page, but it seems to me that any culture in which homosexuality is commonplace is an example of many individuals choosing to embrace and attempt to enjoy homosexuality, and often doing so successfully. Many such cultures are described in the article. Do we ascribe this to a natural bisexual default, or is it possibly social pressure and encouragement leading someone to become homosexual? As I've never seen this argument elsewhere or argued the point, I am most interested in the thoughts of others. I realize that this is not a forum for general discussion, but it seems relevant when the article states that there is no observable evidence after having expounded upon a great deal of what is, in my mind, observable evidence. 68.122.74.16 06:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual behavior happens all over the world, even in cultures which penalize it with death. It is simply that cultures which are hostile to homosexual behavior lead to it becoming a clandestine activity. Acceptic cultures only seem to have a higher incidence of homosexual behavior, because there is less reason to disguise or conceal it. No one would go out of their way to choose to be gay. In addition to prejudice and intolerance, there is the simple inconvenience of finding others similarly inclined who happen also to be attractive, available and otherwise compatible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.144.148 (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, a good point, but the problem with finding any supporters is that generally there are two camps: "You're born gay", and "you conciously choose to be gay". The first camp hates implying that there's a subconcious choice because they typically feel it leaves room for the second camp to call them sinners that should repent (Whether or not it actually would), and the second camp dislikes it because if it's a subconcious choice then alot of their hardcore support goes down the drain. Of course about 10% of people believe it's a subconcious choice, but they tend to have given the whole thing quite alot of thought and as such end up bickering amongst themselves anyway.
That's my experience, in any case.
Personally I think what you're saying is true. 24.86.58.173 21:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but social pressure and encouragement leading someone to become homosexual? I'd prefer to turn that around and say that social pressure and encouragement elsewhere leads to people hiding their sexual identity. In countries where it is commonly accepted gay people don't have to hide, so the percentages of gays who are out will be higher there. I don't think that there is a way to truly prove this because the two "camps" as the user above me describes them will never accept any theory that the other camp puts forward. It all depends on how you interpret the evidence. I say that the evidence proves gays in places where they are accepted are more likely to come out. So those places have an accurate percentage of gays. You seem to interpret this as meaning that people in those places are encouraged to turn gay and the places where homosexuality isn't accepted are the ones where we get an accurate reading of how many gay people there truly are. It's impossible to say which one is true and which is false, it all depends on your own point of view. 68.43.205.143 04:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It think what he was commenting on were historical cultures such as rome and greece where homosexual behaviour was commonplace. I would say though that the social pressure promoting pederasty and homosexual sex didnt turn people gay, it just made them msm. not all msm are gay, in the same way that a gay man who has sex with a women is not straight--Hyrim (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Crime against nature traceable to Plato

From the article (Overview section): The condemnation of penetrative sex between males, however, predates Christian dogma, as it was frequent in Ancient Greece, whence the theme of "crime against nature," traceable to Plato, originated.

• This change does not have consensus. In fact, in the section on "Ethical aspects of homosexuality" above, there is at least one editor that doesn't believe this assertion to be true, based on sources. And others that don't believe it has any place in this article. This sentence needs to be removed and the concept fully discussed here on the talk page. — Becksguy 07:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• • What part of it are you contesting? Haiduc 11:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• The whole sentence. Where does it reliability say that the condemnation predates Christianity. And User:Bargolus in the above section specifically reputes the claim that the concept of "crime against nature" came from Plato. Plato had boyfriends, and wrote in favor of same-sex love. The sentence in the article is original research, unless it can be sourced properly. Read the "Ethical aspects of homosexuality" section above for other comments on Plato. The sentence must be removed until we gain consensus here based on verifiable sources. — Becksguy 12:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Their are many names for Homeosexuals: Gay people. bum boys, wofters, tiddley boys, ass raiders, poofters, bent bastereds the list could go on on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.13.191 (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. You will find this information everywhere, even (I am embarrassed to say, having just done a quick search) on some religious sites. Not surprising: doubtlessly the Christians borrowed their "against nature" logos from the Greeks. (Of course, now that it is proven that it is "according to nature" the argument has changed to "Well, that does not make it right.") But you might start with Knowledge As Sexual Metaphor by George Joseph Seidel, p.61. Also, I strongly recommend a close reading of Plato's Phaedrus and Symposium and Laws. They have all been exhaustively discussed, as you can imagine, so it is not like we are being original or anything.

To be more specific, see "Laws", 636 C: “When male unites with female for procreation, the pleasure experienced is held to be in ‘accordance with nature’ (kata physin), but ‘contrary to nature’ (para physin) when male mates with male or female with female” (Hubbard, "Homosexuality in Greece and Rome," p.252). I am surprised you would contest such an obvious truism. Haiduc 12:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Plato uses the phrase "against nature," but that is not the basis of his condemnation, it merely constitutes the condemnation--he goes on to give his reasons, which do not involve an appeal nature or natural behavior as such; rather, an appeal to temperance in bodily pleasure and an ultimate appeal to happiness--consistent with Plato's general ethics. I think to say that the ethical appeal to nature is traceable to Plato, based only on the use of this phrase, is reading too much into it and ignoring context. In any case, I am certain that the interpretation would be considered controversial among scholars of Plato. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.160.124 (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Moreover, it seems that this practice has undermined a law that is ancient and indeed in accord with nature and governs the enjoyment of sexual pleasure not only by human beings but also by animals. [...] "... the pleasure enjoyed by males with males and females with females seems to be beyond nature, and the boldness of those who first engaged in this practice seems to have arisen out of an inability to control pleasure." (Laws, 636b-d) [italics mine]

Now, we are not here to debate the meaning of ancient texts, since that is original research, but since you broached the topic, I think it is well to examine the text in question at first hand. While you are certainly right that Plato regards the lack of enkrateia as the cause of the crime, nonetheless he holds that a natural law has been broken, whence his "para physin." Haiduc 22:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot of our sexual behaviors and attractions are attributed to parental decisions and the type of culture we grow up in. A place such as ancient Rome and Greece would have been much different because growing up you would observe a culture who embraces and encourages homosexual activities. In a place such as our modern day America homosexuals are still a minority and are moderately hidden under the shadow of heterosexuality not only in the public veranda but also through the media. Thus influencing a child to see that it is "more normal" to be heterosexual than it is to be homosexual. But if we continue to look at a place such as Iran (Which the article made obviously clear is a culprit against homosexual behaviors) we would observe that homosexuality is heretical and a crime further influencing a more heterosexual turnover. Personally I believe in Inert Bisexuality. We are all born bisexual with slight predetermining factors (Inherited of course) which tip the scales of attraction one way or the other. The major determining factor for sexual preference would be events or happenings throughout childhood and indeed life. Growing up in a mostly heterosexual society would influence the same likewise with homosexuality. This idea could never gather any momentum due to the fact that a large chunk of the heterosexual society would not want to be identified at one point in time as having been bisexual. I welcome your thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twiggy20 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality as heresy

Rather than get into an edit war with Haiduc, I think this needs to be discussed. For the time being, I have restored the article to the original wording. Let's hold off on further edits about this until others have had a chance to weigh in.

Historically Christians have held that homosexuality is "a transgression against divine law," to use the words of the article as currently written. Heresy is a "theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox," according to the Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in the introduction to the Wikipedia article on [heresy]. I assert that a transgressive act, by itself, can not be defined as a theological or religious opinion. One could make a claim that holding homosexuality as compatible with Christian doctrine is heresy; I believe the Catholic Church has already issued such a statement. But homosexuality itself is seen as a sin, not as a heresy. TechBear 21:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same, but reading Rice was informative. What do you think of his argument? Haiduc 21:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Until I have a chance to read your citation, I have no opinion other than an understanding of "heresy" and "sin" derived from past studies. If you don't mind, could you cite your source again here? That way we don't need to go digging through past revisions to find it. Mind you, I'm not saying you are incorrect, just that my own background draws a distinction between heresy and sin. I will gracefully go with the majority on this. TechBear 21:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

For your enjoyment:

• Rice, Eugene; "Europe: Medieval" in glbtq: An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, [1]

I haven't read it yet, either :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Mesoamerica

Some of this is questionable. For example "The Mexica worshipped Xochiquetzal, "the goddess of non-procreative sexuality and love. . . Xochiquetzal was both male and female at the same time, and in her male aspect (called Xochipilli), she/he was worshipped as the deity of male homosexuality and male prostitution."[15]"

This is inaccurate and the ciation provided is full of misinfo. First off Xochipilli and Xochiquetzal are not aspects of eachother, they are twins. It claims that she was originally the consort of Tonacatecutli, she was originally intended for Tlaloc not Tonacatecutli, but was kidnapped by Tezcatlipoca and became his wife instead. And to top it off, Xochiquetzal NEVER ruled one of the ages/suns of human kind. The four rulers of each sun was Tezcatlipoca, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc, & Chalchihuitlicue. Theres not a mention of Xochipilli ever ruling over prostitution, and the prostitution they did have was all female.

The other thing: "The Spanish conquerors were horrified to discover "sodomy" openly practiced among native peoples, and attempted to crush it out by subjecting the berdaches (as the Spanish called them) under their rule to severe penalties, including public execution and burning. In a famous example of homophobic cruelty, in 1513 the conquistador Vasco Nunez de Balboa

discovered that the village of Quarequa [in modern-day Panama] was stained by the foulest vice. The king’s brother and a number of other courtiers were dressed as women, and according to the accounts of the neighbours shared the same passion. Vasco ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs. The Spaniards commonly used their dogs in fighting against these naked people, and the dogs threw themselves upon them as though they were wild boars on timid deer."

The Aztecs were very "pure" people who were intorlarent to "sin". One of their codexes as 22 sexual sins. I doubt this is true and it mightv'e been made up by the Spaniards and bisaly over exgeratted by them. Someone needs to check the references. Xuchilbara 17:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual relationships were widely reported in the native cultures encountered by the European invaders. David Greenberg, in his "Construction of Homosexuality" (1988) describes Xochipili as "the patron of male homosexuality and male prostitution." I do not have the page ref handy. Haiduc 18:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Theres still some inconsitities regarding Xochiquetzal and Xochipilli though. I think some of it needs to be re-written into something more accurate and better references than that one link. Xuchilbara 02:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

NARTH inclusion in main article belongs in reparative therapy article

In regards to citation 107: this citation under environment is not scientific and does not belong in the main article; instead it should be merged into the reparative therapy article when writing about NARTH and their ideologies.

"Environment

There is some evidence that gay men report having had less loving and more rejecting fathers, and closer relationships with their mothers, than straight men.[107]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.132.204.47 (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the citations in 107 are too old and criticized to reflect current mainstream thought. Isay, however (cites 108, 109), is mainstream and I'd be sad to see the second sentence go. Maybe this can be reworded. Fireplace 12:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a more modern citation. I don't think any of them were published by NARTH. In fact, most of them predate it.Joshuajohanson 22:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please use caution when dumping loaded-terms like "ideologies" upon a group: NARTH is controversial and so-so debate tit-for-tat, but besides being a group with a lot of think-tanking or paper-distributing it is actually research-based and among professional levels it is acceptable for research: I've had people attack me on this and say "nuh uh" but I've seen the acceptance and I attend a public good-'ol liberal university. Upon examination NARTH's work which is specifically related to research does pass muster even in human-sexual psychology and is cite-able: a hard status to attain at the University level. I actually know of counselors at the school who work with GLBT which do utilize the materials and research they do since it is so "unorthodox", that is, it's politically-incorrect but useful nonetheless: whether or not one agrees with their aims, premises, or orientations toward issues. And I'd just like to foster a little respect here, by the way, so that people will be more considerate and not so quick to dismiss those they disagree with: a hard thing to come by these days.Infinitelink 10:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Males more affected, because of prenatal hormones distribution?

I’d like to add this ‘’commentary’’ which will be more a questioning than a commentary. I’m a student, and homosexuality is a controversial subject, though is my country (Canada) it is fully accepted , there are a lot of misconceptions and I know that many peoples don’t understand why homosexuality exist. In one of my Psychology courses, I remembered Freud’s explanation for homosexuality and it was totally absurd and I guess it is now refuted. Anyway, as the theory of Simon LeVay, my professor told us that basically, when the child was conceived, when the sexes are forming on the fetus, they are all females. It depend on a few things (Y chromosomes for males, and X for females).For the formation of a sexual orientation, the fetus must received. Hormones, if the baby would receive testosterone, it would overcome the characteristics of the females.

Then, I’ve just read that generally there is more Male homosexual than females. All of that make sense: if all babies are female at their creation, well I guess that would make them attracted to males. So when the baby boy is supposed to receive the hormones that are needed in order to ‘’transform’’ him into and Heterosexual individual, and there is a lack or a dysfunction, it could explain why he will stay attracted to men.

I’d like a reply: if my theory makes sense or it’s totally out of the track! (And if this theory was already was already told, well I haven’t seen it!)

Nickname: Acce Philippe Sept, 18. 2007. 20:05 (gmt-5 Can East) (Ecce Homo 00:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

There's a locus (I believe that's the right term, but it has been a while since I was in genetics too) on the Y chromosome specifically responsible for the sole (known) action of that chromosome: initiating testosterone production. The initial horomone-release directs the proto-tissues of what would otherwise become ovaries to develope into testes. This, in turn, directs the fetus to become fully male. There are cases of feminization (like having an extra X, being XXY) or androgen-insensitivity syndrome (also called feminized-testicular syndrome, and other names) but an XXY is typically oriented toward women (but has a hard time, and having greater feminine characteristics), and an androgen-insensitive individual, though XY, is unable to respond to testosterone and so they develope into a fully female individual (though sterile), yet oriented (typically) toward men.

Thus it's improbably that the "default" sex (female) is the cause for men becoming oriented toward other men: rather though we call a fetus "female" by default, and this is evident in some developments (such as nipples), it may be more likened to that the fetus, though human, is yet to be a determinative sex until a certain point: when it has either received testosterone, or it has not. Further the simplistic explanation of features like nipples as being solely unnecessary developments of the "default" before switching fails to take into consideration the sexual significance of the features as sign-posts to the eye and senses.

Further, the early distribution of hormones probably isn't determinative since the magnitude of hormones which take-over (the male ones) is colossal. And besides this, though there's brain-development prenatally the major development occurs post-birth: the initial development is creation/growth/instinctive. It's not surprising, for instance, that rates of homosexuality are extremely low among heterosexual parents, but ten times as high when gay and lesbian couples adopt and raise children: something impacts on the brain--the result is what gets debated.

We do know there are physiological-determinative cues to initiate attraction between the sexes: which people typically consider "normal"; there are also characteristics that attract individuals, some common, and some peculiar: and the prevalence may/not determine some issues of orientation. I've known homosexuals that are the product of abuse and/or getting hurt; I've know some who are homosexual by choice (and who are able to decide whatever they want, whenever they want), and I've known some who swear they just are as they are: and I don't doubt it. Each of these categories tends to offend the other two who'll attack it and deny it etc...but I don't think that's really necessary for any of them. Anyone who claims homosexuals are always "that way" because of abuse, choice, or other are probably being simplistic: I say this because your question seems to be (from experience) to be significant because people debate/defend their stances for/against morals/views/etc.. That said, I don't think it's a good idea for people to look for/to some answer as being the source of "the" source or some kind of justification for the phenomena...either side of these debates is often grasping at straws when seeking answers beyond "people are human".Infinitelink 10:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation

• This study was removed from the article with the comment that the study was contested. I haven't seen any scientific or professional groups contest this study. To the contrary, former APA President Nicholas Cummings praised the research saying "This study has broken new ground in its adherence to objectivity and a scientific precision that can be replicated and expanded, and it opens new horizons for investigation." Here was the text that was removed from the Malleability of homosexuality section in regards to changing sexual orientation:

Research conducted by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse has suggested that change may be possible for a small percentage of people. Out of a sample size of 98 people who sought a change in their sexual orientation, 15% reported a change in orientation over a three year period.[2]

Joshuajohanson 00:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Jones & Yarhouse study from this article for several reasons. This subject relates to reparative therapy and the consensus is that items about ex-gays and reparative therapy belong there, assuming that the items follow the usual WP requirements for notability, reliable sources, and NPOV. Second, the American Psychological Association (APA) has stated officially as an body that homosexuality "is not changeable" [3], and that trumps the former president. Third, the US Surgeon General has stated that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed" [4]. Fourth, the reference that you provided, cnsnews.com, also reported that the study is contested by Wayne Besen, the executive director of Truth Wins Out. He says the study is a "deceptive sham with the goal of making it appear as if science backs fundamentalist beliefs on homosexuality". [5]. In addition, the website TruthWinsOut.com also reports that there are "..unconfirmed reports there is great concern that these notorious anti-gay researchers did little more than telephone professional ex-gay lobbyists and ministers from Exodus International and asked them if they had “changed.” If this is the case, it is likely that the study results are suspect, if not wholly invalid..." [6] Also Benson says that the study sample size was "unusually small". While the TruthWinsOut website may, or may not, be a reliable source, they do raise suspicions about the validity of the study that need to be answered. But the overriding reason is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and since this study is not in line with existing multiple reliable and authoritative sources, it requires multiple reliable sources to prevail. Sorry Joshuajohanson, I know you mean well, but you need to dig out much better references if you can, and even then, it most likely belongs in reparative therapy. Thank you. — Becksguy 10:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Further, Jones & Yarhouse's study is not a reliable source, per WP:RS#Scholarship. It was not published by a peer-reviewed journal, but by a Christian book publisher with no known peer review process. This doesn't pass the test of the material having been "been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community." Fireplace 12:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are my responses to your objection:

• This subject relates to reparative therapy.

This is not reparative therapy. The survey was about religiously motivated change, which is different than reparative therapy.

• Second, the American Psychological Association (APA) has stated officially as an body that homosexuality "is not changeable" [7].

I think you misunderstood that. They are saying reparative therapy can't change sexual orientation. Consider the statement by Clinton Anderson, director of the APA Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns Office: "I don't think that anyone disagrees with the idea that people can change."[8] Their concern is how the change comes about.

• Third, the US Surgeon General has stated that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed"[9].

First of all, this study was done after that statement. Second of all, its not proof that orientation can be changed, just a study, nothing else. All I did was report the outcome of the study.

• Fourth, the reference that you provided, cnsnews.com, also reported that the study is contested by Wayne Besen, the executive director of Truth Wins Out.

Like I said, I haven't seen any scientific or professional groups contest this study. Besen is untrained and highly biased. I would believe the opinion of Cummings over Besen, but regardless, you don't have to believe either one. I just wrote what the research was and the results. You can include Besen's objection. I am in favor of presenting all viewpoints.

• extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and since this study is not in line with existing multiple reliable and authoritative sources, it requires multiple reliable sources to prevail.

Can you point me to some authoritative sources? I have not seen a single one that says orientation cannot be changed. In fact, doesn't the US Surgeon General quote confirm the fact that there is no evidence one way or the other? If there were these "multiple reliable and authoritative sources" as you claim, wouldn't he have been able to find one? or at least maybe the director of the APA Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns Office would be aware of at least one reliable source that "disagrees with the idea that people can change." By the way, simply discrediting one of several theories or one of several papers is not sufficient to discredit the idea. Anyway, I am not making an extraordinary claim, just relating the results of a study which "has broken new ground in its adherence to objectivity and a scientific precision that can be replicated and expanded, and it opens new horizons for investigation."

• It was not published by a peer-reviewed journal, but by a Christian book publisher with no known peer review process. This doesn't pass the test of the material having been "been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community

The publisher might have been Christian, but that doesn't mean you should easily discount it. There are a list of things that qualify as a reliable source besides a peer reviewed journal. It's a book for goodness sake, not an article. You can't publish a book in a peer reviewed journal. It was published by two professional psychologists, who frequently publish in peer-reviewed journals. It received the praise of other scholars, (does that count as peer review?) It is much more reliable than most of the sources in the article.Joshuajohanson 23:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The WP:RS standard for original scholarship is whether it has been "thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." This study has not been published in a peer-reviewed source, and it has not been favorably commented on by scholars in academic journals. It isn't Wikipedia's job to report on everything written by people who have previously gone through the peer review process. If this study stands the test of time and becomes "judged acceptable scholarship" by the scientific community, then it will count as a reliable source. Until then, it's not credible. Fireplace 05:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If it hasn't been peer-reviewed, it's not serious science. Tim Vickers 05:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is getting peer-reviewed. It just wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal, because once again, this is a book, not an article. Here is a review by George A. Rekers, Ph.D., Th.D., FAACP, who is a professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science Emeritus at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine. I am sure there will be more to come. [10] Joshuajohanson 07:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly an unbiased peer review -- rather, it's a press released published by a widely-criticized advocacy organization (NARTH) coming from an individual (Rekers) who co-founded the Family Research Council and has published similar positive reviews of Paul Cameron's work (which also has been widely discredited by the scientific community). This clearly doesn't represent the judgment of the scientific community. Fireplace 12:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say one review represents the judgment of the scientific community. I was just pointing out it has been peer-reviewed. The fact that he gave a positive review of Cameron's work or the fact that he has a life outside his professional life does not negate the fact that he is a peer, with qualifications and respected in his field. Oh, and here is a review by yet another peer, Warren Throckmorton [11] This book has received positive peer-reviews by Cummings, Rekers and now Throckmorton and has not received any negative reviews. Anyway, I am just reporting the results from the study, not any conclusions that the studies make. Joshuajohanson 21:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Throckmorton is a pro-ex-gay talking head (incidentally, his academic background is in education, not psychology or psychiatry). There is a small handful of professionals actively writing in support of ex-gay/conversion therapy methodology -- it's no surprise that when two of them publish a book, all the others jump on the bandwagon and support it. This does not constitute peer review under the WP:RS#Scholarship standard. Fireplace 21:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I imagine the same thing would happen in any professional discipline in which only a small handful of professionals are specializing. One person publishes something, and it is no surprise that everyone else reviews it. Would you rather have someone with no experience in this field review it? This "small handful of professionals" frequently publish their work in professional, peer-reviewed journals, and yes, they frequently review each other's work (not always positively). Warren Throckmorton is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Grove City (PA) College. His academic work has been published by journals of the American Psychological Association, and the American Mental Health Counseling Association. He is past-president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association. What part does not qualify as a peer under the WP:RS#Scholarship standard? Joshuajohanson 00:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are quite a few people who have published academic papers on conversion therapy and the like -- but only a small handful who publish academic papers supporting it. So, no, I wouldn't rather "have someone with no experience in the field" review it -- but WP:RS#Scholarship requires that the scientific community judge it acceptable scholarship. "Scientific community" here does NOT equate with a few press releases issued as part of a PR campaign backed by those advocating a largely discredited theory. Fireplace 00:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't conversion therapy. This is a religiously meditated change, which is completely different. Not very many people have delved into the religious realm. It's open to the scientific community, and three people have reviewed it. Do you have any actual problems besides the fact that you don't like the people who did the peer review? Because you claiming it is some big PR campaign is hardly sufficient to discredit the review of several noted professionals in the field. Joshuajohanson 06:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're talking in circles, and I've spelled out the problem already. Also, you might want to familiarize yourself with how the academic peer review process actually works -- multiple anonymous referees, each providing a written critique to an editor who then either makes a final decision or seeks further review, etc. People who are colleagues, close friends, etc. of the writer are typically excluded from being referees (this would exclude Throckmorton, with whom Yarhouse has published papers and held conferences, and perhaps Rekers as well). This process is not satisfied when NARTH issues a press release by a researcher with an agenda. Fireplace 11:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We are talking in circles. I've laid out my objections to your objections. You are NOT the judge of who is a qualified peer and who isn't, nor are you the judge of the motives behind the report. I would like to hear someone else's opinion. If not, I am sure more qualified reviews will come as more people have time to read the study. Joshuajohanson 17:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Now that the book has been officially released, there are peer reviews, not published on NARTH's site, but on the publishers site.[12] I have still not seen any professional contend the results are invalid. These peer reviewers include:

• Dr. A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D.
• William O'Donohue, Ph.D.
• Nicholas A. Cummings, Ph.D.
• Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D.
• Merton P. Strommen, Ph.D.
• Brent D. Slife, Ph.D.
• Rogers H. Wright, Ph.D.
• George A. Rekers, Ph.D., Th.D., FAACP

Joshuajohanson 01:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, this is not peer review, which is a formal review process by independent referees. Rather, this is a series of statements issued by people, several of whom are closely associated with the authors, who have close ties to the ex-gay movement. The standard for inclusion of scholarship is whether "the material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." Those criteria have not been met here: IV Press is not a peer-reviewed source, and the material hasn't been reviewed and judged acceptable in academic journals. Fireplace 01:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that Jones and Yarhouse’ method (“religiously meditated change”) is not a form of conversion therapy (“methods aimed at changing gay, lesbian, and bisexual people's sexual orientations to heterosexual, or at eliminating or diminishing same-sex desires and behaviors”) is playing a semantic game – whatever you call it, it’s still a method aimed at changing a person’s sexuality (which the scientific community - outside of a very few, consistently religiously-biased individuals - considers bunk). Whether the methods in question are based on religious beliefs or anything else is irrelevant. Furthermore, as one particular religious organization/belief structure among hundreds, it’s hardly relevant in the larger picture: if a Satanist organization claimed to find a ‘religiously mediated change’ for headaches, would non-Satanists care? Richardpaez 03:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Prejudice Section

Suggest rephrasing "In many cultures, gay and lesbian people are frequently subject to prejudice and discrimination." to (placed in bold text) "In many [if not most] cultures, gay and lesbian people are frequently subject to prejudice and discrimination in a wide array of legal and societal contexts." Just an idea. 24.251.84.221 08:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds a bit POV, yes? The "if not most" seems like a way to slip in an uncited suggestion without having to worry about the facts. Thanks for the suggestion, though. Ketsuekigata (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism against the coinage and early use of the term "homosexuality"

This article lacks any reference to criticism against the late 19th century coinage of the term "homosexouality". Until then, people would talk about "homosexuality" as a specific, often (but not always) unacceptable sexual practice - just like the term "sodomy" is used today. In the late 1800s, after the term was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny, but especially because of the way it was used, along with the term heterosexuality, in Richard von Krafft-Ebing's 1886 book Psychopathia Sexualis - a work of great influence - "homosexuality became a specific sexual identity. And, to be more specific, an identity that carried many negative medical and social connotations. In the words of Elisabeth Badinter (XY, de l'identité masculine, 1992, ISBN 2253097837) "the perverted replaced the lewd". (I do not have the english translation of the book, so these may not be the exact words". And in Michel Foucault's words (1970–1971 La Volonté de Savoir) "Homosexuals now became a species". (The same applies here). In other words, the terms "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" indicated, and still do, a specific social classification (J. Weeks, Sex, Politics, and Society, 1989).

In my opinion the article is not full without a referance to these ideas. I suppose though that other editors are much more informed on the issue, and I expect their opinions.Desiderius82 06:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right -- Foucault's point is a famous, oft-cited one and there should be a clear statement of it in the article (a paragraph should do it?). Want to write it? Fireplace 13:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The references are valuable, but the evolution of gender consciousness is discussed in the "Overview" section of the article. Haiduc 14:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Overview section does indeed discuss the issue, but in a way I consider insufficient.

It still remains to be decided though where my proposed contribution could fit better. Some possible solutions: (1)It forms a new paragraph, on its own, towards the end of the article. (2)It is integrated in the Etymology and Usage section. (The article on Terminology of homosexuality does have some specific, though brief, reference to the ideas I'm talking about, including a quotation from Foucault.) (3)It is integrated in the Overview section, at its end. The third option is the best one, in my opinion.

A proposed rough paragraph could be:

The 19th century coinage of the term "homosexuality" and its early use by psychiatrists, has met with substantial criticism, given especially the impact it seems to have had on social mentality on the issue. Until then, people would talk about "homosexuality" as a specific sexual practice - in the way the term "sodomy" is used today. In the late 1800s, and especially under the great influence of Richard von Krafft-Ebing's work - "homosexuality" came to denote a specific sexual identity. [Citation: Elisabeth Badinter, XY, de l'identité masculine, 1992, ISBN 2253097837]. And, to be more specific, an identity that carried many negative medical and social connotations. In [Michel Foucault]]'s words: "Homosexuals would now constitute a species". [Citation: Michel Foucault, La Volonté de Savoir, 1970-71]. After the term "homosexuality" was coined, what had been simply considered lewd became a pervertion[Second citation to the former work]. In any case, this indicates it might be better to refer to the history of homosexualities, rather than homosexuality.

Does the last phrase seem a bit insufficiently connected to the rest of the paragraph?

I need help with the exact quotations, since I don't have the english editions of these works. English is not my mother tongue, corrections wellcome.Desiderius82 16:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems a bit POV at the moment, and I wouldn't support its inclusion in this form. Discuss Foucault of course, but the proposed paragraph above contains a lot of tacit endorsement of his perspective, which is not appropriate.

A Wikipedia editor has no business saying what "might be better." Dybryd 17:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

lead

Please see wp:lead. The lead should summarize the article. Instead, this lead defines the term. I've started summarizing the article, but there's a lot to do. Please help. Ironically, the lead should both make reading the rest of the article less necessary (because it's such a great summary) while also enticing the reader to read the whole article (because the lead highlights what's interesting about the topic). Leadwind 02:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Id like to take issue with a number of descriptions and statements in this article. However, the main objection I have is the use of the word 'straight' to describe heterosexual, 'straight'... this term 'straight' I feel is insulting and derrogatory because the opposite of straight is bent, meaning malformed, dysfunctional, deviant, wrongful. Please stop using this word 'straight' to describe hetero men (or women) or issues. They are simply 'hetero'. Tonyblackpoolrock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.37.150 (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Physiological differences section

This section I think quite clearly valorizes gays and lesbians over non-gays. Citations tend to take pains to identify gay and lesbian traits as larger or more developed than those belonging to non-gays. There is one exception at the beginning of the section but I smell a rat.

"The anterior commissure is larger in women than men, and larger in gay men than in non-gay men.[82]" "Gay men have, on an average, slightly longer and thicker penises than non-gay men.[83]" "The suprachiasmatic nucleus was found by Swaab and Hopffman to be larger in gay men than in non-gay men [80], the suprachiasmatic nucleus is also known to be larger in men than in women [81]." "Gay men and lesbians are significantly more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous than non-gay men and women;[97][98][99] [79]" "Gay men and lesbians are more verbally fluent than heterosexuals of the same gender[101][102] (but two studies did not find this result[103][104])." "Gay men are better than non-gay men at object location memory (no difference was found between lesbians and non-gay women).[105]"

I am by no means disputing the veracity of these citations. But I want to know if their can be found important scientific studies which indicate, perhaps, physiological shortcomings of homosexuals (or at least something to balance this section) since everything I see so far paints homosexuals as empowered and encourages essentialist thinking not belonging in this encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.101.220 (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It seem there is a positive bias in the Physiology section. Not only that, most of the research cited in the physiology section are questionable. After reading several of the articles many of the articles are plagued with small sample size and unclear survey questions. For example, in a study from Rahman (cited 5 times) on the startle response activity in men and women Rahman only recruite 54 people. Thats an average of 14 people for each category (gay,lesbian,heterosexual male/female). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.205.119 (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This article needs some cleaning...

Many have probably noticed this, but many parts of this article either contain half-baked citations, half-truths, or don't represent an objective viewpoint. The word "mainstream" is used in rather lbieral amounts, given that not all the research is cited and some of the studies that are cited can't nessecarily be viewed as objective. And it seems that views and research that might be considerd anti-gay are pronounced debunked.

Soul Slayer 05:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trying to insert "half-baked" information sourced from highly-biased Christian right organizations such as the Family Research Council and WorldNetDaily. The word "mainstream" is completely objective, as it represents a broad consensus among all major medical and psychological professional organizations. Your personal dislike of the facts does not make this article in any way unbalanced. Our NPOV policy clearly states that we present majoritarian, expert-held views as predominant and small-minority views as fringe. I'm sorry to tell you that when it comes to the subject of homosexuality, the Family Research Council and its ilk are the fringe. Their religiously-based positions are not supported by scientific research and are rejected by an overwhelming number of subject-area experts - who are the mainstream.

NPOV does not mean that all points of view are equal - only that all points of view should be represented. A fringe view, unsupported by evidence and scientific consensus, will not be presented as if it is equivalent to the mainstream view. Wikipedia does not teach the controversy. FCYTravis 09:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the majority of the citations in this article relate to studies funded and/or supported by gay activist groups. That is hardly mainstream. I do not dislike facts, I in fact support them whole-heartedly. Mainstream is usualy defined to mean the majority, the citation I inputed for the FRC, whatever their personal views may be, presented a list of statistical studies that were not related to their organization. None of them were conducted by the presenter or their organization, and furthurmore the list was international and presents a mroe diverse research area.

Unless you claim that the U.S. Census, "mainstream" news agencies such as the NY Times and Newsweek, as well as studies that have been established as objective (and any actual viewing of the page I cited would show this) are all inherently biased, your statement is ludicrous.

Just because the page's owner may have a "biased" viewpoint doesn't make the facts on the page any less valid. Oh, and please don't make assumptions about my likes and dislikes, it's rather rude when I haven't even stated my position one way or the other on the subject in question. Soul Slayer 16:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• No one "owns" a page or article in Wikipedia. However, there may be editors that have contributed heavily to an article or are the primary editors because of expertize in that field or a strong interest in improving/maintaining the quality of an article. But anyone can edit any article, unless it is protected or semi-protected. It would be a good idea to discuss any major changes on the talk page first. And a very good idea to discuss any controversial, or potentially controversial changes first. That's just common sense, and a good way to work toward consensus, especially for contentious subjects. — Becksguy 06:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a self-contradiction within a single thought-train / paragraph:

The director of the APA's LGBT Concerns Office explained: "I don't think that anyone disagrees with the idea that people can change because we know that straight people become gays and lesbians.... the issue is whether therapy changes sexual orientation, which is what many of these people claim."[138] The American Psychiatric Association has stated "To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of "reparative" treatments," and supports research to further determines risks versus its benefits.[139] Similarly, United States Surgeon General David Satcher issued a report stating that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed".[140]

... so I'm with SoulSlayer, it needs a bit of clean-up. The article as a whole does seem a bit POV to me - it's a fact about homosexuality that a lot of people disapprove of it, but that disapproval is not clear. The "Religion" section looks like an attempt at a creating a strawman; it should instead list the major world religions, state the central viewpoint concerning homosexuality (by reference to acknowledged texts or statements by supreme leaders (like the Dalai Lama for example), see the wiki pages for each religion) and then make a statement on dissent from that viewpoint. Anything further is a separate article ... the AFA stuff belongs in the AFA article. It's pretty POV too:

[those who] actively oppose social acceptance of homosexuality

takes as read that homosexuality is socially acceptable, consider if it read "concur with the opposition by society of homosexuality", not neutral by a long shot. Pbhj (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Making this article more realistic

Why don't you make this article more realistic and incorporate some of the material from leading medical experts and other experts that Conservapedia cites.Eckert777 22:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What medical experts are those? Wilmot1 19:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia, by itself, does not meet the standards of a reliable source. None of the resources cited by Conservapedia meet this standard, either. IF you can provide properly researched, peer-reviewed studies cited by a reliable source, it will be considered for inclusion in this article. TechBear 00:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha, ha! Good one, Eckert777. --Ephilei 22:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Techbear, you are making a false statement in regards to "none of the sources cited by Conservapedia" meets the reliable source criteria of Wikipedia in respect to their homosexuality article. Are you saying that among the following sources: the CDC, Johns Hopkins, Journal of Sex Research, University of Chicago Press, the journal Nursing Clinics of North America, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Domestic Abuse Fact Sheet, American Bar Association, Journal of Family Violence, The Office of Prevention of Domestic Violence, State of New York, Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine, William Eckert, Bernard Knight CBE, MD, BCh, MRCP, FRCPath, FHKCPath, DMJ (Path), Dr. Pekka Saukko who is Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine at the University of Turku in Finland, the German medical journal Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz, the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, the medical journal Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases, the medical journal Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases, The Medical Journal of Australia, Internal Medicine (Tokyo, Japan), the medical journal Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, Canadian Medical Association, the peer reviewed medical journal Gut, Medscape, journal AIDS (London, England), American Journal of Public Health, and the Journal of Adolescent Health and similar sources that you could not find one reliable source? If so, why not? I would suggest you are not being accurate and I would encourage readers to go here and judge for themselves.Eckert7777 04:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How are we expected to take seriously an article that seems to be written by illiterates??? What is the motto of that project? "Are we not men"? Haiduc 04:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that an article should used try to reference respected peer-reviewed journals where possible, like Science, Behavioural Nueroscience or International Neuropsychological Society, (three of the many articles cited in this article for instance, forgive me for not listing all of them). But we can hardly model an encyclopedia article on that bigotted load of nonsense at conservapedia. --Lightnin Boltz (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible cures?

A buddy of mine recently confessed to me that he was a homosexual. Whenever I'm confronted with something new I usually turn to Wikipedia for a brief overview of the subject and this time was no exception. While the article does certainly give an interesting look at the topic, I noticed there wasn't any information about curing the affliction. Why is that? I'm just not sure where to start in helping my friend overcome this problem. Thanks and God bless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.209.146 (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin remove this obvious slur? Haiduc 01:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And why should your friend need help with his sexuality? Jacobshaven3 01:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "curing the affliction". When you say your friend "was a homosexual", but yet you still need to help him "overcome this problem", are you saying he used to have sex with other men, but no longer does, or he used to be attracted to men but no longer is? There are several therapies for people with sexual compulsions or who want to just learn to have more sexual control, which wouldn't be any different for gays or straight. However, if you are talking about therapy to diminish homosexual desires, that would be a type of conversion therapy, which although controversial, mainstream medical organizations have no conflict with as long as they follow certain principles. [13] So, although I disagree with unsigned's wording, I do agree with the assertion that this article needs to have an unbiased section that talks about different techniques that people with unwanted homosexual desires use to change their sexual orientation.

One of the problems to that approach is the massive resistance to the idea that people may want to change their sexual orientation. You can see that by Haiduc's response that Unsigned's comment was an "obvious slur", even though it didn't attack anyone and just was a statement of Unsigned's relationship with his/her friend. You can also see the fear in Jacobshaven3's questions "why should your friend need help with his sexuality?" Does that really matter why he wants help? I don't know where everyone is from, but I am from a country where we consider the pursuit of happiness an inalienable right, and if that means the friend of 74.227.209.146 wishes to pursue heterosexuality, then so be it. A new and distinct opinion should not be deleted as Fireplace has done simply because he or she has disagreed with it.

I am currently doing research for the conversion therapy article, but once I am done, I will try to incorporate what I have learned into this article. Joshuajohanson 08:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless it is blatantly obvious trolling or a banned user, comments should probably be left on talkpages, generally speaking, even if you disagree with the sentiments expressed. Other than that I would simply say that Wikipedia isn't an advice forum and pretty much any attempt to use it in this fashion is misguided (and foolish; asking a bunch of encyclopedia contributors for advice isn't likely to garner any kind of professional advice that should be followed). If the IP is looking for advice they most definitely should not be looking here.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I appreciate Joshuajohanson's long and thoughtful defense, and apologize to the others for being so different than you. I did not intend to cause any trouble, and nor was I trying to get advice. I just thought that an article as high profile and comprehensive as this might make some mention of the different methods used to help Gays get over their problem. Anyway, Josh, it was simply a grammatical error on my part. He is actively feeling a desire for other men and trying to fight off the temptation to give in to sin. I appreciate the help and am now looking into conversion therapy and helping him to seek local professional help. 74.227.209.146 20:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Politically incorrect as it is, I think conversion therapy should be briefly mentioned, perhaps under "mental health issues" or "religion." WP is not in a place to say what's good, only what information is important to the majority of readers of the article - there are plenty of lesbians and gays wanting to change. (I'm sure there's a study on the percentage.) On the other hand, ~900 new people go toExodus International each year which is notably small. My POV is that GLBT people shouldn't try to change, but that WP should reflect what the population thinks. --Ephilei 22:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Cure the affliction"!! I admit, I don't agree that two males must have sexual relations with one another but it is their choice and i can tollerate it but calling it an affiction? Being gay is not an illness, you can't just take your friend to a titty bar and hope he goes straight. You seem to be either confused by the term or just down right homophobic. Perhaps you posted this topic to stir up an argument? Andrus Mortonus 13:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I always wonder in front of absurdities coming from USA. I heard that the country is falling into a new medieval era, but I didn't think that the thing already was so advanced. Really, I don't know what I can say in front of so alien peoples, not having any common base for discussion. I invite you to study very much and to travel, to meet many and different peoples, so you could open your minds to the variety of the world. You could, also, see a TV series produced in USA in the 1980s called Star Trek- The next generation, about a future universe where everyone is free and respect others. It seems impossible it was produced in a country like USA, considering like it is today. I hope you could reach again the high degree of civilization which was a mark of USA in the times of my youth. Val from Europe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.177.175 (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not Promiscuous??

--58.165.201.11 14:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"They are stereotyped as being promiscuous and unsuccessful in developing enduring romantic relationships, despite research to the contrary."

This sentence is referenced to this source:

Jay, Karla; Young, Allen (1979). The gay report: Lesbians and gay men speak out about sexual experiences and lifestyles. New York: Summit. ISBN 0671400134.

The source itself, with two gay authors, does not have any research to the contrary but actually supports the stereotype.

I actually agree with this comment. Anecdotes, stales ones at that, are not "research" and unless a better study can be produced, I think the sentence should go. --David Shankbone 15:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Shankbone (talk • contribs)

I suggest if the article is saying that homosexual men are not promiscuous it is not telling the truth. I cite the following: University of Chicago Press at http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17458 and Another study involving male homosexuality examined the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexual men and was published in the Journal of Sex Research in 1997. This study of male homosexuality found that 2.7 percent of these men claimed to have had sex with one partner only - Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): p. 354. [14] Eckert7777 04:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Stereotypes are perceived attributes of a group, and members thereof because of their membership. The stereotypes may be negative or positive, true or untrue. The problem is when such stereotypes or generalizations are used to justify prejudice, bias, exclusion, or oppressive behavior (or the reverse). The statement in question may need further sourcing, but to show that a large number of gay men are promiscuous, even if true, does not change the fact that it's a stereotype. And it also does not change the fact that this particular stereotype is often used to oppress gay men and lesbians, especially when it comes to same sex relationships, civil rights, and one's place in society. And that belongs with the section it's included in: Prejudice against gay and lesbian people. One might also make an argument that all males are, by nature, promiscuous as part of the biological imperative to spread one's genes. The Baptist Press is hardly an unbiased source regarding the LGBT community or it's members, and I haven't seen the Univ. Of Chicago study. The Van de Ven study relates, according to it's introduction, to a specific sub cultural demographic, older gay men in Australia. Although there were comparisons with other cohorts, that study is hardly representative of gay men in general, as the study suggests, especially the post 1960s or post-Stonewall generations, or of other cultural or ethnic LGBT communities. The subject statement does not say that gay men are, or are not promiscuous, it relates to the stereotype that they are. So I don't see a problem with the subject statement. — Becksguy 12:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Homosexuals are stereotyped as being promiscuous. This sentence tells us that people choose to stereotype them. Not only that but they choose to ignore the contradictory "research" that is floating around somewhere. The problem is that it's really hard to find. How can people ignore something that they can't see to begin with? Keep the sentence but loose the extra clause. 124.176.102.16 (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom

There are no citations to back up this claim. which makes "between organisms of the same sex" unsubstantiated as well as "Homosexual behavior occurs among some animals other than humans, particularly among social animals" There is no evidence that male animals are acting on anything other than desperational sexual activity in the absence of available females. With humans the choice is made by intelligent beings that actively choose men over women.

What in the article, specifically, do you believe is not properly cited? The section Homosexual behavior in animals is not only well cited, it cross-references two other articles which focus on homosexual behavior in animals. TechBear 02:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, human beings have sexual preferences which predispose them to selecting the appropriate gender in their sexual partners. And yes, animals do engage in homosexual behavior. What is your point? What exactly do you believe to be unsubstantiated? There is a cited article which describes very well Dr. Roughgarden's theories pertaining to the apparent pleasurable nature of same-gender sexual behavior among certain species. These animals very likely do not share the need for the bimodal sexual preference we humans constrain ourselves to, which speaks to the normality of homosexual sex, and presupposes its benefit to nature. Eganio (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The article says that male penguins couples "mate" for life. This implies that they mated, which they never did. The penguin article is outdated and misleading. As soon as an acceptable female (named "Scrappy") was brought to their enclosure, Silo left his nest with Roy and now nests with her. The urge for a female was so strong, that it broke the "bonding for life" that the two males had established.

The west indian dolphins also have never been observed having sex, not oral and not anal. Just because two male animals bond, does not make it homosexual.

Attempted sex between male animals can also be a show of dominance, as well as confusion, low intelligence or desperational sexual acts in the absense of available females. Many birds find the urge to "bond for life" more powerful than the urge for the opposite sex.

Trying to find homosexuality in animals to show that it is natural, may be a great idea to some, but to other homosexuals, it is insulting.

Homosexuality is about love, not just sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.152.162 (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree that homosexuality is necessarily about love. The term describes a sexual preference, not the propensity for amorous behavior. Love is love, whether it be between members of the same or opposite sexes. Sex, however, is a biological function whose modes are clearly delineated by such terms as hetero- or homosexuality. Our esoteric ideal of love is a luxury afforded to our advanced brain, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the sexual behavior of other species. Also, I have to wonder why the study of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom would be insulting to some gay people. Since when is scientific research insulting? If it is, I think the insulted person needs to pause and wonder why they are taking scientific pursuits personally. Eganio^Talk 04:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but sexual preference is a somewhat outdated term. While some people may prefer to engage in homosexuality, for most of those who consider themselves gay or lesbian, it's not a "preference" but just who they are, innate, much the way heterosexuals don't consider their sexuality a preference. --David Shankbone 04:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you, and believe me, I should know (wink, wink). But I have to say this: preference implies a broad spectrum of sexual attraction, while the indicators we use to describe ourselves within society demand strict adherence to intercourse with one sex over the other. This, I believe, is antithetical to the idea of being human. Why we constrain ourselves to bimodal sexual identifiers is up to the anthropologists to figure out. But I believe all of us to be somewhere in the "gray area", and usually prefer one gender over the other. Gay vs. straight is an arbitrary construct instigated by our black-and-white, narrow-minded, Judeo-Christian, heterocentric western society. The terms hetero- and homosexuality only arose in order to distinguish between "good" and "bad" sexual behavior in a social milieu that demonizes certain modes of sexual expression. Eganio^Talk 00:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Dolphin oral sex sounds painful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.180.236 (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Mexican edits

Please identify the sections you believe are incorrect, and why you believe the citation given should be disregarded. FCYTravis 23:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why talk about kings? Do you really have a reference?

The information about Thailand's kings is unreliable. I wonder how the person who wrote this article got this information. If you want to say that Thailand has a large number of gay men, I can accept that as I am Thai and I don't deny the fact. But to say something about the kings, which are regarded as the most respectable figures of our country, without any reliable sources is very inconsiderate and might lead to a bigger problem. Be diplomatic and do not touch what is considered holy in another culture. This is how wars start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.130.215 (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith of your fellow editors. I'm sure whomever you are speaking to did not mean any disrespect, and is likely not familiar with what is considered holy in Thailand. Besides, wars get started over power/money struggles, not insults. Perceived insults/threats are simply used as the justification for going to war. For a good example, look at the American invasion of Iraq. Eganio^Talk 21:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Promiscuity -- why so hush hush? Too PC to tell the truth???

reference from "What Men Want - What Women Want" by John Marshall Townsend, page 31: "Compared to women and heterosexual men, gay men tend to have large numbers of partners. Bell and Weinberg found that 75 of the white males in their sample had had over 100 partners. Twenty-eight percent had had over 1,000. Many of these contacts are with anonymous strangers, occur in public baths or restrooms, and often last only a few minutes." ... "In order to have more lasting relationships, gay men usually agree that sex outside the relationship is acceptable as long as it is not serious.". "In contrast, lesbians are much more monogamous than gay men. Seventy-four percent of the lesbians surveyed had had fewer than fifteen partners; 58 percent had had fewer than ten." and... "[lesbians] tend to become friends before they become lovers". Peoplesunionpro (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that really a reliable source? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Until we can prove it, I have reverted his [uncited] addition. l'Aquatique ^talk 02:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the author's research is mainly focused on mental disorders and sexual attraction relating to social structure, I don't think Dr. Townsend should be considered an authority on homosexuality per se, nor should the referenced data be used to support/deny the notion of heightened promiscuity among homosexuals. Either find a better source or don't include it at all. Brief mention in a book whose focus is not on homosexuality doesn't cut it. Eganio^Talk 23:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The book actually contains a lot of discussion about homosexuality. The source from where the book points to these statistics is "Homosexualities" by Bell and Weinberg, 1978. Peoplesunionpro (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1. A book that contains a lot of discussion about homosexuality and a book that is about homosexuality are completely different things.
2. I would automatically discount just about anything published before 1995 (at least) when it comes to this field- too much has changed in the way that homosexuality is perceived by the general public, even researchers. Hell, Homosexuality was only removed from the WHO's list of diseases in 1990!

All 'da best, l'aqùatique ^talk 03:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have no problems with including factual information that gay men are often far more promiscuous, on average, than straight men--it's hard to dispute that either anecdotally or produce any study that disputes that--but it needs to come from something that is not 30 years old. --David Shankbone 04:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem including factual information either. But I don't think the age of the data is the issue. If we can use publications from Alfred Kinsey in this article, we can use those from Bell & Weinberg. The issue at hand is whether the data is relevant and conclusive, and whether it is derived from and collated by reliable sources. That having been said, if Bell & Weinberg's data are reliable, that publication should be referenced, not Dr. Townsend's book. Eganio^Talk 21:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• "Promiscuity" is a value-laden word. I have no problem with people have strong moral opinions, but they should not be inserted into an encyclopedia article (nor are they used in quality scientific sources). If we want to present reliable information about "number of sexual partners", use language like "number of sexual partners", not "degree of promiscuity". But the problem is probably going to be getting reliable information. Due to the social stigmatization still surrounding homosexuality, any data by self-reported homosexuals is going to be skewed towards those who are more sexual. In other words, if you're "bold" enough to proclaim your homosexuality to a surveyer, then you're probably more likely to have more sexual partners than someone who is not so bold. This effect becomes more and more prominent the farther in the past you go (when homosexuality was more stigmatized), so data from 1978 is more likely to be skewed this way than data from 2007. Another obvious source of skewing is using data from people with HIV. Obviously, if you survey a population with a sexual disease, on average they will have more sexual partners than those without a sexual disease, yet some literature with an agenda uses this data as source for the claim that homosexuals in general are "wantonly promiscuous". With all that said, I would not at all be surprised to find that, on average, homosexual males have more lifetime sexual partners than heterosexual males, but the difference between the two groups may be smaller than some think. BrianH123 (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said, BrianH123, but I have to disagree with a few points you made: I don't think there would be any statistically significant skew in data regarding people's sexual exploits when comparing hetero- vs. homosexuals. I would have to argue that a general willingeness to disclose sexual experiences is less reliant upon perception of the sexual practice than on the very notion of sex itself. In other words, I don't think homosexuals would have a harder time "admitting" to sexual experience than would heterosexuals, given a safe environment like a private, anonymous interview, regardless of the current social episteme. Secondly, I don't think admission of sexual experience says anything whatsoever about the propensity for sexual experimentation. Boldness in the interview need not translate into boldness in the bedroom. Also, the contention that people suffering from STDs will have more sexual partners on average when questioned is a weak argument, IMO. Transmission of an STD requires only one sexual encounter. I agree that increased sexual activity augments the likelihood of contracting an STD, but I do not agree that the mere fact of having contracted an STD precludes heightened sexual activity. Eganio^Talk 22:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of a late follow-up, but I think you misunderstood what I wrote, Mr. Episteme. I did NOT say that homosexuals would have a harder time admitting to sexual experiences than heterosexuals. (Though I think that's true.) I said that those homosexuals who admit to being homosexual are more likely to be having sex than those homosexuals who are too closeted to admit it. We're not talking about necessity here by the way, just statistical averages and likelihoods in a population taken as a whole. We're not talking about what NEED follow from "boldness in the interview", just what is more likely to follow, on average, in a group as a whole. Second, I can't figure out what you're saying about STDs. Your final sentence misuses the word "preclude" I think, or perhaps there are some words missing. What I'm saying is that in two populations, otherwise similar, the one that has more sex is more likely to have STDs. Again, we're talking likelihoods and averages in groups taken as a whole. I am not saying that every person who has an STD has sex more than people who do not have an STD. I am saying merely that the more sex you have, all else being equal, the more LIKELY you are to have an STD. It's akin to saying that the more often you cross the street, the more likely you are to get run over by a car. Not everyone who gets run over by a car is spending all day long running back and forth across the street, but if you ARE spending your day doing this, you're more likely to get run over than someone who only crosses the street once a day. So putting these two thoughts together ("out" gays more likely to have sex than closeted ones, and STDs more common in people having more sex than those having less), what I am suggesting is that surveys are not the best way to determine whether gays have more STDs than straights do. The survey will end up giving numbers for gays that are skewed high. --BrianH123 (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is clearly biased because it attempts to deny the promiscuity stereotype by claiming there is research that shows the contrary. The article's source has already been shown to lack any authority, yet the article remains unchanged.

I can also find "research" to support or disprove almost anything, because so much research that people cite on this topic are only advocacy research designed to support their biases.

The article also shows its biases by turning a blind eye to the role of homosexuality in giving birth to what it calls "the AIDS Crisis". In truth this is a large omission, and the word "crisis" rather than "epidemic" is clearly evidence of bias.

There are many, many examples of bias in the article less obvious than the promiscuity bias. The biases and cliches are so stale and so many that I despair ever seeing them challenged much less corrected.

It is because of articles like this one that I will not donate to wikipedia.You just won (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"The article also shows its biases by turning a blind eye to the role of homosexuality in giving birth to what it calls "the AIDS Crisis". In truth this is a large omission, and the word "crisis" rather than "epidemic" is clearly evidence of bias."

Oh rubbish. I fail to see how the choice of either the word crisis or epidemic contributes a bias to the article. If you have a problem with way information is presented then by all means, edit the article/and or discuss it on this talk page. Complaining about bias, without going into any detail isn't helpful. --Lightnin Boltz (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

First two sentences seem unclear or contradictory

The first two sentences say:

  Homosexuality can refer to both attraction or sexual behavior between organisms
  of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation. When describing the latter, it refers
  to enduring sexual and romantic attraction towards those of the same sex, but not
  necessarily to sexual behavior.

The first sentence says there are two meanings:

   #1: attraction or sexual behavior
   #2: sexual orientation

But then the second sentence defines the second meaning in terms of "attraction", a word used in the first meaning! (Also, the sexual orientation article defines sexual orientation in terms of attraction.) This is confusing and makes one wonder why the first sentence took pains to separate the two meanings, if the second sentence is just going to undo the distinction.

I propose replacing these two sentences with the following:

  Homosexuality refers to the physical, romantic, or sexual attraction between persons
  of the same sex, or to sexual behavior between persons or animals of the same sex.
  When used in the former sense, it refers to a sexual orientation.

This seems clearer to me. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianH123 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. Sounds better to me. Eganio^Talk 23:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Etiology?

Given the dark history of pathological/disease models of homosexuality (now summarily rejected), I'm a little uncomfortable using the word "etiology" as Zickx00 has done. "Etiology" can mean either the study of causes (which is fine) or the study of causes of diseases/pathologies (which is problematic in this context). I'm open to being convinced otherwise (my circle doesn't use the word "etiology" very much)... Fireplace (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you...however, I don't know to what you are referring regarding Zickx00. Am I missing a discussion? Eganio^Talk 04:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

See the recent edit history of Homosexuality. Fireplace (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I reviewed the edits. I agree with you. Etiology should not be used in this context, particularly in sub-headings. It is too charged, and frankly insulting. Eganio^Talk 06:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've only ever seen "etiology" used as synonymous with causation. I thought my title was better worded than just "Theories on Homosexuality," which could mean anything. I'll change the title, but I'd like to keep the other additions that I made.-- zick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zickx009 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think "Theories on Homosexuality" is the most unbiased way of wording the heading, since the spirit of the subsequent text should never lean in any direction regarding any perceived detriments to a homosexual's health and well-being caused by this state of being. Because the notion of homosexuality as a "disease" is still unfortunately prevalent among many facets of our society, using a term such as etiology presupposes a modicum of truth to this antiquated notion. In short, we need to be careful with wording within a topic of such controversy. Eganio^Talk 02:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Parenting Section Issues

"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."

None of these institutions are medical experts. Rather, only some are comprised of them. Changes should be made to correct this descriptive error.

Kst447 (talk) 07:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Would "Gay and lesbian parenting enjoys broad support from medical experts, including those comprising 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." be acceptable? l'aqùatique ^talk 08:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Why make any mention of medical experts at all? The issue at hand is not related to medicine per se, rather to the mental health and well-being of the adopted children and their parents. Why not just say "Gay and lesbian parenting enjoys a broad support base, including...etc. etc. etc."? Eganio^Talk 09:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Gay men are more likely to have a counter-clockwise hair whorl pattern

A one line note in the Physiological differences in gay men and lesbians subsection was added and then removed today. The line read: Gay men are more likely to have a counter-clockwise hair whorl pattern. I reverted the removal as it was referenced to an article that appeared in the Journal of Genetics, December 2004, a scientific journal in the field of genetics. Here is the reference in PDF. I believe that this reference is sufficient, as the claim is not extraordinary. — Becksguy (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is another source from New York Magazine. — Becksguy (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving sections from Homosexuality to Gay

Why are you moving multiple sections (five as of now) from Homosexuality to Gay, when Homosexuality is supposed to be the more in depth article about the orientation, and Gay is more about the use of the term? — Becksguy (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Homosexuality" isn't an orientation, it's a behaviour; one can't identify as "a homosexuality." The sections I moved were specifically about "gay" orientation, which may include homosexual tendencies/behaviours, but isn't the exclusive domain of homosexuality. --G2bambino (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's both an orientation and a behavior, as it says in the lead to the article. Many have identified as homosexual, as well as other self identification terms. There are many references that refer to it as an orientation. One can be homosexual as well as performing homosexual acts (behavior). There have been extensive discussions about that issue, and related issues before. The articles as they were before your moves are the result of consensus over long periods of time. It would have been much better to discuss making major changes like these before doing them, as recommended in guidelines. I don't have a problem with changing "explanation" to "theory", but I do have a problem with making wholesale moves without discussion or consensus, especially in contentious articles. I suggest you revert yourself and discuss. — Becksguy (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Becksguy, although I prefer the word "explanation" instead of "theory" in reference to the other matter that was changed. Anyway, people may not identify as homosexuality, but they surely do identify as homosexual, as we all (or should) know. And the word homosexual redirects here. Flyer22 (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I also concur with Becksguy. Homosexuality is most definitely an orientation, and besides, some of what G2bambino moved relates specifically to behavior. Moves of this magnitude demand discussion before the fact. These edits seem more reckless than bold. Rivertorch (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted G2bambino's changes. We're now in the "discuss" phase of WP:BRD, but I doubt these changes will garner consensus. The existing text is heavily sourced to reliable sources discussing homosexuality. Fireplace (talk) 07:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said the text was unsourced, just too specific for this article. For instance, one section focuses on violence against gay people. In the context of this article, why focus specifically on those who self-identify as gay, and not on violence against anyone who engages in homosexual activity, whether identified as gay or not? If the text is to remain, it either must be made more broad in focus or reordered in a different way. --G2bambino (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

PS- I don't like the charaterisation of my edits as "deletions." I did not delete, I moved. --G2bambino (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough regarding deletions vs. moves, I used the wrong word. Regarding your other argument, you're relying on a view that homosexuality isn't a sexual orientation, but that view is inconsistent with mainstream texts. Fireplace (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you're misconstruing what I'm saying. There are two points to consider here: 1) Homosexuality is not exclusively a self-identifying label, and 2) the sections in question focus specifically on the orientation in an article about homosexuality in general. So, if Gay is the article for the actual term, and the orientation of homosexual/gay is to be dealt with here, then these sections need to be better arranged and/or worded so as to make it clear that they deal solely with the orientation, and do not apply homosexuality in general. The way it currently stands, the format and wording makes the line between specific orientation and general behaviour fuzzy at best, downright misleading at worst. --G2bambino (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving something to a different article does constitute deletion—not from the encyclopedia but from the first article. This isn't just semantics, given that Homosexuality is an extremely wide-ranging article in which one might reasonably expect to find discussion of at least some of the things that you moved. And deletion isn't a dirty word; there are many valid reasons to delete large blocks of text, whether or not they're made to reappear elsewhere. In this instance, however, the case that you've made (after the fact) for these edits seems less than coherent. For instance, you ask: "why focus specifically on those who self-identify as gay, and not on violence against anyone who engages in homosexual activity, whether identified as gay or not?" Is this a serious question? The answer is that the violence occurs against those who are perceived as gay (or lesbian or homosexual). Sometimes the perception of the aggressors is correct, sometimes not. But the perception has little or nothing to do with the victims' sexual behavior. "Homosexuality" is a catch-all term that encompasses various discrete meanings and many shades of meaning. In one of its meanings, it is synonymous with "gay". It doesn't refer solely—or even primarily—to behavior. For that matter, "gay" doesn't refer solely to identity. While there legitimately can be discussion (and dissent) over what goes in which article, I would respectfully suggest that much more structured, cogent arguments be developed before proceeding. Rivertorch (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite the diatribe about deletion vs. moving. I wonder: is it serious?

Regardless, if we strip away the veneer of haughty condescension in your words, it can be seen that you actually affirm my point, at least about the section on violence against gays. It focuses specifically on the orientation, not just general homosexual behaviour; in fact, the heading and body of the text constantly uses the exclusive word "gay." Hence, I moved it to an article that centres on, well, Gay. However, after reflecting on the matter, after others disagreed with the move, and if, as you say, "homosexuality" is a "catch-all term" that can encompass different meanings, then this article should be divided into sections that concentrate on each of those discreet variants; as I said above, but you ignored: if Gay is the article for the actual term, and the orientation of homosexual/gay is to be dealt with here, then these sections need to be better arranged and/or worded so as to make it clear that they deal solely with the orientation, and do not apply homosexuality in general. --G2bambino (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps G2bambino, you could reflect that just maybe your actions and words are having the same stingy and pointy effect on others? If you think the sections are in some way confusing then perhaps simply adding some organization to the sections to lessen the confusion would make sense? Since your efforts have been met with a rather poor reception so far maybe propose how they could be better organized or which sections are confusing in some ways to build consensus towards improving the article. Benjiboi 21:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I completely fail to see where my comments were "pointy" until after someone admonsihed me for taking exception - note: exception, not offence - to my edits being characterised as deletions, implying they were more bad faith than what I actually did, which was shift the material, unaltered, to another article. Really, you all are making this into a bigger issue than I.

I also think you're creating a fight that just isn't there; I'm not stating anymore that the text should be moved out of here. Reorganization, however, will mean looking at what's there, and formulating some proposals. In other words, it will take some time. So, shall we have some patience, please? --G2bambino (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino, first of all, Happy New Year! Secondly, if you seriously believe I wrote a "diatribe", then please consult a dictionary and review the meaning of the word. What I did was respond to your objection to the term "deletion" by attempting to explain why the term was applicable to your edits of the article. I considered that a relevant point to make, and I still do. I'm sorry if you chose to view it as a "diatribe", but it clearly wasn't one. Not by any reasonable measure. As for that pesky "veneer of haughty condescension", I can only suggest that collaborations between strangers, such as those resulting in WP articles, are generally more productive when the participants strive to focus on the content, rather than the form, of one another's communications. If you disagree with that, please consider using my talk page instead of this page to let me know. For what it's worth, although you missed my point about the violence section, I do think you raised a couple of valid questions about the content of both Homosexuality and Gay, and I look forward to moving forward on resolving them. Rivertorch (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, you reacted disproportionately to a minor comment, and layered it all with a patronising tone. That, in truth, is what is not very productive. --G2bambino (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So, the articles are currently organized such that homosexuality is a summary-style article about all major aspects of homosexuality, while gay and (to a lesser extent) lesbian are about the terms themselves. I think this is a logical organization, although probably the gay and lesbian articles should have dab notices along the lines of "This article is about the term gay. For broader information about homosexuality, see homosexuality." Fireplace (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I support Fireplace's suggestion, seems an elegant solution while other issues are potentially addressed. Benjiboi 23:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Although I understand the desire to clarify the terms, the truth of the matter is homosexual and gay are often used interchangeably. Furthermore, the choice of term is often very specific and meaningful to the person using it as an identifier. Therefore, moving entire sections and building contextual barriers between the two articles seems to me to serve no purpose other than to artificially attach gravitas to one term or the other. Attaching our own individual measures of each term's relevance to someone's life in the American lexicon is treading on thin ice. I think it's best to leave the distinction based on syntax, rather than perception. Eganio^Talk 01:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dabs certainly would work for those other articles. As for this one, though, after a cursory look at the present contents, my initial thoughts are that perhaps there should be a divide of the text into two sections, one that focuses on the behaviour, and the other focusing on the orientation. I suppose, in essence, what I moved to Gay would go in an orientation centered section and the rest would go in the other, though I wonder about any possible grey zones where the distinction can't be clearly made. But, it'll need more detailed analysis. --G2bambino (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the material is naturally conducive to such a division, especially not as a fundamental divide of the article's content. It's not a standard organizational structure in secondary and tertiary sources, and where the distinction is relevant, the article already draws the distinction within the text. Fireplace (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. There are sections here that focus very specifically on the orientation and the possible resultant consequences thereof, yet do not clearly distinguish between orientation and behaviour. Maybe division isn't the best answer - as I said, I had my own hesitations over my initial thoughts - but, in essence, what I'm trying to say is that we need to be careful to be consistent and clear that gay always means homosexual, but homosexual does not always equal gay, and I don't believe some parts of the body of this article do so. --G2bambino (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Could you clarify more on "we need to be careful to be consistent and clear that gay always means homosexual, but homosexual does not always equal gay". I don't agree firstly in that gay doesn't always mean homosexual but I also want to understand what you mean as well. Benjiboi 21:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's rather simple, I think; and it's referred to in other places in this article (which makes another argument for some editing/reordering, as the article may be internally conflicting): "gay" is a subjective term, open to interpretation, whereas "homosexual" is not. For instance, people can engage in homosexual activity without being gay, or calling something/someone "gay" could be an anachronistic application of a modern concept onto past, and different, ideals and/or activities. I just suspect that certain sections of this article use the terms "gay" and "lesbian" too loosely and/or apply the labels indiscriminately onto those who may or may not actually use them. --G2bambino (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with your contention that the term homosexual cannot be interpreted in different manners by different people, you bring up a good point when you argue that the article uses the terms gay and lesbian without consideration as to the impact their usage may have. If this is the case, then let's discuss the sections in question. What exactly did you have in mind to change? Eganio^Talk 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, I meant that the word homosexual is comprised of two root words that each have one meaning: "homo" and "sexual"; which means "homosexual" explicitly defines sexuality amongst those of the same gender. "Gay," on the other hand, has a whole slew of meanings that depend on the context and the individual(s) using the word.

Of particular concern to me are the sections which include the terms "gay" and "lesbian" in the heading; they seem to tend to use the terms prolifically, and blanket apply them without subtlety. Perhaps I'll have some time tomorrow to look at each in detail; unfortunately I keep getting side-tracked elsewhere. --G2bambino (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sympathetic to the view that applying the label "gay" to people from previous eras might be a historical anachronism, and agree that mistakes there should be exposed. Fireplace (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The etymology of the word homosexual does not preclude such a narrow interpretation of its usage, as I see it. I do agree with you that the indiscriminate use of the terms gay and lesbian should be rectified if it does in fact exist in the article. But I still have to argue that the term homosexual is also up to interpretation, depending on who is using it, and in what context, and can be just as meaningful. Someone who engages in homosexual behavior and/or fantasy may regard such a distinction as offensive. We must remember that homosexual can be used as both an adjective and a noun. Eganio^Talk 08:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Prejudice section and sources

A report on a highly biased religious Web site of a study purportedly conducted under some auspices of the University of Chicago and concerning an extremely narrow population in one part of one city—this is not valid for applying across the board. It's preposterous. Rivertorch (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this right - you are judging whether research under the auspices of the University of Chicago is valid on the basis that news of the research was reported on a religious website? Would you accept the research evidence if it had been reported in a publication you respect? (or would you, by definition, not respect any publication that would choose to publish details of such findings?)

You are also judging whether the research population was too narrow and whether conclusions can be made from such a study. In that case, why is the evidence in the article that supports the contrary position acceptable to you? It is a book entitled "The gay report:Lesbians and gay men speak out about sexual experiences and lifestyles" - how large a sample is covered in this book? Was the sample self selecting or how was it obtained? How widely can conclusions derived from 'personal experiences' reported in this book be applied?

I am quite concerned by the section on 'promiscuity and homosexuality' because I was under the impression that the evidence supported the view that, on average, gay men have more sexual partners than heterosexual men. If that is the case, then this article should honestly refer to evidence that suggests this. I assume you would not revert evidence that was reported by a non-religious publication about research that involved a large representative sample. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not correct that I'm judging the validity of a study because it's reported on a religious Web site. I did make two points:

(1) that it was reported on a highly biased religious Web site. I assume your ignoring of my modifier was inadvertent, but it was placed there quite deliberately and was, I think, critical. While I wouldn't seek out any religious Web site for information about a scientific study, I'm sure it is well within the bounds of possibility for certain such sites to provide a fair and accurate account of a study's findings. The site you cited, however, is an offshoot of the Southern Baptist Convention, a religious body that has been openly hostile to gay people, repeatedly misrepresenting their motives and behavior. The specific page you cite doesn't even pretend to be neutral but shows clear evidence of biased reporting. Thus, it is highly suspect in the context of this topic, and is clearly unfit for citation in the article. When a scientific study is legitimate and its findings significant, it will be summarized in a reliably neutral source; and

(2) that the study group was too narrow for its findings—regardless of what they are—to be generalized across a large, diverse population, which is what this article deals with. If you'd like to start a new article about the relative promiscuity of a minuscule fraction of the gay male population in the city of Chicago, go for it, but take heed: the study you cited reportedly involved some 2,000 people, not all gay, throughout the greater Chicago metropolitan area, so it probably isn't a valid sample even for those purposes.

You ask, "Why is the evidence in the article that supports the contrary position acceptable to you?" I don't recall giving an opinion on its acceptability, so please don't assume that I have one. Unfortunately, due to various constraints, I cannot pretend to be intimately acquainted with every citation in this, if any, article. Rather than comparing the relative validity of two citations, though, it might be better to consider each on its own merits. Rivertorch (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had a quick search on the internet and came across an article that seeks to provide evidence that homosexuality is linked to promiscuity - I've cut the relevant section of the article and related footnotes. Would any of the following 'evidence' meet the standard required for inclusion in the article to support the edit I originally made that (I thought fairly) suggested that there was evidence to support both positions? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, the material seems legitimate. I do not see why this should not be mentioned in the article. Am I missing something? Haiduc (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. What I didn't mention was that I found this article on a catholic site - my point is that I don't believe we should discount the claims or evidence within an article on the basis of the publisher alone. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to be careful with sites that have an axe to grind, but if the research is legit we should be able to go to the source and bypass any dogmatic agenda. Haiduc (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.(5) By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.(6)

In more recent years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25.(7) Despite its continuing incurability, AIDS no longer seems to deter individuals from engaging in promiscuous gay sex.(8)

The data relating to gay promiscuity were obtained from self-identified gay men. Some advocates argue that the average would be lower if closeted homosexuals were included in the statistics.(9) That is likely true, according to data obtained in a 2000 survey in Australia that tracked whether men who had sex with men were associated with the gay community. Men who were associated with the gay community were nearly four times as likely to have had more than 50 sex partners in the six months preceding the survey as men who were not associated with the gay community.(10) This may imply that it is riskier to be "out" than "closeted." Adopting a gay identity may create more pressure to be promiscuous and to be so with a cohort of other more promiscuous partners.

Excessive sexual promiscuity results in serious medical consequences — indeed, it is a recipe for transmitting disease and generating an epidemic.(11) The HIV/AIDS epidemic has remained a predominantly gay issue in the U.S. primarily because of the greater degree of promiscuity among gays.(12) A study based upon statistics from 1986 through 1990 estimated that 20-year-old gay men had a 50 percent chance of becoming HIV positive by age 55.(13) As of June 2001, nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men.(14) Syphilis is also more common among gay men. The San Francisco Public Health Department recently reported that syphilis among the city's gay and bisexual men was at epidemic levels. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

"Experts believe syphilis is on the rise among gay and bisexual men because they are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners, many of whom they met in anonymous situations such as sex clubs, adult bookstores, meetings through the Internet and in bathhouses. The new data will show that in the 93 cases involving gay and bisexual men this year, the group reported having 1,225 sexual partners."(15) A study done in Baltimore and reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that gay men contracted syphilis at three to four times the rate of heterosexuals.(16) Promiscuity is the factor most responsible for the extreme rates of these and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases cited below, many of which result in a shortened life span for men who have sex with men.

Promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, but it is still higher than among heterosexual women. Overall, women tend to have fewer sex partners than men. But there is a surprising finding about lesbian promiscuity in the literature. Australian investigators reported that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (9 percent of lesbians versus 2 percent of heterosexual women); and 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men.(17) Other studies similarly show that 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men.(18)

(5) - Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, p. 308, Table 7, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978. (6) - Leon McKusick, et al., "Reported Changes in the Sexual Behavior of Men at Risk for AIDS, San Francisco, 1982-84 — the AIDS Behavioral Research Project," Public Health Reports, 100(6): 622-629, p. 625, Table 1 (November- December 1985). In 1982 respondents reported an average of 4.7 new partners in the prior month; in 1984, respondents reported an average of 2.5 new partners in the prior month. (7) - "Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men — San Francisco, California, 1994-1997," Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, CDC, 48(03): 45-48, p. 45 (January 29, 1999). (8) - This was evident by the late 80's and early 90's. Jeffrey A. Kelly, PhD, et al., "Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/ Human Immunodeficiency Virus Risk Behavior Among Gay Men in Small Cities," Archives of Internal Medicine, 152: 2293-2297, pp. 2295-2296 (November 1992); Donald R. Hoover, et al., "Estimating the 1978-1990 and Future Spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 in Subgroups of Homosexual Men," American Journal of Epidemiology, 134(10): 1190-1205, p. 1203 (1991). (9) - A lesbian pastor made this assertion during a question and answer session that followed a presentation the author made on homosexual health risks at the Chatauqua Institute in Western New York, summer 2001. (10)- Paul Van de Ven, et al., "Facts & Figures: 2000 Male Out Survey," p. 20 & Table 20, monograph published by National Centre in HIV Social Research Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of New South Wales, February 2001. (11)- Rotello, pp. 43-46. (12)- Ibid., pp. 165-172. (13)- Hoover, et al., Figure 3. (14)- "Basic Statistics," CDC — Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, June 2001, www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm. (Nearly 8% (50,066) of men with AIDS had sex with men and used intravenous drugs. These men are included in the 64% figure (411,933) of 649,186 men who have been diagnosed with AIDS.) (15)-Figures from a study presented at the Infectious Diseases Society of America meeting in San Francisco and reported by Christopher Heredia, "Big spike in cases of syphilis in S.F.: Gay, bisexual men affected most," San Francisco Chronicle, October 26, 2001, www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/26/MN7489 3.DTL. (16)- Catherine Hutchinson, et al., "Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending Baltimore STD Clinics," Archives of Internal Medicine, 151: 511-516, p. 513 (1991). (17)- Katherine Fethers, Caron Marks, et al., "Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women," Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5): 345- 349, p. 347 (October 2000). (18)- James Price, et al., "Perceptions of cervical cancer and pap smear screening behavior by Women's Sexual Orientation," Journal of Community Health, 21(2): 89-105 (1996); Daron Ferris, et al., "A Neglected Lesbian Health Concern: Cervical Neoplasia," The Journal of Family Practice, 43(6): 581-584, p. 581 (December 1996); C. Skinner, J. Stokes, et al., "A Case-Controlled Study of the Sexual Health Needs of Lesbians," Sexually Transmitted Infections, 72(4): 277-280, Abstract (1996).

Etymology and usage

There are some serious problems with Fishiehelper2's recent addition to this section. What one Scottish newspaper does on one occasion—interestingly, in its headline but not in the accompanying article—demonstrates only one thing: what one Scottish newspaper does on one occasion. It does not back up the addition, which makes a broad claim about "other parts of the world, such as . . . Scotland". This also seems like a borderline case of (attempted) original research. I dislike frequent reverting, so I'd rather leave it to Fishiehelper2 and others to work out. Rivertorch (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your point - All I was trying to highlight is that just because something may be true for the USA it does not follow that it is true everywhere.- it is certainly not true in Scotland (where I live), as the article shows. This could be fixed by adding other reference to show that homosexual is an acceptable noun, or perhaps reworded. I'm off out now, but if no one else has a go at fixing it, I'll have a go later. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded and added two other references from The Times and the BBC. Is this now acceptable? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a valid point you're making, and as it stands now (with Fireplace's additional edit) it seems useful to the article. I'm still unclear on whether the citations constitute original research, since they illustrate your point rather than note the point themselves, but I've never been a stickler for following the letter of WP:NOR in such cases, so I have no objection. Rivertorch (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

internal article inconsistency

This article simultaneously claims that "each older brother increases the odds of being gay by 33%" (fraternal birth order), but also that "Having an older brother decreases the rate of homosexuality." (non-biological explanations: environment). I also take issue with those who object to a lack of citation on certain statements in the article, then immediately make claims that themselves are unjustified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.176.252 (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Forever and ever and ever?

The second sentence says homosexuality "refers to enduring sexual and romantic attraction towards those of the same sex". Enduring? I don't think so. I personally absdolutely know of one guy who considers himself a former homosexual (lived in a relationship with his male mate for nealry 20 years) but who says he now has NO attraction to males. Th e word enduring is not accuracte. 222.153.80.30 (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Great point! It reminds me: I personally (but not absdolutely) know a guy who came out after decades of marriage to his female mate and now says he has no attraction to females. Given our collective anecdotal evidence, I think we should start a campaign to ban use of the word "enduring" as applied to any human relationships whatsover. Especially because WP editors lacking dictionaries might think it means "forever", which it doesn't. Rivertorch (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you a smartarse! It so happens the person I know does NOT have an enduring attraction to the same sex, i.e. "continuing or long-lasting". He'll be interested to know that Wikipedia has classified him as straight, even tho he isn't. The term "enduring" cannot be justified in the article. 222.153.69.116 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad you liked my irony. In all seriousness, Wikipedia hasn't classified your friend as anything at all, and I don't suppose you're really suggesting the definitition is faulty because you know one party to whom it may not apply. Anonymous personal accounts do not form the basis of encyclopedia articles. Rivertorch (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say nearly 20 years of living together qualifies as a pretty enduring relationship, n'est ce pas? Besides, as Rivertorch mentioned, enduring does not necessarily mean ceaseless. I think the wording is fine. Eganio^Talk 02:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as you think it's ok for the wiki definition of homosexual to exclude some homosexuals, then go for it. Some of them are not in enduring relationships, and do not have same gender preferences. Remove the word enduring from the second par, and it becomes accurate. Leave it in, and the second par remains inaccurate. 222.153.69.116 (talk) Make that secondf sentence, not par. 222.153.69.116 (talk)

Unless your browser is possessed by malicious demons that change the wording of Wikipedia articles, you will note if you look carefully that nowhere in the first paragraph is the word "preferences" to be found. It's not even implied. Nor is it stated anywhere in the entire paragraph that all—or even most—homosexual people are currently in enduring relationships. However, as Eganio has helpfully pointed out, 20 years is pretty darn enduring, so your own example fails to support your assertion. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but may I gently suggest that you develop a more cogent argument if you'd like to persuade others that you're right? Otherwise, this discussion is doomed to go around in circles . . . not forever, by any means, but let's just say it has already endured quite long enough. Rivertorch (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see how the terminology excludes the subset of homosexuals to which you refer. They are certainly capable of participating in enduring relationships, but may not choose to do so. The term is just there to provide authenticity to a traditionally lambasted viewpoint, i.e. that homosexuals are just as capable of lasting, loving relationships as are heterosexuals. I think our cultural milieu begs this sort of reminder. Eganio^Talk 17:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There may be a more fundamental reason for that word to be there: to specify that sexual orientation is not defined by short-term attraction. Such transient feelings can occur regardless of the sexual orientation or gender of either party. Rivertorch (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Rivertorch. BTW, I peeked at the heterosexuality page, and enduring is not used there. Because of the reasons you brought up, I think this may be worthy of our attention. Eganio^Talk 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it might be worthwhile to try to develop more uniformity between the two articles (and Bisexuality, for that matter). Or their intros, at least. It's a daunting prospect. Sexual orientation is also worth a look. Rivertorch (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, bother...another can 'o' worms. Eganio^Talk 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

'Enduring' does not mean 'eternal.' It means something that exists for a period of time, and not merely for a fleeting instant. You misunderstand the word.--Agnaramasi (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fraternal Birth Order Immune Hypothesis

The section states:

"Successive male fetuses are then attacked by H-Y antibodies which somehow decrease the ability of H-Y antigens to perform their usual function in brain masculinization"

This is purely hypothetical and there is no research which supports this theory with regard to homosexuality, even in the mice in the study, let alone human beings who have much more complex behavior. Further, this hypothesis assumes that a male homosexual's brain has somehow been feminized in utero, for which there is also no evidence. The researcher in the citation perpetuates the cultural misconception that homosexual men are necessarily feminized versions of "real men". The fact that male fetal cells circulate freely in the mother's blood without immune attack strongly contradicts this hypothesis. At the very least, a disclaimer should be added to this section, stating: "There is, however, no published research which supports this hypothesis." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimmethoseshoes (talk • contribs) 21:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this is purely hypothetical. In fact, I have read the article, and it seems to be not much more than sloppy and flagrant hypothesizing. First, the article is published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, which although certainly worthy of our respect, really is not the best source to use when seeking to craft a synopsis of our best knowledge to-date on the subject. As a scientist, the notion of Theoretical Biology sends chills down my spine to begin with. Second, the article itself is meant to serve as a place-filler for "missing" hypotheses from the authors of the original study in which there was found a correlation between homosexual offspring and the number of older brothers. This kind of stuff should be taken with a rather large grain of salt right off the bat, IMO. Seeking to hypothesize where others feared to tread is gutsy, but usually fruitless. Third, I read the arguments, and I am totally unconvinced: a) they make no mention of why the original male fetus remains unaffected by the H-Y antibody, which you would think would exert some effect, since it is being made to fend off the "foreign object", i.e. the male fetus; b) they argue the H-Y antigen explains all the clinical data suggesting immune responses to male fetuses in the mothers' bodies, which I think is ludicrous...nature always has alternative approaches and redundant mechanisms; c) they fail miserably to explain why genital development in homosexual men remains normal, yet sexual brain development is somehow altered, even though both tissues possess the H-Y antigen; and d) all of this rests on the notion that feminization = homosexualization, which I think is pure crap, and a perfect example of narrow-mindedness. If we're going to include this hypothesis in the article, I think this should be mentioned as pure conjecture, and strong emphasis should be placed on the unsupported and highly theoretical nature of the referenced publication. Eganio^Talk 02:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Rivertorch (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made changes to reflect the highly hypothetical nature of the referenced article. I also moved "fraternal birth order effect" to the top of the section so it won't be confused with the "maternal immune hypothesis". I've also changed "gay men" to "homosexuals" and "non-gay men" to "heterosexuals" since those are terms the original author uses in the referenced article and it is also more appropriate to the title subject of this page. I've removed that H-Y antigens are "almost certainly" involved in sexual differentiation because I found no such wording in the referenced articles. Replaced with "may be" .... don't understand why the original wording was even in quotations anyway.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oregon domestic partnership

On and in the Oregon says 2007 in the brackets - this is incorrect it is 2008 and there was a bit of a delay with the legislation but now from February 2008 the domestic partnerships can now go ahead and have the green light!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.219.2 (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Major Concern

The first paragraph contains the crux of the problem. This article is used for both homosexuality as an act/urge and homosexuality as a sexual orientation. I suggest a disambiguation page and separate articles.

Moreover, the paragraph is confusingly written. Two separate meanings of homosexuality are identified, but it doesn't read as clearly as it might. "When describing the latter" isn't the best way to introduce a definition, I think. Disambiguation is best here, in my opinion. It is in keeping with wikipedia standards.

Regarding the first case (the act/urge), the definition is inadequate and needs to be fully explored in specific reference to the act/urge. "Homosexuality can refer to...attraction or sexual behavior between organisms of the same sex." That requires an article itself, without the confusing association of sexual orientation.

Once that is done, the wording needs to be addressed. "Attraction" between organisms of the same sex is insufficient. This would imply that same-sex friendship constitutes repeated homosexual acts. To say nothing of the countless other relationships wherein attraction is involved. Combine that with the current definition of homosexuality as sexual orientation and all men are homosexuals. It also implies that homosexuals are routinely heterosexual. The specious definition of bisexuality only complicates the situation all the more. Something more accurate than "attraction" is needed here, I think.

In the second case, there is an even bigger issue. The current definition for homosexual sexual orientation ("refers to enduring sexual and romantic attraction towards those of the same sex, but not necessarily to sexual behavior") is confusing. "Attraction" rears its ugly head again, though the inclusion of sexual and romantic help define it a bit. I think we could do better. Additionally, it contrasts the wikipedia definition of sexual behavior. Sexual behavior is rightly defined in wikipedia as involving much more than penile, vaginal, oral, or anal contact. To say that homosexuality does not necessarily involve sexual behavior is wrong according to wikipedia's definition of sexual behavior.

I thought we might alter the definition to keep it in line with the wikipedia definition of sexual orientation ("the direction of an individual's sexuality usually conceived of as classifiable according to the sex or gender of the persons whom the individual finds sexually attractive"). But if we do (EG: "Homosexuality refers to the direction of an individuals sexuality towards persons of the same sex") we encounter additional problems. "Sexuality" is defined in wikipedia as, "sexual behavior in all sexual organisms." I think this definition is sound. It works with the definition of sexual behavior. But it is vague in the context of the definition of sexual orientation: Homosexual orientation refers to the direction of an individual's sexual behavior towards persons of the same sex. It sounds good, but what does it mean to direct one's sexual behavior toward a person in light of the wikipedia definition of sexual behavior? Still, I think we're on to a better definition here.

Any thoughts?

I do agree with you that attraction used by itself is misleading in this context, and should perhaps be preceded by the word sexual. As far as your contention that sexual attraction should be dealt with separately, there already exists a sexual attraction article, which covers the biological aspect. The homosexuality article, then, is meant to describe a specific mode of sexual behavior with a uniquely charged relevance to human existence, which begs a much more careful and thorough approach. We humans enjoy the esoteric notion of romantic attraction in addition to sexual attraction. Therefore, sexual and romantic attraction/partnership should not be mutually exclusive in this article, since they are often used in tandem to define human relationships. And I disagree with your next argument: "To say that homosexuality does not necessarily involve sexual behavior is wrong according to wikipedia's definition of sexual behavior." This is the very idea behind the extension into romantic attraction I just mentioned...homosexuality is a term whose meaning and significance extend far beyond physical relationships, although they are certainly part and parcel to the issue at hand. Again, though, the mutual exclusivity: romantic and sexual attraction can exist together and separately, yet both are integral parts of human sexuality in general. Furthermore, I don't think the Wikipedia definition of sexual attraction should be used to delineate boundaries in the context of human relationships. The definition is meant to function for all organisms that engage in sexual activity. Distinghuishing between modes of sexual behavior and attraction is what we are seeking to do with articles auch as this one. When we get into human sexual behavior, our definitions, terminology, and points of reference must necessarily rely on our human perspective, i.e that we define our sexual and romantic lives based on complex thought patterns and social interactions, of which sex is only one aspect. Eganio^Talk 00:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should decide the proper terminology to use. The APA defines sexual orientation as "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others."[15] Maybe we should specify what type of attraction it is, but I still think we should use the word attraction. Similarly, they said "Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors." They use the word behavior, and I think we should too. This, of course, refers only to the orientation, not to all aspects of homosexuality. Part of the problem is homosexuality is so complex and so ill-defined. I do like the breakdown The Social Organization of Sexuality uses. It identifies three aspects of homosexuality, (1) sexual behavior, (2) desire and (3) identity. [16] Although I like this breakdown, we don't have to follow it, but I do think that whatever we do, we should follow some established procedure, and not just the results of a Wikipedia debate. Joshuajohanson (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the purpose of a Wikipedia discussion—or a debate, if you prefer—is to achieve consensus. Why wouldn't it be entirely proper for us to decide what constitutes the proper terminology. We are the WP editors, after all, and this is what we do, right? The APA is a worthy organization but hardly the final arbiter of how this or any article should be worded. Sociologists, medical and legal scholars, historians, philosophers, and probably lots of other folks—not just psychologists—may have something to say on the subject. (Maybe even poets.) I suggest we should take into account the terminology used by various sources and then try to distill that down into something that makes sense in the context of the article. Easier said than done, without a doubt.

Sexual orientation (not just homosexuality) is indeed a complex concept, and it doesn't necessarily lend itself to brief, neat definitions. Since this is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary, it may be less than critical that we come up with such a definition, anyway. It might be appropriate for the article to note that there is no universally accepted definition. Two dictionaries I just consulted—Oxford American and American Heritage—mention only "attraction" and "interest", respectively, in their definition of sexual orientation, making no mention of behavior or identity. In the case of AH, however, the entries for "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" do include a secondary definition specifically involving behavior, so the plot thickens.

In any case, it seems to me that at its essence sexual orientation is more about thought than behavior, but it clearly tends to involve both. As you noted, it can also involve identity, although that varies widely among different culture and subcultures, and has changed significantly over time, whereas the thought and behavior aspects (especially the former) are probably closer to universal. Bottom line for me: the article should be inclusive, allowing for a multifaceted definition, and we should certainly consider it in the context of certain other articles (e.g., Heterosexuality, Sexual orientation, etc.) I've been meaning to look into the issue of uniformity between these articles for several days but keep getting distracted. Rivertorch (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe we should discuss it. What I meant to say is that we should be careful of original research or using Wikipedia as a source. Uniformity between this and other articles is a consideration, but I don't think it is an argument for how things should be. Maybe those articles should be changed to reflect the results from this discussion. If they are wrong doesn't mean Homosexuality should be equally wrong. I think as we discuss, we should give more weight to more reliable sources (ie Medical field over poets), and not try to come up with something ourselves. That's what I meant to say.

I still feel we are confusing human sexuality (how people express themselves as sexual beings) with sexual orientation (an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others). From what I have read, those are the two definitions of homosexuality. Orientation does not equate to behavior. It may or may not be expressed in the behavior. It is the sexuality component that involves identity, attraction, and behavior, not the sexual orientation. So I see it as two different definitions (1) a sexual orientation towards members of the same gender (2) an expression of human sexuality towards members of the same gender, which includes sexual identity, same-sex attraction and sexual behavior. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that uniformity is less important than accuracy, but it still seems desirable. I also agree about WP:OR and didn't mean to suggest using other articles as sources for this one or vice versa. What I'm envisioning is making an improvement to the wording of several articles, eliminating any contradictions or discrepancies as best we can. As for poets, they were creating great literature about various aspects of what we now call homosexuality centuries before the first medical school opened its doors, so I wouldn't discount them. Regarding your last paragraph above this one, I'm now hopelessly confused. You seem to be applying the word "attraction" both to what you call sexual orientation (first sentence) and to what you call expression of human sexuality (last sentence). Could you clarify that a little? Rivertorch (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Orientation, as defined by the APA, only refers to an enduring attraction. It is more than just happening to notice someone, and is usually determined at an early age. Sexuality includes all aspects of a sexual experience, both enduring and temporary. It includes attraction, but also other aspects such as behavior, identity, as well as other expressions such as art, literature or politics. It is the broader of the two definitions and encompasses orientation. For example, someone can experiment with same-sex sexuality (2nd definition of homosexuality), without necessarily being homosexual (1st defintion). I would say the movie Kissing Jessica Stein discusses same-sex sexuality (2nd definition), because it involves a romantic relationship between two women, and discusses several aspects of same-sex sexuality such as same-sex sexual behavior, same-sex relationships, and same-sex attractions, even though neither of the women actually have a homosexual orientation(1st definition). One is straight the other is bisexual.

I'm not discounting poets. I don't think anything I said contradicts what they say. As you can see, the second definition is rather broad. However, for precision and clarity, especially when discussing scientifically studies, we should use terminology that is used by scientists. I don't think it conflicts with poets. It is just is more precise. Joshuajohanson (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen the movie and so am at a disadvantage, but I suspect your idea of "straight" is a little different from mine. Who, in your opinion, can make a valid determination whether someone is straight, bi, or gay? The person himself or herself? The American Psychological Association? Does it even matter or can we accept, for the purposes of this article, that the usage varies widely enough that some imprecision is inevitable? Rivertorch (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How about this example? A man who is attracted to other men has a fulfilling and monogamous marriage to a woman. His orientation might still be homosexual, but other aspects of his sexuality, such as his identity, sexual practices, culture and community are all heterosexual. So he is homosexual by the first definition (orientation), but heterosexual by the second definition(sexuality). Does that make sense? You asked who can determine if someone is gay, straight or bi. In my opinion, it is difficult to determine sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are closeted gay people, questioning and curious straight people, and relatively fluid bisexual people. Regardless of the cultural interpretation of one's sexuality, there is still an underlining sexual orientation beneath it all. Since the underlining orientation is hard to determine, we often rely on one's sexual identity, though we may question that if their sexual behavior doesn't match their identity, such as Larry Craig or Ted Haggard.Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is important to note that the word "attraction" is wikilinked to "sexual attraction." I think "sexual behaviour" used to precede it, and so "attraction" was less ambiguous. I will put "sexual" in front of it. Also, the distinction being made between homosexuality as attraction and behaviour and homosexuality as orientation is crucial. The orientation includes the former but also includes an element of personal identity which does not necessarily follow from mere attraction or behaviour.--Agnaramasi (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The "can refer to" is an awkward way to open an article. How about just "refers to"? Also, should it be "both" or "either"? Other than that, I think Agnaramasi's edits are probably a step in the right direction. Rivertorch (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think sexual orientation should be defined as an attraction, not an identity. While sexual orientation is usually determined at a young age (according to the APA), people may question or change their identity throughout their lives. For example, a closeted homosexual still maintains a heterosexual identity. Homosexuality as a sexual identity is a relatively modern concept, while homosexuality as a sexual orientation presumably always existed. I have showed support from reliable sources that sexual orientation is an attraction. This is an important distinction, as it is much easier to change your identity than your orientation. Here is my proposed introduction:

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation or sexuality directed towards those of the same sex. As a sexual orientation, it specifically denotes an "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others" which may or may not correspond with other aspects of their sexuality.[17] However, in the more general sense, it includes a broad range of homosexual experiences and expressions, including sexual contact and other sexual behavior, same-sex attraction, sexual identity, sexual orientation, cultural expressions, and participation in a gay community. Homosexuality is contrasted with heterosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, and pansexuality. Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is problematic because "sexuality" is an even broader term than "sexual orientation" and can even be synonymous with it. I believe you may be shooting for a level of precision of definition that isn't feasible. What vital (i.e., must be in the lead paragraph) information are you trying to convey that isn't there currently? Rivertorch (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

At the same time you are saying my definition is too precise, you are also saying it is too broad. I don't understand. Homosexuality is a broad topic and it would be inaccurate to not represent it as such. It cannot be boiled down to just behavior or just attraction, or just orientation. Homosexuality = homo (same) + sexuality (sexuality). Look at what is currently written in the article. It talks about arts, literature, family situation and so forth. That needs to be in the intro. You also said "sexual orientation and can even be synonymous with [sexuality]." Sexual orientation is a part, not synonymous with sexuality. Why do the two definitions have to be opposing, when it is all related? I still do not understand why you have a problem with sexuality including orientation. So to answer your question, here are the vital things my proposed intro has that the current one does not:

• Correctly defines sexual orientation as an enduring attraction, not an identity.
• Correctly presents sexual orientation and sexual identity as related, but not synonymous concepts within the realm of sexuality.
• Relates orientation with the other aspects of sexuality.
• Presents behaviors and attractions as related terms within sexuality, not opposing terms.
• Is consistent with scientific literature written on the topic. For example, there are studies that say identity is more malleable than orientation. What the heck does that mean if we define them to be the same thing.
• Only defines homosexuality twice, orientation or sexuality, instead of three times as currently done "behavior or attraction...or orientation" How are you distinguishing attraction from orientation?
• Includes identity and other aspects of homosexuality which are introduced in rest of the article. If homosexuality were strictly behavior, attraction or orientation, why are we talking about identity, art, literature, coming out, political debates and so forth.

All of these things aside, one thing that I will insist on is that orientation be correctly defined as an enduring attraction, not an identity. It would be a bonus if they were presented as related terms instead of opposing terms. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is problematic and POV to reduce sexual orientation to a biological phenomenon of sexual attraction presumed to be historically invariant. While it is unquestionable that sexual attraction and behavior are essential to any definition of sexual orientation, it remains an open question as to what extent language and culture play in the consolidation of intelligible categories of sexual orientation. Insofar as our task is to present "homosexuality" from a NPOV, we must respect the indeterminacy of this "open question" by presenting various notable possible responses to it without privileging one above all others. I think that the present opening of the article achieves this by defining homosexuality by the two aspects of attraction/behaviour and orientation while avoiding inevitably POV arguments concerning the nature of the relationship between them.--Agnaramasi (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if my own comments were unclear. This discussion has become really convoluted. Joshua, I didn't mean to say your comments were too broad, only noted that "sexuality" is a broad term. There is not always a sharp delineation between these terms, so my bottom line is that we need to be inclusive in our wording. Sexual orientation can indeed involve enduring attraction, but to equate it with that is to reduce it to less than it is. Agnaramasi makes a good argument for the status quo. Rivertorch (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that orientation neither is just a biological phenomenon, nor historically invariant. Instead, I agree with what the APA said in that it is a "complex interactions of environmental, cognitive/psychological and biological factors." Environmental factors include language, culture and identity, but those are just factors. You say it's POV to reduce sexual orientation to an attraction. How is it not POV to reduce orientation to an identity? How does that definition explain closeted homosexuals? I have provided a WP:Reliable Source from mainstream medical organizations that it is an enduring attraction. Where is your evidence that it is an identity? Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection to the definition of sexual orientation as an identity denoting an individual's enduring "disposition" (the word used in the article as it stands) to sexual attractions, behaviors and relationships involving those of the same sex. Defining sexual orientation as an "identity denoting attraction" conveniently and accurately elucidates it as constituted by an essential relationship between those terms.

Sexual orientation (like gender, race, etc.) is another constituent of personal identity. I don't know a specific source for this banal fact. Maybe look at Michel Foucault or Judith Butler for a philosophical analysis of sexual identity. Also lots has been written on sexual orientation as a category in identity politics and language (just do a book search on Google). Obviously the APA interprets sexual orientation from a psychological, rather than a sociological, political or philosophical, perspective. It is understandable why psychologists would tend to reduce sexual orientation to the inner attractions or feelings of a patient (their object of study). The psychological interpretation must, however, be supplemented by these other perspectives.

My point is that drawing a radical distinction between sexual identity (conceptual or linguistic category that "names" a person's sexuality) and sexual orientation (the sex towards which an individual's sexual attractions and longings are mostly directed) is original research and POV. I notice that you have insisted on precisely this distinction in the sexual orientation article, which in my opinion is inappropriate for these reasons. Sexual orientation is a complex and ambiguous umbrella term embracing both identity and attraction and is perhaps best summarized as an "identity denoting attraction."--Agnaramasi (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like there should be a disjunction in the lead paragraph between the two? In some contexts, 'homosexuality' is conceptualized as an identity (Foucault-like discourse), and in others it's conceptualized as a state (APA-like discourse). The two aren't necessarily inconsistent (or necessarily consistent), they may just be discussing different aspects of the same phenomenon. Fireplace (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Quoting from the APA is not original research. You saying your definition is banal is original research. I am not making a radical distinction between identity and orientation. I think they are highly related and the distinction is subtle, though significant. I think identity is a lot more than just linguistical. Your sexual identity is how you view yourself, and interpret your sexual orientation, and it is a part of your personal identity. That part I agree with. I am not familiar with Foucault, but does he talk about homosexuality using the first definition (attraction/behavior) or does he specifically talk about sexual orientation?

I think the intro should use a definition that is consistent with the rest of the article. There are sections that use the APA definition, like the causes of homosexuality, and the malleability. I'm fine with having a Foucault-like discourse, but if we are going to talk about the psychological causes, we need to use the psychological definition.Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

My point is that your interpretation of the APA source as suggesting a distinction between sexual orientation, as pertaining to feelings of attraction, and sexual identity, as pertaining to linguistic and social categories, is original research. Nowhere does the APA Help Center source suggest that sexual orientation does not embrace identity. In fact, the last paragraph in the first section, "What is sexual orientation?" suggests that sexual orientation includes both "feelings and self-concept" (my emphasis). While psychologists probably tend to privilege feelings and attractions in defining sexual orientation, Foucault (and Foucaultians like Butler) generally privilege linguistic and cultural categories of identity. Where the former might reduce identity to attraction (identity as referring to underlying attractions), the latter might tend to reduce attraction to identity (attractions/desires as constructed by identity categories). The current introduction does a good job of defining sexual orientation as referring to both identity and an attraction without positing a hierarchical relationship between them.--Agnaramasi (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Identity is highly related to orientation. I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is that they are not synonymous. Feelings will shape self-concept, but they aren't necessarily self-concept. I'm also arguing that neither identity nor orientation is purely linguistic and cultural. If it were linguistic, all I would have to do is one day say I'm gay and the next day say I'm straight and viola, I changed my orientation. If it were cultural, all I would have to do is pretend to be straight and I changed my orientation. If it were attractions, then I would have to change my underlying attractions, which cannot simply be chosen. What would you say would be the orientation of a man who is primarily attracted to other men, and not so much to women, but choose to identify as a straight man and enter into a monogamous relationship with a woman. Has he changed his orientation? By your definition, he has, but not by my definition. That is the main problem with your assertion. I do not believe the underlying orientation can be so easily changed as your definition implies. My example is not so unique. Many people have same-sex desires without reporting a homosexual or bisexual identity.[18] Furthermore, your definition does not match with the rest of the paper. I'm fine with having a Foucault-like discourse, but if we are going to talk about the psychological causes, we need to use the psychological definition. Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I really think this is a misunderstanding. "My definition" does not imply that identity can float freely of attraction; I am saying, rather, that sexual orientation is a person's identity as predominantly attracted to a certain sex. If you consult the article on Personal identity (philosophy) you will find that identity simply refers to an aspect of a person which endures over time; one's identity is, most broadly, the parts of oneself to which one refers when asserting "I am the same person I was yesterday, last week, or last year." Identity is something that is ostensibly unchanging and permanent, and not capricious and arbitrary. I simply think that it is important to note that sexual orientation is a category of personal identity in this sense. Would it help if I change the wikilink of "identity" to "Personal identity (philosophy)]] rather than the sociology identity page?--Agnaramasi (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sexual orientation is not something that "is ostensibly unchanging and permanent," and hence cannot be a part of one's personal identity. If that is what Foucault is saying he is wrong and in the minority. All mainstream medical organizations have declared sexual orientation develops across the lifetime of a person and is subject to environmental factors. I want to see a reliable source with some authority to speak on the subject cited rather than just simply stating it is an identity. I have brought up several issues that haven't been addressed. What would you say would be the orientation of a man who is primarily attracted to other men, and not so much to women, but choose to identify as a straight man and enters into a monogamous relationship with a woman? What about a woman who used to be attracted to men, but developed an attraction to women over time? It doesn't fit with your definition of identity. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

By 'ostensibly' I mean precisely that it can change, but that it does not change in a trivial or capricious way. It is more fixed than, say, one's hair style or mood. Identity is neither entirely arbitrary nor entirely fixed. With respect to your example of a person who's declared sexual identity is incongruous in a certain sense with their lived sexual attractions and/or behaviors, I would say that their sexual orientation is constituted by the complex interplay between their declared identity, their sexual experiences, as well as the historical and cultural forces shaping both of these. The definition in the article as it stands is open-ended enough to accommodate such an interpretation.

In order to justify removing the fact tag I need only quote directly from the OED:

Sexual Orientation: Originally: (the process of) orientation with respect to a sexual goal, potential mate, partner, etc. Later chiefly: a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to whom he or she is usually attracted; (broadly) the fact of being heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual.

Also, two further references from queer theory are Foucault's The History of Sexuality, Vol.1: The Will to Knowledge and Judith Butler's Gender Trouble.--Agnaramasi (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And I can quote the Random House Unabridged Dictionary which states it is "one's natural preference in sexual partners." In regards to my example, you said "their sexual orientation is constituted by the complex interplay between their declared identity, their sexual experiences, as well as the historical and cultural forces shaping both of these." Well, his declared identity, his sexual experiences and his culture all indicate straight, so if orientation can be boiled down to orientation, that means this guy successfully changed his orientation, even though he is still attracted to guys. Identity has an element of choice, so to say orientation is just identity means orientation can be changed through simple brainwash. I think brainwash can make you think you have changed your orientation, and hence your identity, but I don't think it can change your actual orientation. I had thought we were going to discuss things here first, but I guess we aren't.Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I quote the OED simply to show that it is a known fact that sexual orientation pertains to identity. With regard to your example, I apologize for not being more precise. By "sexual experiences" I meant both sexual attractions and behaviours. The lead as it stands does not suggest that sexual orientation is reducible to a choice of identity. It merely suggests that sexual orientation is an identity ascribed to a person as primarily disposed to attractions and behaviors with people of a certain sex. The attraction and the identity are irreducible components of the definition, as I have already explained at length. Neither is privileged. It does not imply that sexual orientation can be freely changed or is absolutely permanent. I don't see the problem in this suitably inclusive definition.--Agnaramasi (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) There are more articulate voices than mine here at the moment, but I want to make two brief comments. First, I concur with Agnaramasi that the current definition is open-ended enough to accommodate that interpretation (and others). And that is good. Second, Joshuajohanson, you've twice mentioned "medical organizations" without naming them. Could you tell us which medical organizations you're referring to and why you consider their positions or statements should be given particular weight in this article's lede? Rivertorch (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The American Psychological Association has stated "Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others."[19] I understand that is a very psychological definition, but if we are going to talk about the psychological research and causes (which we do), we need to introduce the psychological definition. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting your edit because I do not think that the APA's specific claim on their Help Centre website is notable enough on its own to be directly quoted in the article lead. It represents only a specific (and quite narrow) definition of sexual orientation, which (as I have argued at length above) should not be given more weight in the lead than the interpretations of philosophers, queer theorists, sociologists and historians. The psychological definition should be discussed in more detail later in the article alongside other points of view. The previous version of the lead was sufficiently broad to more than adequately include this range of positions without privileging one above the others.

The entry "Sexual Orientation: Historical and Social Construction" in the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences provides an excellent history and discussion of alternative social constructionist interpretations of sexual orientation in sociology, philosophy, queer theory, psychology, etc. He also provides an excellent bibliography, which includes the seminal work The Homosexual Role (1968) by sociologist Mary McIntosh, sociologists Gagnon and Simon's later important work Sexual Conduct: The Social Sources of Human Sexuality (1974), as well as works by Foucault, historian and classicist David Halperin, queer theorists Eve Sedgwick and Judith Butler, and many others. I will quote the abstract below, given that this text is not freely available online:

‘Sexual orientation’ suggests an essential sexual nature. The task of historical or social constructionist approaches is to suggest that this belief is what itself needs investigation. Constructionist approaches seek to do two broad things: to understand the emergence of sexual categorizations (such as ‘the homosexual’ or ‘the heterosexual’ in Western cultures since the nineteenth century) within their specific historical and cultural contexts; and to interpret the sexual meanings, both subjective and social, which allow people to identify with, or reject, these categorizations. It is, thus, preoccupied largely not with what causes individual desires or orientations, but with how specific definitions develop within their historic contexts, and the effects these definitions have on individual self identifications and collective meanings. The origins of constructionist approaches can be traced to the creative confluence of several theoretical strands: role and labeling theories, sexual scripting, and discourse theories. Together they shaped the key preoccupations of social and historical constructionism: with the shaping of sexual identities in specific historical circumstances; with the construction of the heterosexual/homosexual binary divide in Western societies; and with the comparative exploration of varying patterns of the organization of sexuality in different cultures.--Agnaramasi (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sexual practices

I don't like the sexual practices section. The section implies that gays have sex with people of their own gender and not with the opposite gender. That simply is not true. The APA has stated that "Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors."[20] A study by the Social Organization of Sexuality showed that only 32% of women and 43% of men who self-reported same-sex attraction had participated in same-sex sexual behavior.[21] Compare that to The Family Pride Coalition study which reported that 75% of lesbians have children and 50% of gay men had fathered children.[22] It should be reworded to reflect the actual sexual practices of gays. Joshuajohanson (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it implies what you claim it does, but I agree the section is weak. What you're saying takes us back to the above discussion about definitions. Maybe if we can resolve that one, the way to improve this section will be clear. Rivertorch (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As with the above discussion, homosexuality isn't about sex - it's about attraction yadda yadda. Having a "sexual practices" section reinforces the impression that it's about sex. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Responding to SatyrTN's point: this is a summary-style article about a huge number of interrelated topics, and same-sex sex is very relevant to homosexuality. It also may be exactly what some readers are looking for, given the huge amount of misinformation and lack of information among the general population about how same-sex couples have sex. Fireplace (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Questionable sources

Hi everybody, a proposal is being made to ease the current restrictions on questionable sources in the verifiability policy. I think editors here might have a useful viewpoint on this proposal. See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability Tim Vickers (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

medical Dangerous of homosexual

the las researches shows us that there is a new sort of bacteria called (MRSA) , which is know to be one of the most resist to all the normal antibiotics which is called (Usa 300) , the main sources of the infection with such a type are homosexual practicing and using drugs in addetion to those who are making a skin contact frequently like "wrestlers" Dr.benni deep from san fransisco major hospital and one of the researchers says " the amount of effection by this bacteria among homosexual is 13 more to those who are normal" [23][24] [25] [26]

in addition to these diseaces:

• Aids in the global report of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , june 2000 it was declared that in most cases

......etc every cent of this article i mentioned with a resource,...why did u delete it,...actually I don't give a ...... to this ,...coz iam not going to contribute here again there is no neutrality ,...just obsession with protecting ""Gays"!!

Omer88f (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)omer88f'

I deleted it because mostly because it is incomprehensible and only tangentially related to this article.--Agnaramasi (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex relations in non-western cultures

Here is the addition that I propose on the sections on Homosexuality, Gay and Sexual Orientation, in order to accomodate the non-western viewpoint. I hope it is generally appreciated here that there is a difference of opinion regarding how the issue of same-sex relations are seen in the west and non-western, traditional societies.

I have also provided a number of references. Once, we have discussed the additions reasonably well, I expect to be able to post the final outcome to these sections, even if some people are not personally happy with this viewpoint. Wikipedia, as we all appreciate is not only for one particular set of beliefs, to the exclusion of the rest. (Masculinity (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)) (signature added later)

Can this be moved to the talk page - Talk:Homosexuality, Talk:Gay, or Talk:Sexual orientation? There's a lot of info, but the editors of those particular articles would be/are better able to comment on it there. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's too much information (TMI) for here, since this the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies page is more of a bulletin board for the LBGT project, with pointers to areas that are of interest or need attention. Very nice and impressive presentation, 59.178.87.8, and it touches on an issue that really does need discussion and work to increase the global viewpoint in the English Wikipedia. I strongly support that, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and my own desire to be a citizen of the greater world. I think Gay is too specific, as that is more about self identification in a specific cultural matrix. Maybe Homosexuality might be a better place to start, since that's a fork of Human sexuality, therefore is more generalized, and already has some non-western history relative to homosexuality. So I suggest moving this to Talk:Homosexuality, at least initially, and leaving a short note here as to where it moved to, so that interested and knowledgeable editors can easily find it. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Haiduc (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest this material be used to create a new article, perhaps Modern same-sex relations in non-western cultures, with an abstract left behind in this article. Haiduc (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Haiduc, provided it's a small abstract. Also, may we know where this was moved from, and does anyone else think it's time to archive at least some of this page? Rivertorch (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. It came here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. I hope that the anon who contributed the material will do the footwork himself, let's give him a chance, he seems to know what he is doing. Haiduc (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this page does need archiving in a bad way. I'll leave it for someone that knows better what should be archived and not, but most of it should be archived, certainly everything from 2007, and maybe some January postings without responses in the last 30 days. I created a new section at the end for content discussion on the proposal vs. housekeeping stuff up here. — Becksguy (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate if any of you could help us improve Masculinity's contribution by participating in the discussion at the new page he's created, Non-Western Concepts of Male Sexuality. There are some obvious problems with the page that need to be addressed with the input of the broader community.--Agnaramasi (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Addition

NON WESTERN CONCEPTS OF MALE SEXUALITY

In most non-western and non-westernised traditional societies, there exists a completely different concept of male sexuality than in the West. (1) There is no concept of sexual orientation or men being divided on its basis. It has been the same in pre-modern West. (2) Of course, it can also be argued that even in the modern, western, heterosexual, middle class industrial societies, even after several decades of the introduction of the concept of sexual orientation, a significant number of men in these societies still do not relate with sexual identities, even when they accept their same-sex desires and needs.(3) The western society has not really dealt with this indiscrepancy, and has not been able to explain it satisfactorily. Additionally, these men also suffer severe emotional, psychological and social trauma because of imposition of the concept of ‘sexual orienation’ on them, by the western society. However, they may not be able to identify the source of their discomfiture as these 'baggages' are hidden. In fact, it can also be argued that the existence of the concept of 'homosexuality' -- not as it is formally defined, but because of the several hidden baggages the concept has -- is the reason that the rest of the men in heterosexualised societies (that includes a significant number of men identified as straight) do not come to terms with their sexual feelings for men and fight with it all their lives, when in non-western societies they easily accept it in peer-groups. (2) (3)

The main differences in the non-western(ized) world are:

1. The men’s spaces are very strong. Men’s spaces refer to spaces which are exclusively for men, and where women are either not allowed or their entry is highly restricted. These spaces are extremely important for men and their manhood and very congenial to bonds between men, including sexual bonds. These sexual bonds are very open if the formal society is accepting, otherwise hidden to various degrees, depending upon how hostile the formal society is. (4) (5)

2. Man’s sexual need for other men is considered to be a universal phenomenon, meaning that to like other men sexually is believed to be an integral part of manhood, which all men are born with. This belief may be limited in the privacy of men’s spaces, within which men acknowledge it openly, whereas denying the existence of such a need in formal and mixed gender spaces. Or they may be openly accepted even in the formal spaces. It all depends upon how accepting the formal spaces are to male-male sexuality. An example of the latter is Kandahaar in Afghanistan. (2) (6) (7)

3. There is no concept of sexual orientation at all, in all of these societies (the modern day non-western and non-westernised societies, the pre-modern west). There is no division of men or their isolation from the mainstream men’s group on the basis of ‘sexual orientation’. (1), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (16)

4. On the other hand, there is a strong division of the male population between masculine gendered males (called ‘men’), and feminine gendered males (known as the third-sex, and often clubbed along with the hermaphrodite), irrespective of their sexual orientation. The third-sex is considered a separate gender category, and its members are not considered either men or women but a neutral or intermediate gender. Thus, a man having sex with men is not the same as a third-sex male having sex with men. A man and a person of the third sex are not considered same-sex. It has been the same in the west before Christianity. Only the feminine male is considered different. Only the feminine male aspires for a separate identity, be it Catamite, Hijra, Kathoey, Gay, Homosexual or MSM. Only the feminine male fits into these identities and is comfortable with them. (11) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19)

5. When the western concepts of ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ are implanted – often aggressively by western educated ‘gay’ activists/ chauvinists -- in these traditional societies where men’s spaces are strong, they are automatically converted into gender identity– the third gender identity, by the popular culture. Thus, in these societies, only the effeminate, feminine gendered male is considered ‘gay’ or ‘queer' or ‘homosexual’, no matter how it is defined in English. (16) As a direct contradiction to the western concepts, often, even the heterosexual transgender is defined as a ‘homosexual’ by the vernacular population, as the term is seen to denote their femininity, not their ‘sexual orientation’. (20) (23)

6. The English educated section, and the westernized populations of these traditional societies (like in India) however, at least in formal spaces, adhere to the western concepts, although in practice they may follow both western as well as traditional concepts of sexuality. (10)

7. Whereas the westernized feminine gendered male population in these societies lap up the concepts of ‘gay’ and homosexuality, the men resent the imposition of this western concept and fight it as long as men’s spaces are strong. But when these spaces are broken through the process of heterosexualisation, men in these societies are eventually forced to adopt these concepts. (23)

References:

(1) GAY AMERICAN “DEVIANCE”: Using International Comparative Analysis to Argue for a Free Speech and Establishment Clause Approach to Furthering Gay Marriage in the United States. Bijal Shah, Yale Law School; http://lsr.nellco.org/yale/student/papers/52/

Quote from the research paper:

“Sexual identity is not universally understood as solely located in the individual in the same fashion as lesbian and gay identity in middle-class Western societies.”

(2) The Changing social construction of western male homosexuality: Association with worsening youth suicide problems: chapter: Male homosexuality: from commonality to rarity; http://youth-suicide.com/gay-bisexual/construction/3-gay-youth-suicide-homosexuality-rare.htm

(3) Sexual Identity Development and Synthesis among LGB-Identified and LGB Dis-Identified Persons.; Journal article by Mark A. Yarhouse, Erica S.N. Tan, Lisa M. Pawlowski; Journal of Psychology and Theology, Vol. 33, 2005 http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=H9hL2Qb2lV2kQnpGtXTrZzXGkMPhJ0TVXRzfT8hSw316CbPsWW8S!-1788132937?docId=5009356549

Quotes from the research paper:

“Despite recent theories of sexual identity development and synthesis, very little is actually known about why some people who experience same-sex attraction integrate their experiences into a lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) identity by identifying with LGB-affirming ideologies, while others dis-identify with LGB-affirming ideologies. It is unclear whether specific milestone events lead to one outcome, or whether multiple outcomes are possible with respect to sexual identity synthesis.”

(4) Negotiating Gender: Calalai' in Bugis Society: Sharyn Graham; also, Bissu are gender transcendent, pre-Islamic priests. See Leonard Andaya, 'The Bissu: Study of a Third Gender in Indonesia', in Other Pasts: Women, Gender, and History in Early Modern Southeast Asia, ed. Barbara Andaya, Hawai'i: Hawai'i University Press, 2000:27-46.

Quote:

“Today Mariani, Rani, and I went to a wedding. The three of us are so free to move. Mariani (bissu)[50] and Rani (calalai' ) can move in women's spaces and into men's places because they are neither and yet both. Similarly, I have the position of foreign researcher that allows access to the men's arena, and I am a woman which allows access to the women's arena. Rani sat with the women in the kitchen for a while and cooked talibo (B) [a type of seafood]. Afterwards s/he moved to the front of the house and socialised with the men. Women and men are not able to do this travelling between spaces so easily.[51]”

(5) Masculinity for boys; A guide for peer-educators: published by UNESCO, New Delhi http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001465/146514e.pdf

There are several references in the book to men’s spaces (all-male spaces) and how they are beneficial for men, and how heterosexual spaces (mixed gender spaces) harm men, and it also establishes the relationship between heterosexualisation of men’s spaces and the emergence of the concept of ‘homosexuality’.

(6) Masculinity for boys: A guide for peer educators: Published by UNESCO, New Delhi http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001465/146514e.pdf

Quote from the book: Page 96: "In the ancient world, love and sexual intimacy between men was not supposed to be limited to a ‘sexual minority’, as is made out today. Most men developed such bonds which were institutionalized and blessed by society…"

"Most evidences of these universal love bonds between masculine men in the ancient world have been destroyed through the ages …"

Page 98: "Men have always secretly known and understood the universal male need for intimacy with men, but have also known that the society strongly discourages open acknowledgement of such desire."

(7) Kandahar's lightly veiled homosexual habits http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,44067,00.html

http://www.nfi.net/NFI%20Publications/ Pukaar/2007/Pukaar%20-%20Apr%2007%20.pdf

(8) Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World, Review of Joseph Massad’s book: Desiring Arabs from the site: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1679743

Quote:

“Massad's point, though, is this: In the Arab world, men who have sex with men are, for the most part, not "gay", and need no liberation from prosecution. They are not "gay" because "gay" is a Western identity that The Gay International has attempted to thrust upon them.”

“Western gay-rights groups are causing great harm to those they purport to assist by forcing them to either choose the Western "gay" label, or choose not to realize their true sexuality.”

“Like the Byzantines who viewed unveiled women as prostitues or lower class women and thus succeeded in creating the veiled Arab woman simply by implying they are a lower class if unveiled, Western literature of the last 1000 years referring to the Arabs as sodomites and pederasts and now, incredibly as homophobes, has imposed its mores and culture on their fluid concepts of Arab sexuality.”

(9) Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World, Review of Joseph Massad’s book Desiring Arabs; http://www.al-bab.com/arab/articles/text/massad.htm

Quote:

“The central thesis of his 25-page polemic was that promotion of gay rights in the Middle East is a conspiracy led by western orientalists and colonialists which “produces homosexuals, as well as gays and lesbians, where they do not exist”.

(10) Homosexual behaviour without homosexual identity: The case of Chinese men having sex with men (MSM); Winkelmann C.; Int Conf AIDS. 2004 Jul 11-16; 15: abstract no. WePeD6407; http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102284322.html

Quote:

"Historically homosexual behaviour was wide-spread in China and tolerated by society as long as the men were married and had children. "Homosexual behaviour - as distinct from a gay" identity, which is a Western import that didn't hit China until the late 20th century - was an ordinary part of Chinese life." Lessons: As a result the majority of MSM do not consider themselves as either homo- or bisexual."

(11) GAY CULTURES IN MANAGUA, NICARAGUA; http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/gl/mana.html

Quote:

"There is no strong feeling of identity or community for men involved in homo-sexual behavior, except for the maricones who have a strong sense of identity and for the western style gays who have a sense both of identity and community."

(13) Masculinity for boys: A guide for peer educators; Published by UNESCO, New Delhi http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001465/146514e.pdf

Page 102 "Terms like "sexual orientation", 'heterosexual', and 'homosexual' distort and misrepresent the truth about male gender and sexuality. Sexual Orientation is not a valid concept. The basic assumptions behind it are wrong."

“But the basic drawback (of the scientific discourse on male-male sexuality) is that they conveniently assume that the modern socio-political ‘gay’ identity constitutes a distinct biological group, which is an absurd and unscientific assumption.Men of different genders came together on a common platform ‘homosexual’ in the west only because of their oppression under heterosexualisation and not because of any biological affinity.”

(14) Transgender people in non-Western cultures; Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#Transgender_people_in_non-Western_cultures

(15) Masculinity for boys: A guide for peer educators; Published by UNESCO, New Delhi http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001465/146514e.pdf

Quote:

Page: 102 "When these heterosexual terms (gay, homosexual) are forced upon a traditional society like India, their meaning and connotation changes. E.g., the sexual identity ‘homosexual’ becomes a gender identity (transgender)."

Page 103 "Homosexuality refers to the sexual desire of a feminine gendered male for another male."

"A homosexual is thus a feminine gendered male who desires another male."

"The sexual desire of a masculine gendered male for another male does not need a separate terminology. No separate identity or description is required to describe a masculine gendered man who desires another man, as it is a near universal male quality."

"Most homosexuals describe feeling different from other boys, even before they discover their sexuality. This difference is primarily because of their feminine gender but is wrongly associated with a sexual desire for men. Homosexual men look for a separate identity from masculine men."

"Masculine gendered men who are in touch with their same-sex feelings do not feel ‘different’ from other men, and they do not like to be segregated into a separate social category."

(16) Non-normative Sex/Gender Categories in the Theravada Buddhist Scriptures; Compiled by Peter A. Jackson http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue-April-1996/Jacksonref.html

Quotes:

“The Pali canon contains numerous references to homoerotic behaviour and to individuals who today would be variously identified as hermaphrodites, transvestites, transsexuals and homosexuals. However, none of the sex/gender categories named in the canon precisely matches any of these contemporary notions, but combines instead elements of these diverse physiological, gender and sexual conditions in distinctive formulations. “

“The Vinaya identifies four main sex/gender types: male and female, and two additional categories, called ubhatobyanjanaka and pandaka in Pali.”

“it appears that among the early Buddhist communities men who engaged in receptive anal sex were seen as feminized and thought to be hermaphrodites. In contrast, men who engaged in oral sex were not seen as crossing sex/gender boundaries, but rather as engaging in abnormal sexual practices without threatening their masculine gendered existence.“

(17) Kathoey; Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathoey

The term kathoey or katoey (Thai: กะเทย, IPA: [kaʔtʰɤːj]) generally refers to a male-to-female transgender person or aneffeminate gay male in Thailand.

(18) Hijras; Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_%28South_Asia%29#_note-11

Quote:

“In the culture of the Indian subcontinent a hijra (also known by a number of different names and romanized spellings) is usually considered a member of "the third sex" — neither man nor woman. Most are physically male or intersex, but some are female. Hijras usually refer to themselves as female at the language level, and usually dress as women.”

“Kothis are regarded as feminine men or boys who take a feminine role in sex with men, but do not live in the kind of intentional communities that hijras usually live in. Local equivalents include durani (Kolkata),menaka (Cochin),[3] meti (Nepal), and zenana (Pakistan).”

“These identities have no exact match in the modern Western taxonomy of gender and sexual orientation.”

(19) Masculinity for boys: A guide for peer educators; Published by UNESCO, New Delhi http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001465/146514e.pdf

Quote:

Page 63 "Case Study: In a series of workshops on masculinity conducted by an NGO with men of all ages in several cities of North India, the men described a famous TV character Dilruba as a ‘homo’. Dilruba is a limp-wristed, extremely feminine person, but his sexual interest is only in women. On the other hand, two masculine men who have sex exclusively with each other (and not with women) were not identified as ‘homo’."

(20) Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World, Review of Joseph Massad’s book: Desiring Arabs; http://www.al-bab.com/arab/articles/text/massad.htm

"It is among members of these richer segments of society that the Gay International has found native informants. Although members of these classes who engage in same-sex relations have more recently adopted a western identity (as part of the package of the adoption of everything western by the classes to which they belong), they remain a minuscule minority among those men who engage in same-sex relations and who do not identify as “gay” nor express a need for gay politics."

(21)Masculinity for boys: A guide for peer educators; Published by UNESCO, New Delhi http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001465/146514e.pdf

Page 100

“Case Study: The HIV/ AIDS intervention programme being implemented in India, which is heavily funded by foreign donors, is being used by certain vested interest groups to divide the Indian male society along the lines of sexual orientation, and create a homosexual identity. Although, it has not worked and the only takers for the homosexual identity have ben the English speaking feminine gendered males, the entire social machinery — including the media and the government — has put its weight behind this endeavour.

After the failure of the homosexual identity amongst Indian men, some 'gay' activists introduced a clever term ‘MSM’, i.e., ‘men who have sex with men’ which, being a technical term, was difficult to avoid. However, this has become another third sex identity, and is used only by / for feminine males. Ironically, the indigenous feminine gendered males (e.g. the Hijras) too reject this identity, since they do not consider themselves ‘men’.”

(59.178.87.8 (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

(Masculinity (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

Content discussion on NON WESTERN CONCEPTS OF MALE SEXUALITY

• I agree that this content might be used to make a good article, perhaps Modern same-sex relations in non-western cultures per Haiduc, with a summary section here in Homosexuality. — Becksguy (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, while I was still making changes to the above proposed additions, my internet connection collapsed (till today), and I was not even able to sign the message. I'm correcting that now. (Masculinity (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

Becksguy, thank you for your encouraging remarks. The concept of male sexuality referred to in this addition is more or less there since at least the medieval times. And before that, it was even more farther than the concept prevalent in modern west today. Hence, The title should be something like "Traditional same-sex relations in non-western cultures", or "same-sex relations in traditional, non-western cultures". (Masculinity (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

There are also problems with using the terms 'homosexuality', 'same-sex' and 'opposite sex' in the context of man to man relations in these non-western societies:

1. The first problem with the term homosexuality is that in a situation when there is such a strong stigma against man to man sex in the society at the formal level, eventhough man-man bonds flourish in men's spaces -- albeit quietly; then forcibly identifying this sexual attraction in such a clinical way (as homosexuality) is suicidal for its quiet existence in the mainstream men's group. This is in much the same way as labelling of HIV positive people would would persecute them in a society with a lot of hostility towards HIV patients. I'm not saying that same-sex desire is a disease like HIV, but the stigma is just as strong.

2. But, if it the concept of homosexuality was technically correct, then one may be forced to live with it. However, the concept of homosexulity is technically faulty, at least in the context of non-western societies. This is because of the difference is what is considered same-sex and what is considered opposite-sex in the two respective societies.

The western society does not recognise gender (that is inner masculinity or femininity) as a valid phenomenon. It insists that men can only be masculine by nature and femininity arises only because of social influences. So, when it seeks to judge whether two people are same-sex or opposite sex, it only considers their outer-sex as shown by their genitalia.

In all the non-western societies, and even in western societies before Christianity (which is responsible for de-recognising human Gender), it is accepted that males can also be feminine by nature, and that makes them a different gender than males who are masculine gendered. People's identity consist not only of their outer sex, but also of their inner-sex or Gender or masculinity or Femininity.

In this case, calling a sexual relationship between a Hijra and a man as 'homosexual' is not technically correct in these societies.

Again, a man who likes men, and a feminine gendered male (Hijra) who likes males cannot be brought under the same category on the basis of possessing the same-sexuality, because they are not seen as having the same-sexuality. A man who likes men is different from a Hijra who likes men, just as he is different from a woman who likes men. The three of them come from three different Genders, a division that the so-called "sexual orientation" seeks to break.

3. Also, the concept of 'homosexuality' comes with several harmful baggages that go against the beliefs of the men's spaces in the non-western societies, especially, the assumption that says that only a few men 'possess' homosexuality, while the rest are exclusively or primarily 'heterosexual'. These baggages further stigmatise man to man bonds for men in these societies. Leaving only the Hijras and other feminine gendered males to claim it as their inherent quality. (Masculinity (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

I have created the discussed page. It's here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-western_concepts_of_male_sexuality#_note-0

But I can't seem to fit in the references like they're meant to. Can someone else do this? thanx.

(Masculinity (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Inappropriate inclusion

The following diff shows a text that I removed and that was replaced. It gives undue weight to a discredited practice that is only supported by religious dogma. It may have a place in Wikipedia since it is published, but not in an already massively overloaded overview article. Haiduc (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is consensus that content on reparative or religious conversion therapy belongs in Conversion therapy, if anywhere, but not in Homosexuality. Reparative or conversion therapy has no mainstream support and that study by Nicolosi has been criticized as a consumer poll without statistical or scientific valididy. In fact, the title is "Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: A consumer survey of conversion therapy clients", a self admitting survey and non random sampling report. I don't see how anyone can take that reference seriously. Nicolosi is also the president of NARTH, hardly an independent or reliable source. The content you had seems fine to me, especially as it does acknowledge the existence of this theory in appropriate balance, per WP:UNDUE. You're content was: Some religions claim that gay men and lesbians can change their sexual orientations through religious faith and practice. This position is not supported by mainstream science. I agree with restoring that version, per WP:UNDUE and WP:RS and WP:V The only thing that should be changed is to add a pointer to Conversion therapy. — Becksguy (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. How did that sneak in there? Rivertorch (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The removed survey was published by the APA and is therefore a reliable source, even if it was written by the previous president of NARTH (Byrd is the current president.) As Becksguy pointed out, the survey is not meant to reflect the effectiveness of conversion therapy, but how effective people feel that they are at changing their orientation. Not everyone who was surveyed underwent conversion therapy. Many were just simply attending an ex-gay conference. The general subject of change is broader than conversion therapy or ex-gay-like changes. Many people change their orientation without therapy or having any relation to an ex-gay group. Medical organizations do not deny this, and only question whether the change came through the therapy. (quote:APA does not dispute that some people leave homosexuality. Their concern is how that change comes about.)[27] The statement "Some religions claim that gay men and lesbians can change their sexual orientations through religious faith and practice. This position is not supported by mainstream science" is misleading. Saying there is no evidence that conversion therapy works is not the same thing as saying sexual orientation is innate and that no one changes. In fact, "mainstream medical organizations" say the opposite: "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime."[28] Nothing in there contradicts mainstream medical organizations. THIS IS NOT ABOUT CONVERSION THERAPY. It drives me nuts how people so quickly assign any talk about change as conversion or reparative therapy. I do find it ironic that one of the reasons for removing it was that it "is only supported by religious dogma," when it was placed in the religious section. Even if that statement were true (for which I would need a reliable source to verify) that's really the only requirement to be in the religious section anyway. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless where it was published it is fringy stuff that misrepresents the consensus view about the success rate of conversion therapy. You are misleading the reader. This material can only go in the "Conversion therapy" article,probably under a "Propaganda" subheader. Haiduc (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, at last, a citation to an actual medical organization. The passage cited isn't very well written, but it appears to refer to a person's changing awareness of his or her sexual orientation, not to the overall orientation changing; it's talking primarily about identity, not feelings or behavior. As to the larger issue, the APA site is vast. Just because something is found on a given site doesn't mean it's reliable. Rivertorch (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not about conversion therapy. It about people with ego-dystonic homosexuality and their experiences in trying to change their sexual orientation. Some of the participants were involved in conversion therapy, but not all of them. Rivertorch said the article is not talking about the overall orientation changing, but about the identity. Sexual orientation is defined in this article to be "a person's enduring identity as disposed to romantic and sexual attractions and relationships with those of the same sex, and not narrowly to their sexual behavior." The text only reports what the people reported, nothing more. Neither the text nor the original article makes a statement as to whether or not their underlying attractions have actually changed. Haiduc said it was fringy stuff, but I haven't seen anything professional done that disputes it. Instead, I have seen it used in other scientific articles.[29] Joshuajohanson (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, feel free to cite one. That external link sure doesn't qualify. Rivertorch (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not? It was published by the APA[30]. I just had the link to his web site because you can read the entire article for free there. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. There is so much going on with this article right now that I'm having trouble keeping track. The whole idea of attempting to change one's sexual orientation seems so bizarre and grounded in cultural bias, and I'm unsure of the context of the published survey. The APA is a huge organization whose journal, if I recall correctly (it's been years since I've seen a copy), has a variety of content, not just the findings of peer-reviewed work. At the moment, I'm very disturbed by some of today's edits (which have nothing to do with the topic of this section, so ignore my rambling) which seem highly POV, but I just don't have the energy to put up a reasoned protest. Rivertorch (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Kindly explain what counts as valid citation

I added several references of published materials in places where tags that said "citation needed" were placed by the editor. But they were instantly removed without assigning a reason. Can someone please guide me as to what is exactly needed as citation, so that I can work to provide them. regards. (Masculinity (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Try WP:CITE. --Moni3 (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality in law

Hi,

I just wanted to point out that there is no mention of the fact that South Africa is the only country in the world to have homosexual rights enshrined in its constitutions. It is illegal to discriminate against someone based on gender, age, race or sexual orientation (or something along those lines). I think it was enacted in 1997, which is only 3 years after the end of Apartheid… pretty cool for a country that was for so many years the very bastion of bigotry and discrimination in the world.

cheers

Jason —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.132.19 (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that. There's an article dealing with this topic, Homosexuality laws of the world. I'm not sure if that info should be added here since it's covered in that article, but it might be a good idea? I don't know, we'll see what others think. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "homosexuality" or "homosexual" should not be used to describe same-sex animal bonding

Since these terms are basically specific to modern western societies, it is inappropriate to use these terms vis-a-vis sexual bonding between male animals or female animals.

Also, like in humans, more than one genders have been established amongst animals as well. Therefore, it is pointless to use a concept for animals which only talks about sexual combinations between only two genders -- male and female. (Masculinity (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

"Homosexuality" is clearly defined in the lead as denoting either sexual behaviour or an identity. While homosexuality as identity may be culturally and historically specific to the modern West, homosexuality as behaviour is as widespread and "natural" as the behaviour (e.g. sex between men) it denotes. The fact of homosexual behaviour is far more invariant across cultures and historical epochs than the narrow sense of homosexuality as a category of personal identity.--Agnaramasi (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Further, the phrase "same-sex behavior" is utterly meaningless. Rivertorch (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Agnaramasi and Rivertorch. It is entirely appropriate to refer to homosexual behaviour in non-human animals. I believe that ethologists use this term, and as that is the term used in the scientific literature, Wikipedia is in no position to change it. Aleta ^Sing 19:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Science heavily draws from the Western culture, and it is not perfect, in many respects. E.g. it has taken the concepts of sexual orientation (in fact it created it based upon the unproven assumptions) as absolute truth. However, there can very well be a referenced dispute regarding its use, and in case it is found, I think then there will be a case to use a more neutral term, or mention that a dispute is there. (Masculinity (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

Is this a debate in the scientific literature? If not, then it is not relevant here. Sociological debates are not appropriate for this context. Show me a debate amongst zoologists, and we can put it here. Aleta ^Sing 18:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What term is more neutral? Homosexual (literally) translates to "same gender" or "same sex". I'm not sure if the neutral term you wanted to change to was "same-sex" but homosexual is the exact same thing, albeit latinized. The problem with using "same-sex" is the term is ambiguous. Are we talking about pure sexual interaction, or emotions and feelings, or both? Homosexual (in scientific usage) is a purist definition: it's used to describe sexual interactions between the same gender. There is no dispute among zoologists on that.

Science certainly isn't perfect, however, Wikipedia isn't in the business of deciding what science should do, instead we report on what it does do. And for this issue, science describes sexual interaction between the same sex as homosexual. Given that, so do we. Remember, the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Justin ^chat 00:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph

I'm seeing several problems with the current lead that I think can be resolved without too much controversy by cleaning up the language and respecting some distinctions. (These are mostly unrelated to the social constructivist-style critique Agnaramasi raised above.)

• The lead says sexual orientation refers to an identity. Identity issues are one aspect of sexual orientation, but not the only one. Sexual orientation also refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to men, to women, or to both sexes" (see blockquote below). These two aspects (identity and disposition) are interrelated, but not synonymous, and they should be distinguished.
• The lead contrasts homosexuality with bisexuality and heterosexuality, but does so without discussing the "continuum" amongst the three that is often acknowledged by mainstream sources.
• The lead does not contrast homosexuality or sexual orientation with biological sex, gender identity, or social gender role. That distinction is, again, regularly drawn in the literature.

Here is an excellent definition endorsed by both APAs (psychology and psychiatry) and several other professional associations that mostly looks like Wikipedia's lead, but addresses the three problems I raised:

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to men, to women, or to both sexes. It also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them. [Omitted citation to two prominent mental health encyclopedias and one journal article.] Although sexual orientation ranges along a continuum from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual, it is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having sexual and romantic attraction primarily or exclusively to members of the other sex), homosexual (having sexual and romantic attraction primarily or exclusively to members of one’s own sex), and bisexual (having a significant degree of sexual and romantic attraction to both men and women). Sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and sexuality, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological, and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and social gender role (adherence to cultural norms defining feminine and masculine behavior). [31] (pp. 28-29 of pdf file.)

With all that in mind, here's my proposed first paragraph (citations omitted):

Homosexuality refers to sexual behavior or attraction between people of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to" people of the same sex; "it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them." While "sexual orientation ranges along a continuum from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual," homosexuality is often contrasted with heterosexuality (primary or exclusive opposite-sex attraction) and bisexuality (a significant degree of attraction to both sexes).

Homosexuality is also distinguished from other aspects of sexuality, "including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological, and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and social gender role (adherence to cultural norms defining feminine and masculine behavior)."

It's a bit quote-heavy, but I think this proposal best captures the contemporary medical/mental health definition of homosexuality. Fireplace (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

When you define homosexuality as 'same-sex', the first problem that arises is that in several parts of the non-West, the definition of what is 'same-sex' and what is 'opposite-sex' is quite different than the West. Thus a feminine gendered male, who is seen as a third sex, different than male sex, is not considered the 'same-sex' as a man. So any relationship between them is seen as 'heterosexuality' not 'homosexuality' as per the Western definition. (Masculinity (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

I agree that there should be a section on "non-Western" models of sexuality somewhere in the article. Once the debate settles down at Non-western concepts of male sexuality‎ and a good summary can be written up, it'll be easy enough to include it in the summary-style homosexuality article. Since no one has raised any other objections, I'm going to go ahead with the changes I proposed (maybe with some minor tweaks to get rid of the reliance on quotes). Fireplace (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

repressed homosexuality

Dear all,

I could not figure out how to request an article while browsing Wikipedia (and the rest of the web) for 'repressed homosexuality'. Even though I did find the term 'closeted' listed I was hoping for some more information based on psychology. There must have been studies carried out and I am sure it is of interest to the wider (especially gay) audience/researchers. Google didn't offer much help apart from a lot of articles relating to 'repressed homosexuality' as a reason for homophobia.

Please help me out here.

Regards, David Duvel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.253.200 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed study "Comparative Data..."

I've removed this "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons" study from the page in question, and please do not reinsert it. One look at the "sampling methodology" used by its authors, and anyone with a basic college-level statistics course can tell you why.

As I currently am studying at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, I have academic access to the SpringerLink PDF archive, and have read the actual published article. Those with similar access can read it here: [32]

This "study" says it consisted of a sample of 981 people. All well and good. Until you look at the actual breakdown of these 981 people.

39 people were excluded for not filling out their sexual orientation or gender. OK, fine. That still leaves 942, a reasonable statistical sample.

Except that this "sample" was not actually a statistical sample.

675 of the responses were graduate or undergraduate students at colleges or universities in central California. The survey was simply handed out en masse to classes - no attempt was made to determine what percentage of them were returned. Only those self-selected students who chose to return them were counted.

A self-selected population comprised solely of "graduate and undergraduate students at colleges or universities in central California" has no statistical validity. It's an impossibly skewed demographic and geographic grouping whose responses cannot be statistically considered to be representative of the broader population.

Even more absurd is the fact that of those 675 responses, the study admits that "there were only three homosexual men and seven homosexual women in the college group." I would suggest that any sample of 675 college students in California which claims to have found only 10 gays and lesbians, is prima facie suspect. Which colleges were sampled - private Christian colleges only, perhaps? We don't know. The study doesn't tell us.

But what about the other 267? Oh, this is even better. Those were collected by opening up a booth at a central California gay pride festival, and then collecting data from the self-selected persons who chose to stop at the table and fill out the survey.

I really shouldn't even have to explain why this renders the data thus collected hopelessly irrelevant. But I will anyway.

This is a self-selected sample of people who stopped at a booth, which is itself a self-selected sample of only those people who chose to attend a single gay pride event in a single place in a single state. You cannot use such data to predict or extrapolate anything upon a broader population

So what we have is a self-selected (and miniscule) sample of a few college students in central California combined with a self-selected (and small) sample of people who self-selected to attend a gay pride event.

There can be no statistical validity claimed for any of this, and its findings are thus entirely useless. FCYTravis (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

the problem is, it's from a genuinely reliable source. your opinion of why the study is flawed is not sufficient grounds from removing properly sourced material from WP. if the study is as outrageous as you claim - find a WP:RS that says just that. WP editors however are not reliable sources. i have no axe to grind in this, i don't care one way or the other. but simply saying "i think this study is invalid" isn't an acceptable policy-based rationale for censoring it. Anastrophe (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is from a reliable source does not mean that we have to include it. There is no policy requiring us to include all material. I have demonstrated why we should not be including it, and I would request that you cease senseless reverting and make an argument as to why we should include it. This "study" is making a claim that it cannot statistically support, using fatally broken sampling techniques that render it entirely useless for making any sort of suggestion that this is a representative group of gays and lesbians. In short, using it here is a deceptive attack on gays and lesbians, and you are abetting that. FCYTravis (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

no, you've not given a valid rationale for removing it. your rationale appears to be "i don't like it". your opinion that the study is invalid is not a rationale that can survive any scrutiny. you're an editor on wikipedia, not a reliable source for a claim that the study is invalid. please stop trying to censor material you don't like. Anastrophe (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

response to your modified comments above: again, your opinion that the study isn't valid is meaningless. also, note that you are way, way in violation of 3RR here. please do not remove the material again. you have yet to provide a policy-based rationale for removing the material. Anastrophe (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, excuse me? I'm not in violation of anything. That's a false accusation. I've removed the particular section in question exactly twice. Diffs, please, if you want to claim otherwise. Oh, but you can't, because you just made that up... too bad.

As far as my rationale being "I don't like it," that's utterly hilarious. "I don't like it" because the statistical methodology is useless and a five-second look at the study proves that. I've taken the time to sit down and read the study. Have you?

You can go on blindly reverting all you like, but it doesn't change that fact, and I guess we'll just have to make this a slow-mo revert war for the next 20 years. FCYTravis (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

my apologies, i was looking at the wrong diffs. no, you have not violated 3RR. not formally. but your last statement above suggests plans to revert after 24 hours, which is a violation of 3RR even if not done within 24 hours. i will remind you again: you are an anonymous editor on wikipedia. your credentials are unverifiable and immaterial. are you suggesting that the National Institute of Health is not a reliable source? i welcome taking that to the RS noticeboard. if the study is as badly constructed as you suggest, then surely it will be easy to find some reliable source that corroborates your opinion. simply having the opinion that the study sucks isn't a valid rationale for removing material that cites a reliable source. it's as simple as that. Anastrophe (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The study isn't published by the National Institutes of Health. That's a Medline reference, meaning that it's shown up in one of the bazillion publications that Medline indexes. Again, you're showing that you quite literally don't know what you're talking about... because you haven't taken the time to do anything except revert me.

I suggest that you take a look at the study, and I will send you a copy (academic fair use) if you are willing to look for yourself and see how bad it is.

The fact that it has been published is immaterial. There is nothing in policy that says we must include everything ever published. We have the right - and indeed, the duty - to make editorial judgments about what we republish and what we don't republish. I have made the editorial judgment that this study - especially as cited, in a deceptive way to imply that this means that most gays are turned gay by being molested - is not fit to republish in the encyclopedia. You disagree. Verily. We shall see what happens. FCYTravis (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

i make no pretense to knowing what i'm talking about. i am also an encyclopedia user as well as editor. i do not rely upon other editors claims of expertise in just blindly accepting your judgement that the material is junk. from the abstract, it was published in the 'Archives of Sexual Behavior', and was conducted by the 'California School of Professional Psychology, Fresno, California'. this is a far cry from a study published by, say, the westboro baptist "church". true, even respected organizations publish junk, but the likelyhood tends to be lower. when respected organizations publish junk, it usually gets press, or public outcry, or academic outcry. the latter is the best, as it gives an excellent basis for rebuttal of the claim, which is far better than simple removal. if you're willing to email me a copy, that'd be fine, but i can't claim i'm qualified to judge it myself. nor can i say that i'll be reading it tonight, as it's late where i am. but i'll take a look at it tomorrow. Anastrophe (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to re-publish everything that has ever been published, but that isn't the question. The question is when to start censoring stuff that is already up here, and on what grounds. You said it isn't worth republishing, but according to google, at least 26 other schoolarly papers considered it worth republishing.[33]

The difficulties in doing studies with homosexuals is well noted. (see Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Measurement_difficulties) I think this is one of the better ones. Consider the penis size survey, which relied on self-reported data over the internet. Or the brain one by Simon LeVay, in which he only had a few cadavers and the only thing he knew about them was that they died of AIDS (as if only homosexuals dies of AIDS). It isn't up to us to decide what is acceptable or not, and apparently the scientific community has accepted it.Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think this is one of the better ones, you're kidding yourself. No, sorry, the scientific community hasn't accepted it - I note that the only Web sites which cite this "study" as a source, are right-wing anti-gay Christian nutjob sites. Of which apparently Wikipedia is now one. For now.

I have rewritten the section to accurately and in detail describe the survey, the facts of its (blatantly obviously flawed) sampling methodology and provided reliably sourced criticism. Oh, and thrown in a POV tag for good measure.

I note that if you want the survey in here, you cannot possibly logically object to a thorough, factual accounting of where the survey got its data, allowing readers to decide if they trust that data.

It is also a fact that such methods of data collection are statistically non-scientific, thus describing it as such is merely listing another fact about it. As is noting that it is impossible to extrapolate the results to any broader population, due to the wholly self-selected nature of survey respondents. Basic statistics - surveys which aren't based on random samples will not produce results that can be applied to any broader population. That's referenced as well. FCYTravis (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You said "you cannot possibly logically object to a thorough, factual accounting of where the survey got its data." That is correct, I don't. However, I do think the second to last sentence you added was not professionally written, has a lot of OR, is POV, and the reference you gave does not mention the survey in question. You also say that only nutjob web sites cite this source, but I showed 26 scholarly papers that cite it.[34] I guess maybe you should have enlightened those scholars on the "blatantly obviously flawed" nature of this survey, because they apparently didn't catch it when they cited it.Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Either you can accept this compromise version, or we'll go back to edit-warring. There is nothing POV about pointing out that a flawed methodology makes a survey statistically useless. Its results cannot be used in any way, shape or form to extrapolate to larger populations because the sample is not statistically useful. FCYTravis (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

there are errors in your contentions. first, you suggest that the failure to ask whether the incidents were consensual or coerced isn't necessarily what is being argued. second, nowhere in the material presented in the article does it suggest that it is to be extrapolated to larger populations. i don't disagree that the study appears flawed; however, let third party reliable sources make those arguments. don't impose your own arguments into the material. you have expanded the section with lengthy OR as to why it is invalid. the parenthetical barely passes MOS. it's clear that you don't like the results of the survey. again: let third party reliable sources make the arguments. the study was published in 2001 - surely there are reliable sources out there that have critiqued it in much the way you have. Anastrophe (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's true that regardless of what expertise, experience, degrees, affiliations, or credentials we may have in real life, here we are equal in terms of those credentials, since On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. However, we do made decisions all the time, selecting a source to use from a set of possible sources. The study in question: (Tomeo ME, Templer DI, Anderson S, Kotler D. (2001). "Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons". Archives of Sexual Behavior.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)) is the kind of pseudo scientific studies touted by right wing groups like the Family Research Council and NARTH and is similar to the reparative therapy and anti-gay talking points used to promote their anti-gay agenda and ex-gay activism. Also, Paul Cameron, an author of a cited study in the Tomeo study, has been found to have lied to a court, was kicked out of the American Psychological Association in 1983 for cause, and has been criticized in the profession and press. Yet this study used data from Cameron despite his questionable credibility and serious questions about his data. Finally, the Tromeo study itself acknowledged: It must also be borne in mind that the present homosexual participants may not be representative of homosexual persons. FCYTravis is correct that this study has major methodology errors. It is statistically flawed, even in their own words. — Becksguy (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think every study should be taken in the appropriate light. I like Tomeo's summary "It must also be borne in mind that the present homosexual participants may not be representative of homosexual persons." I think that is true of almost any scientific study, and especially true of studies done on homosexuality. I have yet to see one single study on homosexuality that uses a good random sample. The study is important, but it isn't conclusive evidence. I think Tomeo's summary would be a good referenced, reliable source to add to Wikipedia. But just because a study isn't perfect doesn't mean it should be removed. Just because an unreliable source quotes it, doesn't negate the several reliable sources which also quote it, an important aspect you have yet to address. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Which reliable sources are those? Despite implications to the contrary made above, there is no evidence that the larger scientific community has accepted—or indeed even is aware of—the study in question, so it would be a pretty tall order to find something scholarly and reliable-sourceish in the way of a published refutation. It has been suggested that the lack of such refutation should result in its retention in the article. I cannot agree.

Let's try using a little perspective. The mere fact that someone conducted a study (one of thousands initiated every day) resulting in a thesis (not reprinted in any major scholarly journal) accepted by a faculty committee (one that just happens to be headed by someone with a history of openly racist beliefs) at a (third-rate) grad school does not make it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Certainly, no reputable print encyclopedia or reference work of any kind would touch it. As FCYTravis and Becksguy noted, the only organizations citing it appear to be those with staunchly repressive political agendas. Whether these groups are taking parts of a deeply flawed study out of context for their own purposes or the study itself was biased by design is beside the point for the purposes of this discussion. If, as editors, we are to be something better than robots we should be able to do some sorting of wheat from chaff, but we'd probably have to read the whole thesis to do that in this case; an abstract doesn't cut it.

I'd have no problem with a mention of it in the article if we worded it something like this:

According to a dissertation written by a student at the California School of Professional Psychology, Fresno campus (now part of Alliant International University), [brief summary, including the nature of the study's methodology and the author's own disclaimers as to problems with same].

It doesn't sound particularly encyclopedic, but at least it couldn't be used to support unfounded claims, which is one of the things (along with more derision at sloppy Wikipedianism) we're risking otherwise. Rivertorch (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope that I am not repeating anything already said, but I do not think this, an overloaded article on the generalities of homosexuality, is the proper article for such a study, especially in light of the fact it is an informal one. Perhaps a detailed article for the etiology of same sex love might be appropriate. Haiduc (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"What reliable sources are those?" THESE>>>click here<<< Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

i've trimmed the para down. it's now one sentence stating what the study claims, and one sentence stating that the study was fatally flawed. in terms of WP:WEIGHT, it's one, two-sentence paragraph in the article, which is appropriate. Anastrophe (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's unacceptable. You've whitewashed the facts of how piss-poorly the data was collected. Either we detail the specifics and allow readers to decide if they trust a non-random, unscientific convenience-sampled"survey" of 10 gay college students from Central California and 260 gay people who attended a gay pride event in Central California, or we take it out entirely. I note that the weight of opinion on this issue seems to indicate that we should either remove the study altogether, or clearly indicate its statistical invalidity. FCYTravis (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Joshuajohanson, for the link. I didn't state my thought very clearly. That there are citations cannot be denied per se, but it is impossible to know their nature. The authors of those papers may have merely thrown the Tomeo study into their bibliographies after finding it indexed somewhere and without having read it. Or they may have cited it specifically in order to warn colleagues that its worthless methodology resulted in bogus findings. Some of us with university library access and a little spare time should be able to check on the nature of the citations; I am not so fortunate. In any case, I was looking for something in a reputable journal that clearly made mention of the study in question in a positive or neutral way. The abstracts associated with your link indicate topics that are peripherally related, at best, to the topic at issue—an alleged correlation between sexual abuse and sexual orientation; it is doubtful that they support the Tomeo methodology, let alone its findings.

I have made a couple minor changes: we don't need to say that the student who conducted the study was a doctoral student since that's what students at a "school of professional psychology" generally are, and I specified the Fresno campus since the campuses of the school in question are accredited and ranked separately. From the standpoint of accuracy and neutrality, I support the paragraph as it currently stands. From the standpoint of relevance to the article and overall encyclopedic worthiness, I'd rather see it vanish. Rivertorch (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the current wording is still too much like OR. NGLTF lay out basically the same arguments for why this study is invalid, why don't we just cite and quote them explicitly? (As in, "The NGLTF criticized the study, noting that ...") Reliable sources should make arguments, not Wikipedia. Let the facts speak for themselves. (And citing Herek's statistics article is borderline violation of WP:V as it has nothing to do with this particular study, though the way it is cited it appears that way. We can do better.) — confusionball (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis, you are violating wikipedia policies with your edits. Confusionball says it well. it's quite clear that you don't like the study. that's not a license to insert your own editorial opinion regarding the quality of the study. the "study" that found that gay men had larger penises is presented without such critique, yet it suffers similar problems of self-selection and reliability of reporting.

let me be clear here. this study was published in 2001. it is seven years later. the study has been critiqued by NGLTF. their critique is an appropriate rebuttal (much like the citation that a study found that gay men and lesbians were more verbally fluent than heterosexuals, but that two other studies found no such correlation). either the article is rigorous in rejecting inclusion of material that is questionable (this study, the penis length study, the verbal fluency study, etc), or it presents material that may be questionable but provides rebuttal from reliable third-party sources - not rebuttal by editors. editors may rebut material here, on the talk page - not within article space. please stop. Anastrophe (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Then we'll just remove it entirely, as being a discredited and statistically invalid survey which makes unsupportable assertions based on a wholly unscientific sampling method that cannot be used to make any conclusions about a broader population. Fine by me. FCYTravis (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

great. and we'll remove the penis length study (based entirely on self-reporting - unreliable) and the verbal fluency study (countered by two other studies that found no such correlation - standard of science, repeatability, trumps inclusion of a study with non-repeatable results, yes?). Anastrophe (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL! If the penis length study is based entirely on self-reporting, then I'd definitely say that's unreliable and agree that it should be removed. I... am fascinated by the idea that people in general would be trusted to accurately report that number :) I'd have to take a look at the verbal fluency study, but at the very least we should mention that two other studies have not been able to repeat its results. FCYTravis (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

re the penis length study, that's what the abstract cited says. for the verbal fluency, that entry cites the two studies that contradict the first. that would be my preferred method for this study in question. rebutting a questionable study is better than simply censoring it. Anastrophe (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't censorship. It's called editing. It's what we do on Wikipedia. That's why we're here - to choose what material does and does not go into an article. If we didn't have that responsibility, none of us would be here - we could just throw a million words into this article from every single side and call it done. Of course, that wouldn't be an encyclopedia article.

The results of the "survey" in question, and particularly the way the passage was written ("68% of the men and 38% of the women did not identify as gay or lesbian until after the molestation.") plant the inference in people's minds that somehow the broader gay population "turned gay" because they were abused as kids. This is a highly offensive and extremely controversial conclusion - given all that we know about sexual orientation, the idea that people "turn gay" for any reason is a extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary proof.

But this survey is not "extraordinary proof," not in the least. It is a FACT that this survey was so poorly conducted, its self-selected sample so non-scientific, that it HAS NO VALIDITY for statistical inferences. Period. That study is valid only for its sample population - it cannot be used to make any statistical claims about the broader population. This is a statistical fact and you can keep arguing "sources" all you want until you're blue in the face - it is a fact that a non-random sample is statistically useless because we have no idea how well the sample population correlates to the population at large. That is Statistics 101, and obviously you haven't taken a stats class. The survey's methodology (open a booth at a gay pride event) is a joke.

Furthermore, the inference drawn is completely unsupportable, because correlation is not causation. There are many possible reasons why someone wouldn't self-identify as gay or lesbian until a particular time - if they were 10 years old at the time they were abused, they almost certainly have no idea what their sexual orientation is. Sexual orientation often does not manifest itself until puberty - so any gay person who was abused pre-puberty would thus report that they didn't identify as gay or lesbian at the time. To leave readers with the idea that that shows that most gay people became gay after being molested, is not only misleading but intentionally deceptive.

This survey can be demolished several different ways. Its sampling methodology is broken and statistically useless. Its sample population is admittedly and demonstrably unrepresentative. Its inferential conclusions are the result of a logical fallacy. It doesn't belong in this article - and if you're going to edit-war it in, we're going to make sure our readers understand just how useless it is. FCYTravis (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FCYTravis. The thesis should be completely removed, as it's inherently POV, extremely flawed, and totally useless as an indication of anything except the sample population. In short, it's an unreliable source. Even if it were NPOV, what application to gay and lesbian youth does it have in this article? Delete it. And what the hell does penis length have to do with this, as that's a separate issue. — Becksguy (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

it has to do with the inclusion of other unreliable surveys, that are presented uncritically, or as is the case with the verbal fluency study, the inclusion of a study that appears not to have been repeatable, but that entry is presented neutrally, citing that one study says this, but two studies contradict it. all i care about is appropriate and fair application of policies here with regard to what material is included, and what is excluded. is only material that 'negatively' characterizes gay men and women to be excluded, and only material that characterizes them 'positively' to be included? Anastrophe (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that this thread is about the Tomeo thesis, not penis length or verbal fluency. I get your point, but if you want to question or discuss those two issues, or any other issues related to this article, start new threads. I may even agree with you if the arguments are compelling. Trying to discuss different issues at the same time results in decreased focus, clarity, and loss of continuity. One at a time, please. — Becksguy (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

the issue is inclusion or exclusion of survey data. can you point me to a policy that suggests it's forbidden to discuss other areas of the article that have a similar problem to what we're discussing? suggesting that i must start a new thread to discuss the same fundamental issue as is at work here seems less than constructive to me. we have what appears to be a self-selection by editors for less-than-reliable surveys that are complimentary to gays and lesbians, while self-selectedly rejecting material that could be viewed as disparaging of gays as lesbians. the underlying issues are NPOV and WEIGHT, and as such the rest of the article is not excluded from the discussion. Anastrophe (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

as i've said before, i just don't have an axe to grind in this issue. i'll bow out of the debate and this issue here. also as i've said before, all i'm interested in is fair and consistent application of policy. the particular survey at issue here seems pretty stupid, based on FCYTravis's explanation of it (as i said before, i have no access to read the actual study, but i also have no reason to disbelieve FCYTravis's characterization here on the talk page). what makes a person gay or straight is unimportant to me; what is important is equal treatment for people regardless of whether they're gay, lesbian, bi, trans, black, white, green, mentally disabled or gifted, physically disabled or gifted, democrat, republican, communist, catholic, atheist, hindu, or geek. so, ciao for now. Anastrophe (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Anastrophe that the penis survey is relevant because it's comparable: both surveys use questionable methodology (to put it mildly). The penis survey should get zapped. And I've come to believe that so should the Tomeo study. It is not original research to weigh the merits of a published study and decide whether they're of any value to an encyclopedia article. Rivertorch (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I didn't express myself clearly. I don't argue that the penis survey should be kept. I don't argue that that the methodology is not comparable, although I haven't had a chance to look at the one for penile size, but it may be, based on comments here. I was simply suggesting that other concepts/issues would better be served in separate threads so as to keep this one focused on this one issue, specifically the Tomeo thesis. This issue is contentious enough that throwing another one in the pot will potentially confuse the cooks, so to speak. I don't even argue that there isn't a relevance between the two, or three, concepts in the article, due to methodology problems, but isn't that something that should be looked at while discussing the article overall, rather than when dealing with a specific subsection on one particular concept? In other words, if the subject of this thread was ==Debatable survey methodologies==, or similar, then yes, all three (or more) would be relevant. — Becksguy (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with Rivertorch that it's not OR to weigh the merits of a study for inclusion. We do it all the time. BTW, an editor has zapped the whole Tromeo paragraph. Which suits me fine, as I think it was both irredeemably and very POV and also not relevant to the article or to the subsection on Gay and lesbian youth. — Becksguy (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Brothers

The information regarding the effect older brothers have on the likelihood of homosexuality is contradictory.

From: Non-biological explanations - Environment

Having an older brother decreases the rate of homosexuality. Bearman explains that an older brother establishes gendersocializing mechanisms for the younger brother to follow, which allows him to compensate for unisex treatment.

From: Biological explanations - Fraternal birth order

There is evidence from numerous studies that homosexual men tend to have more older brothers than do heterosexual men, known as the "fraternal birth order effect." [121] One reported that each older brother increases the odds of being gay by 33%. [122] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcannuli (talk • contribs) 17:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias

I was looking up the page "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" on Conservapedia and it claims that (from item 48) "The Wikipedia entry for homosexuality is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community, the higher incidences of domestic violence among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality." Here's evidence supporting their argument. I think this page has a pro-gay bias and I will tag this with {{POV}} if these issues aren't resolved. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Conservapedia is not a reliable source. Nor is the Concerned Women for America. If you have reliable sources to verify your claims, that would help. FCYTravis (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the article does in fact say (here):

The American Psychiatric Association has stated that, "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse."

citing the May 2000 fact sheet, and has for some time. — confusionball (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is CWFA not a reliable source? I have come across claims that "activist groups" like CWFA can't really be considered factually accurate. On a similar note, some editors on the Talk:Federalist Society page have objected to the use of People for the American Way as a source because of their activism. If you actually read the Robert Knight article from CWFA's website, then you'll notice that their claims are backed with footnotes for practically every page. This page reads like a brochure by pro-gay activists. I doubt it even meets good article criteria anymore. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article, the CWFA could never be a reliable source because it is a political lobbying group with a political agenda antithetical to the safety, well-being, and civil rights of homosexual Americans. If someone finds a Ku Klux Klan web page that is heavily footnoted, should we accept it as a reliable source for the African American article? Rivertorch (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• The short answer is that CWFA is a hate group and is extremely anti-gay. It isn't activism per se that necessarily makes a source not reliable, it's their lack of editorial oversight process, neutrality within articles, fact checking, and independence from the primary sources. Some sources have a reputation for following those standards, and some don't. — Becksguy (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Whew! Thanks for your input. I also notice discussion regarding the "promiscuity" part. There still needs to be a lot of improvement - do you still believes this article meet Good article status? I will open a GA reassessment if there's consensus here that it doesn't. There are several "citation needed" tags all over the place, one unreferenced section, and two sections needing a "worldwide view". I think I might be a bit more cautious now about the CWfA's fact sheet.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd throw out that "heavily footnoted" means absolutely nothing. If you're going to judge the credibility of a website based merely on number of footnotes, you had better sit down and make sure the works that are being referenced aren't actually, say, recipes for blueberry pie that some clever page designer thought he could get away with listing as a reference, thinking no one would notice.

Also- we should create a page about biases in conservapedia. It would be so long, the servers would likely crash!

L'Aquatique[talk] 21:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

For several reasons, I am removing the image [35] added by VanTucky. Among the reasons (in no particular order):

1. It might work for the homoeroticism article, but it seems needlessly reinforcing of stereotypes to select a decidedly erotic image to lead off this very broad article which addresses many facets of human identity and culture as well as behavior. Why must they be unclothed? Why couldn't they be attending a concert or waxing a car or playing Scrabble or one of the countless other things that many gay men do besides groping each other? In other words, the image doesn't illustrate the article in general and is therefore inappropriate for placement at the top.
2. For articles about humans and their characteristics, it might be as well to pay attention to image placement that gives undue prominence to particular categories of humanity. In this image, both parties are male, white, thin, young, and apparently unblemished in any way. It's fine to have images depicting young, unblemished, thin, white males, but this seems unnecessarily stereotypical. Why don't we shoot for a more abstract image, or at least a less predictable one, for the top of such a major article?
3. It's cheesy soft-porn. (Fortunately, there may be neither policy nor guideline to discourage cheesy soft-porn, but it really detracts from an otherwise serious article).
4. It adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic of the article.
5. The caption ("A pair of homosexual male lovers") makes claims not necessarily borne out by the image itself. How do we know that they're homosexual? Or lovers? (My gut instinct says they're models of unknown sexual orientation, but whatever.)

Tasteful or not, the picture is a distraction and I am reverting it. Rivertorch (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't think people would freak out so much for having a lead image for the article, and lead images aren't a "distraction", they are an enhancement. If you don't like it, pick another, but a lead image is better than none. I just thought that one was good. VanTucky 07:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone else reverted it before I could. I don't think either of us freaked out at all, though. Rivertorch (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a thousand characters of opposition rationale and a rude edit summary of "oh please, you can do better than that" (not by you) is an undue response to the first attempt at adding a completely new image. VanTucky 07:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe I explained my actions in a rather lengthy message on your talk page, VanTucky. I'll repeat them here in a nutshell: I believed it was vandalism, because, well, it looked like vandalism. Once again, if I can off as rude, that was not the intention. L'Aquatique[talk] 08:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if it was vandalism, that is still not an excuse to be rude. Demeaning edit summaries don't dissuade vandals, and they could hurt someone if it turns out it's not. In general, rudeness breeds rudeness, and the less around the project the better. Edit summaries are largely permanent, and it's important to be careful in what you say in them. VanTucky 08:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I was attempting to excuse my actions, not by saying it was because of vandalism, not at all. Again, if I offended you, I apologize. However, I continue to wonder exactly why you added such an... what's a good word... edgy? image, especially when we are talking about a rather delicate subject. Also, there is no need to be defensive. L'Aquatique[talk] 08:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, and apology accepted. It was really just a whim, I guess I didn't think it was that edgy. VanTucky 08:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Excellent. Well, then, I'm calling it a night, it's like one in the morning. Toodles! L'Aquatique[talk] 08:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias

I was looking up the page "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" on Conservapedia and it claims that (from item 48) "The Wikipedia entry for homosexuality is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community, the higher incidences of domestic violence among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality." Here's evidence supporting their argument. I think this page has a pro-gay bias and I will tag this with {{POV}} if these issues aren't resolved. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Conservapedia is not a reliable source. Nor is the Concerned Women for America. If you have reliable sources to verify your claims, that would help. FCYTravis (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the article does in fact say (here):

The American Psychiatric Association has stated that, "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse."

citing the May 2000 fact sheet, and has for some time. — confusionball (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is CWFA not a reliable source? I have come across claims that "activist groups" like CWFA can't really be considered factually accurate. On a similar note, some editors on the Talk:Federalist Society page have objected to the use of People for the American Way as a source because of their activism. If you actually read the Robert Knight article from CWFA's website, then you'll notice that their claims are backed with footnotes for practically every page. This page reads like a brochure by pro-gay activists. I doubt it even meets good article criteria anymore. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article, the CWFA could never be a reliable source because it is a political lobbying group with a political agenda antithetical to the safety, well-being, and civil rights of homosexual Americans. If someone finds a Ku Klux Klan web page that is heavily footnoted, should we accept it as a reliable source for the African American article? Rivertorch (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• The short answer is that CWFA is a hate group and is extremely anti-gay. It isn't activism per se that necessarily makes a source not reliable, it's their lack of editorial oversight process, neutrality within articles, fact checking, and independence from the primary sources. Some sources have a reputation for following those standards, and some don't. — Becksguy (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Whew! Thanks for your input. I also notice discussion regarding the "promiscuity" part. There still needs to be a lot of improvement - do you still believes this article meet Good article status? I will open a GA reassessment if there's consensus here that it doesn't. There are several "citation needed" tags all over the place, one unreferenced section, and two sections needing a "worldwide view". I think I might be a bit more cautious now about the CWfA's fact sheet.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd throw out that "heavily footnoted" means absolutely nothing. If you're going to judge the credibility of a website based merely on number of footnotes, you had better sit down and make sure the works that are being referenced aren't actually, say, recipes for blueberry pie that some clever page designer thought he could get away with listing as a reference, thinking no one would notice.

Also- we should create a page about biases in conservapedia. It would be so long, the servers would likely crash!

L'Aquatique[talk] 21:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

For several reasons, I am removing the image [36] added by VanTucky. Among the reasons (in no particular order):

1. It might work for the homoeroticism article, but it seems needlessly reinforcing of stereotypes to select a decidedly erotic image to lead off this very broad article which addresses many facets of human identity and culture as well as behavior. Why must they be unclothed? Why couldn't they be attending a concert or waxing a car or playing Scrabble or one of the countless other things that many gay men do besides groping each other? In other words, the image doesn't illustrate the article in general and is therefore inappropriate for placement at the top.
2. For articles about humans and their characteristics, it might be as well to pay attention to image placement that gives undue prominence to particular categories of humanity. In this image, both parties are male, white, thin, young, and apparently unblemished in any way. It's fine to have images depicting young, unblemished, thin, white males, but this seems unnecessarily stereotypical. Why don't we shoot for a more abstract image, or at least a less predictable one, for the top of such a major article?
3. It's cheesy soft-porn. (Fortunately, there may be neither policy nor guideline to discourage cheesy soft-porn, but it really detracts from an otherwise serious article).
4. It adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic of the article.
5. The caption ("A pair of homosexual male lovers") makes claims not necessarily borne out by the image itself. How do we know that they're homosexual? Or lovers? (My gut instinct says they're models of unknown sexual orientation, but whatever.)

Tasteful or not, the picture is a distraction and I am reverting it. Rivertorch (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't think people would freak out so much for having a lead image for the article, and lead images aren't a "distraction", they are an enhancement. If you don't like it, pick another, but a lead image is better than none. I just thought that one was good. VanTucky 07:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone else reverted it before I could. I don't think either of us freaked out at all, though. Rivertorch (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a thousand characters of opposition rationale and a rude edit summary of "oh please, you can do better than that" (not by you) is an undue response to the first attempt at adding a completely new image. VanTucky 07:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe I explained my actions in a rather lengthy message on your talk page, VanTucky. I'll repeat them here in a nutshell: I believed it was vandalism, because, well, it looked like vandalism. Once again, if I can off as rude, that was not the intention. L'Aquatique[talk] 08:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if it was vandalism, that is still not an excuse to be rude. Demeaning edit summaries don't dissuade vandals, and they could hurt someone if it turns out it's not. In general, rudeness breeds rudeness, and the less around the project the better. Edit summaries are largely permanent, and it's important to be careful in what you say in them. VanTucky 08:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I was attempting to excuse my actions, not by saying it was because of vandalism, not at all. Again, if I offended you, I apologize. However, I continue to wonder exactly why you added such an... what's a good word... edgy? image, especially when we are talking about a rather delicate subject. Also, there is no need to be defensive. L'Aquatique[talk] 08:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, and apology accepted. It was really just a whim, I guess I didn't think it was that edgy. VanTucky 08:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Excellent. Well, then, I'm calling it a night, it's like one in the morning. Toodles! L'Aquatique[talk] 08:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Typo

Under the section Cognitive differences in gay men and lesbians, the third bullet reads: Gay men may receive higher scores than than non-gay men on tests of object location memory (no difference was found between lesbians and non-gay women). Notice the double "than". This needs to be corrected. It should only read 1 "than". IsmAvatar (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Rivertorch (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)