Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Homosexuality in Animals

An addition I have made is being repeatedly deleted without explaination, I have altered it several times to fix any possible problems but it is now being deleted without an any edit tag

• Male bighorn sheep are divisible into two kinds, the typical males amoung whom homosexual behavior is common and "effiminate sheep" or "behavioral transvestites" which are not known to engage in homosexual behavior. 2 3

if anyone can explain to me whats wrong with it I will hapily alter it, but at the moment I'm getting no constructive feedback

2:12 June 22 2006

I haven't checked your sources, but it looks fine to me. By the way, please sign your comments to talk pages with four tildes, like so: -~~~~ -Smahoney 01:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the first link and it seems perfectly acceptable. So I'll help in the revert wars until the reverter deigns to honor us with her comments :) Wjhonson 22:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, apparently the last revert was an accident: [1]. -Smahoney 01:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please somebody justify "behavioral transvestites". This is in a discussion about sheep: does a behaviorally transvestite sheep wear an angora sweater?

Nuttyskin 16:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism

I'm confused by the wording on this page in the religion section. it says:

Sikhism has no written view on the matter, but Sikh (Punjabi) society is generally ultra masculine and conservative, toleration of any homosexual behaviour or orientation is bound to meet outrage or strong disapproval

but this seems to be in conflict at least in part with the other wiki article "homosexuality and sikhism:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Sikhism

now, while i am not a sikh nor do i pretend to know what's up with sikh and sexuality (which is why i'm on wikipedia) i would suggest that the line in the latter article:

However, other Sikhs believe that Guru Nanak's emphasis on universal equality and brotherhood is fundamentally in support of homosexual's human rights.

kinda goes against the formers "ultra masculine" description (the latter does go on to say that this homosexual acceptance is a minority, but it at least raises the point that no all sikh could be described as ultra-conservative).

finally, the whole description of sikhs as ultra conservative and supra masculine needs to be at least sited if it is going to stay in the article, cause i read it and i think... says who? especially when there's another wiki article that doesn't agree... can we clean this up? --64.142.79.210 04:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Homosexuality" vs. "anal intercourse"

I have been mulling a way to discuss the specificity of religious proscriptions, in the sense that when scriptures condemn "something" they do not condemn usually anything other than anal intercourse. Thus it seems false to claim that they condemn the whole universe of feelings and actions which makes up the experience and expression of homosexuality. Unless I am mistaken, anything short of actual anal penetration is actively ignored by scriptures. This is analogous to the views that 5th c. Athenians, and Republican Rome took of these affairs as well. Any thoughts? Haiduc 13:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You're of course correct when you say that "it seems false to claim that they condemn the whole universe of feelings and actions [most of which, of course, aren't even sexual] which makes up the experience and expression of homosexuality" but it seems to me more and more that when they say "homosexuality" they mean "anal intercourse" (and sometimes even mean "anal intercourse between a man and a woman"). The entire constellation of acts and feelings you refer to above are just decorations orbiting this single, to them alarmingly undesirable, act, if they exist at all. This is, of course, just a crude outline, but one that I at least see in the "arguments" by ex-gay advocates, christian fundamentalists, neo-"Darwinists", neo-Nazis, etc - they all seem to amount to, "ick!", and there's no way to go beyond that action, which for them alone defines homosexuality. So when they say, "the scriptures (or whatever) condemn homosexuality", they mean it, but when they say 'homosexuality' they don't, at all, mean the same thing as you. -Seth Mahoney 19:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The reduction of love relationships to sexual mechanics is a standard polemical tactic of those who oppose them. But I was refering more to being careful we do not inadvertently adopt that logos when describing scriptural material, in this article and others. Haiduc 20:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's still debatable whether or not homosexuality is a "genuine form" of love; it's not proven or commonly accepted that the "whole universe etc." of homosexuality is or isn't forced or faked or even an unhealthy delusion. I'm not criticizing homosexuality here; these aren't my beliefs. But you're talking about something that isn't solid fact, and more importantly, you're talking about the views of those who oppose homosexuality. These people often don't think that there really is anything more to it than sex, so to say that they do or don't condemn "the rest" of homosexuality is not really logical (although you should note that religious groups often condemn non-anal intercourse acts, like kissing and such).

It seems to me like you're just trying to criticize and protest the anti-gay view on the role of sex in homosexual relationships. That's all fine and good, but this isn't the place. 70.171.59.231 07:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to talk about the solid facts of a subject like love, define "love", homosexual, heterosexual, whatever. Seems to me, if the one can exist, by whatever definition you use, then so can the other, in fact i've read old books where a heterosexual man was described as being in love, or infatuated, with another heterosexual man, where "love" meant a great liking and admiration (seem to remember it was kipling, but may be wrong).

I think some of you misunderstand the OP (or perhaps I do), anal intercourse is one kind of sex gay men can have, not the only one, if you look over the hanky code article you'll see gay men make love to full climax in several different ways (thus the necessity for several different colors). That being said I'm not supporting an edit right now since I don't think the "con" section of the article specifically attacks anal intercourse but homosexual sex in general, unless I missed something. 01:11, 21 June

Please define for me what a "genuine" form of love is. And since homosexuals are repeatedly prevented from marrying by religious intolerance please don't use it in your example- homosexuals would love to marry if anyone would let them. Weenerbunny (195.153.124.163 12:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

Opposition

I would suggest expansion of "Political developments" section noting also opposition to emancipation of same-sex relations, and equally the pattern of some of the most vocal opponents at some point being revealed as closeted homosexuals, a la Lonnie Latham. Haiduc 12:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a subliminal gay vibe among 89.9% of men. If you stick around long enough, you’ll find out. A lot of it comes from double connotation wording. You see. I oppose it. It's pathetic.

What's the NPOV issue with the military section?

Why is their currently a tag on the miltary section? I couldn't find anything in the current talk page discussion. Is their still some issue that needs to be addressed with that section? --Cab88 19:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This section needs a complete turn-around. It's just plain wrong. The military goes hand in hand with Christianity, social conservatism, discipline, tradition etc., and these are, like it or not, generally determents to homosexual activity. The "gender segregation" explanation makes absolutely no sense; if you have ever lived in a military community as I have for over a decade (although I realize you have no way of knowing that's true), you'd see that many heterosexual couples meet their spouse in the military! Men and women work side by side all the time. Besides, sex segregation in the military can't have much of an influence, since you can't join until well into your life. As for ancient times, for most civilizations homosexuality has been banned in the military (if not a general ban on the population). The article talks about it having been "documented"; so where's the source? And that picture is ludicrous... they're not kissing, they're fully clothed. I don't think those two are gay. The photo filename is "headbutt.jpg".

This section (as well as much of the article) needs a serious NPOV scan. It looks like it's been hijacked by gays, quite frankly. 70.171.59.231 07:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This is from an (unsigned?) comment:

As for ancient times, for most civilizations homosexuality has been banned in the military (if not a general ban on the population). The article talks about it having been "documented"; so where's the source?

This is bullshit. Start with Sparta and the Sacred Band of Thebes and work your way forward. Homosexual behavior among men in the army wasn't just tolerated, it was encoraged. Pederasty was commonplace in Ancient Greece and Rome, though banned and in decline in the latter, esp. after the adoption of Christianity. See Herodotus's Histories and Plutarch's Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans for primers.

Continuing on, about the "sex segregation": many men join the military between the ages of 18 and 21. This is hardly "well into your life." Many individuals have not yet resolved their sexual identity; but an environment in which men are largely segregated from (with whom do they sleep, bathe, and exercise?), and vastly outnumber, women can cause even heterosexual men to act out in homosexual ways (with the sole goal of satisfying sexual urges). This sitution is more prevalent among enlisted servicemen than officers, which is probably the experience you are relating. This is not to say whether or not it is commonplace (of which few can be sure), but simply to note that it does happen, and the reasons why.

As for the picture, you're absolutely 100% correct. The picture is a demonstration image, taken from a field manual, and is depicting two individuals doing some combat exercise. The caption, and implication, are inappropriate.

I also take concern with the statement

Others, such as the United States, purge them from the force in the belief that they are a threat (see Don't ask, don't tell).

The wording reflects a negative point-of-view towards the attitude of the United States military. Homosexuals are not "purged"—some serve somewhat-openly, though this is quite rare; others serve and hide their identity, which is usually effective; only a select few are ever identified and selected for dismissal. The motivation behind it is not that homosexuals are "a threat", but that they are contrary to the "moral codes", the upholding of which is believed necessary to the operation of the armed forces. Not speaking as Devil's advocate, the policy sucks, but it needs to worded in a more neutral way.

So, to recap: homosexuality did indeed exist in Ancient militaries (should be some specific references in the article), segregation based upon gender may lead to increased homosexual activity and possible discovery of one's sexual orientation (in either direction), the picture (or at least its caption) is inappropriate, and some statements may not be neutral. I will puruse through the section, and try to clean it up. The article is a different matter.—Kbolino 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, just forget all that. I'm rewriting the section.—Kbolino 05:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Psychiatric and physical disorders of practising homosexuals, fidelity, relationship length, promiscuity and unsafe-sex stats

I am astonished that the major article makes no reference to the shocking statistics about the way that many homosexuals choose to live and the psychiatric and physical ramifications of that behavioural choice. One would imagine from the article that homosexuality was a perfectly analogous alternative to heterosexuality.

It is. Then again, some of us can't get enough of both sexual persuasions.

Nuttyskin 17:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Other complete fallacies: That only "religious dogma" opposes homosexuality - actually, even formally atheist countries, (China, USSR, N. Korea etc) either condemn or frown upon homosexual behaviour.

Also, strong evidence that SSA is caused by poor father/child relations.

Furthermore that differences in homosexual/heterosexual men an effect of homosexual behaviour rather than a cause of it.

What an appallingly biased article - completly hijacked by homosexualist activists to push their agenda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.36.91.203 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) ..

Do you happen to have any scientific citations for the claims you've made? Veraticus 20:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There is tons of evidence about homosexual promiscuity, infidelity, brief relationship length, physical disease, mental illness and substance abuse in respected medical journals. [2] is your friend - eg....

Weinberg, M.S. Williams, C.J. Male homosexuals: their problems adaptations. NY: Penguin, 1975.

2. Bell, A. P. Weinberg, M.S. Homosexualaies NY:Simon Schusver, 1978.

3. Spada, J. The Spada repon. NY:Sigmet, 1979

4. Jay, K. Young, A. The gay report. NY:Summit, 1979.

5. Blumstein, P. Schwartz, P. American couples NY:Morrow, 1983.

6. Hunt, A. J., et al. Genitourinary Medicine, 1990, 66, 423427.

7. Orr, K., Morrison, K. Doing it in the 90s. Univ. Toronto Laval Universities, 1993.

8. Kippax, S., et al. AIDS, 1993, 7, 257-263.

9. Osmond, D. H., et al. Amer I Public Health, 1994, 84, 1933-1937.

10. Lever, J. Advocate, Issue 661/662, August, 23, 1994, 15-24.

11. Deenen, A. A., et al. Archives Sexual Behavior,1994, 23, 421431.

12. Wockner, R. Advocate, Issue 726, February 4, 1997, 26.

13. McKusick, L., et al. Amer I Public Health, 1985, 75, 493-496.

[please note dates of articles, 1975-1997. Possibly out of date. --Brad 04:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)]

And that's just for starters. Go and look for it, it's not hard to find. It is hard to come to anything other than a pathological analysis of homosexuality, whatever its causes. The specious identity-politicking in the main article is a disgrace to an "encyclopedia". What an appalling abuse of Wikipedia by a bunch of activists for their own ends.

Oh, and the situtation in Nazi germany was the oppression of "femme" homosexuals by "butch" homosexuals. [3]

Er, also no mention of the fact that countries that have instituted same sex marriage or the equivalent have only seen a take up rate of 1% of the practicing homosexual population.

LOL! Now that's classic. Yes, three "formally atheist countries," all of which are/were totalitarian dictatorships. Nazi Germany condemned homosexual behavior too, but I notice you didn't cite them. Was that on purpose? Gosh damn, such strong arguments. LOL! FCYTravis 20:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Fact is that you have aired out here a bunch of old canards for which there is no scientific evidence. The fact that communists and fascists opposed and still oppose sexual freedom is something that certainly desrves mention in this article. Perhaps under the heading 'Totalitarian systems and same-sex love. As for unsafe sex and epidemics, that too should be covered here, but not as an inherent part of same-sex relations, obviously. Haiduc 21:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Two points: First, any study on homosexuality that is more than 15 years old (as are all those you've cited) is inherently unreliable. Second, there are no reliable statistics on how many gay people there are, so your claims about the so-called "practicing homosexual population" (where do you come up with this stuff?!) are meaningless. Exploding Boy 17:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

1% takeup in countries that have instituted same sex marriage or the equivalent. Could that have something to do with the fact that most of those countries brought in same-sex marriage less than a year ago?

Oh yeah, and ha-ha! Tom 22:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the part about "homosexuality activists pushing their agenda". What agenda is that? For people to leave them alone? It doesn't take bias or homosexuality to push such an agenda. I completely disagree with the attempt to present homosexuality as some form of disease, as well as the attempt to present homosexual relationships as inferior to heterosexual - infidelity and brief relationship lengh are the bane of the modern couple period. --Chodorkovskiy 11:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Exploding Boy, when you state "any study on homosexuality that is more than 15 years old...is inherently unreliable", are you willing to also apply that to Kinsey? No mention is made that his findings were largely proven to be "junk science". Also, there are plenty of sources that could be mentioned in this article on homosexuality that lists opposing views in addition to what we currently have. "The Homosexual Agenda" and "Dark Obsession" are two examples that shed additional light on this explosive topic. To deny that this article is seriously biased would be to misread this article. Actual statistics and various opposing sources (both pro and con) should be used. And certain negative aspects to homosexual behavior and culture should also be listed and not completely overlooked. --7SEFIROSU 01:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It says, or it used to say, in the article that Kinsey's studies have been criticized. Nevertheless, Kinsey is something of an exception, since his work is still widely quoted and used. But I must say, your desire to include clearly biased (anti-gay) materials in the article, your characterization of the topic as "explosive," and your claims about "negative aspects to homosexual behavior and culture" set off warning bells. In my opinion your aim is to make the article less, rather than more neutral. Exploding Boy 18:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Presenting differing viewpoints is part of neutrality. The article currently appears to downplay the negativity associated with a homosexual lifestyle. I am merely suggesting that in a section on the politics of homosexuality and on health hazards with regards to homosexuality, both sides of a politically explosive issue and statistics from scientifically credible sources would seem appropriate. I don't disagree with presenting a pro-homosexual viewpoint and would not be happy with merely an anti-homosexual viewpoint either. Both sides should be given equal weight so that if someone views the opposing viewpoints, they can then more accurately gauge which argument has more substance. Politically speaking, if you're perceiving bias, it can only be your own. There is plenty out there that perhaps should still be said to balance this article. I consider this a work in progress, not set in stone. Although I don't expect immediate results, I would only hope that those contributing to this article seriously keep in mind the objectivity of what they present as a "neutral approach". Complete and total neutrality is not expected, but something close to it is good enough. - 7SEFIROSU 04:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

1. There are no "health hazards with regard to homosexuality", insofar as "health hazards with regard to homosexuality" implies that anything about homosexuality is inherently unhealthy.

2. NPOV does not mean that all differing viewpoints need to be presented. We do not have to have, for example, in the article Neo-nazi, a pro-neo-nazi section.

3. Keep in mind that you were the one to use the phrase "scientifically credible". I'll hold you to it.

4. Both sides should only be given equal weight insofar as both sides have equal weight, logically and scientifically. If, for example, I went around claiming, "all homosexuals have green tenticles instead of hair with which they steal children away to seduce them into the homosexual lifestyle", that is a view that is patently false. It should receive no weight. If, for example, we quoted the OCA and said, "homosexuals regularly fling poo at one another during their sex orgies", that might deserve some historical weight, but it should not be presented as one possible truth among many, since it is false. I think you get the point.

Keep those points in mind when you make future edits, please. -Seth Mahoney 19:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Wrong. Please do your research on POV opposing your biased viewpoint. Would you like me to list some starting points? Filtering information properly matters (filtering for substance to claims) - argumentative ability should not take precedence (style should not decide substance). Please present scientific evidence that the supports that homosexual individuals are just as healthy in proportion to heterosexual individuals. Have you even looked into it?

2. Let me clarify - differing viewpoints of significance. Neo-nazis is an extreme example and at this time should not be considered.

3. ? I'll hold you to elaborating on what you mean.

4. Your examples are aburd. Please try to use REAL discredited examples from viewpoints of significance, not make-believe. Let me ask you this: What have you read through thoroughly that presents opposing viewpoints to homosexuality? Anything? I am interested in knowing how you have researched this topic in the service of neutrality before cherrypicking your facts (not in all portions of the article, mind you, but in some, it is definitely noticeable). The weight given to Kinsey's generally discredited research (which was not scientifically reliable) and then to his detractors is one example of disproportionate weight given to a scientific hack. Rememer the South Korean scientist recently discredited? Kinsey's in practically the same boat, but has one significant difference - he helped to propel a "sexual revolution" into existence. This is why liberals (young and old) tend to have a soft spot for him and consider him a type of "hero". Even when his research was discredited, the soft spot remained. Although I don't mind if you use colorful language to try and support your statements, please keep it professional and avoid using make-believe examples. - 7SEFIROSU 21:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes, I would like you to list some starting points, fully referenced, please.

2. I think the example of neo-nazis is not so different than this case, to be perfectly frank.

3. You're planning on making edits to this article, no? Your edits will have to be scientifically credible.

4. Yes, my examples are absurd. That in no way invalidates them, however, because they are used as illustrations, nothing more.

This really wasn't intended to begin a debate, but to say, "hey, edit the article all you want. Just hold to a certain standard of rationality, wiki policy, etc." It appears, however, that you're more interested in debate. I am not, so suffice it to say that you will be expected to contribute valid and useful NPOV edits, and anything falling short of that will be removed. -Seth Mahoney

Given that this URL number by 7SEFIROSU seems to be priumarily interested in, besides the Homosexuality article, the article on Nazi racist theories (with his analysis of Jewish ethnic and marital patterns and Hitlerian Aryan racial aesthetics), I think the Neo-Nazi analogy is quite apt.Amherst5282 02:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Amherst5282, may I ask you how you justify a Neo-Nazi analogy with regards to my comments in this homosexuality discussion? Do you know what the Neo-Nazi position is on homosexuality? Your response lacks credibility (and your grammar needs work, since I only got the gist of what you were saying). For someone to oppose homosexuality (what I PERSONALLY see as a negative lifestyle choice and have no problem with factual information attempting to deny or support this) - this does not exactly qualify as anything similar to a "neo-nazi" mindset. A neo-nazi with any viewpoint remotely similar to mine does not exist. To suggest this is insulting, since I doubt even you know what a neo-nazi thinks and believes (my guess is that it's some warped version of pseudo-superiority which has no significant basis in science - neo-nazis are basically modern, angry cavemen). My source material for my conclusions in this topic of discussion is legitimate as far as I know and I have already listed 2 books above, "The Homosexual Agenda" and "Dark Obsession - The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle" which contain various source material, if you need proof (and I will acknowledge that some of it is not correct, since some data used is from the 70s and 80s - which I do not consider wholly legitimate). It is not connected to any sort of neo-nazi ideology or literature. Although I personally do not know and have not read anything on neo-nazis, I consider a violent, irrational approach to problem solving outdated and ultimately worthless. Homosexual activists figured this out when they realized that looking angry in the news was not helping their cause. On a personal level, I am of the opinion that any sort of excessive sexual promiscuity is unhealthy (homo and heterosexual) and from my research, it would appear that proportionately more individuals involved in a homosexual lifestyle are sexually promiscuous (one source is the Journal of Sex Research 34, 1997, "A comparative demographic and sexual profile of older homosexually active men": 354).

SethMahoney, please respond to my earlier question.

"What have you read through thoroughly that presents opposing viewpoints to homosexuality? Anything? I am interested in knowing how you have researched this topic in the service of neutrality before cherrypicking your facts (not in all portions of the article, mind you, but in some, it is definitely noticeable)."

I am NOT interested in a full scale debate on this and would prefer to simply discuss this in a civil manner. If you could also let me know what you think of the Thomas Sowell article listed below, it will help me to gain a better understanding of what you consider relevant or not. Some of my other source material is primarily from the books listed in my response above. Check them out at a library if you're interested in different, potentially more objective (though not necessarily) viewpoint. And please let me know a few of your sources so I can check up the data on your scientifically valid research.

I recently added a cited comment by Thomas Sowell (article on Homosexual marriage 'rights') and have returned to the article and this page finding all traces of it erased and no explanation given. Is it typical to find this sort of unscholarly behavior at wikipedia? If there was a good reason to remove it, I would like to know why.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2004/12/31/14108.html

"Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have."

And below, this is what was still left there underneath my earlier addition.

"In Asia, the conflict between homoerotic tradition and a resurgent Islamic fundamentalism continues. Liaquat Ali, a 42 year old Afghan refugee, and Markeen Afridi a 16 year old Pakistani boy, reportedly fell in love and got married in a very public ceremony in October of 2005. [18] [19] There are efforts to refute the original reports which were authored by a reporter from the tribe where the wedding occurred. [20]"

42 yr old with a 16 yr old? Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this fall under paedophilia (sex with a minor) under today's standards (and I am going by US law)? And other portions of this article dealing with "youths" and "older men" seem to overlook this connection, also. May I ask where the objectivity is in bringing attention to this seemingly troubling issue? Maybe I missed something, but I would appreciate it if someone would explain the connection to me (if there actually is one) so I don't misinterpret the facts presented in this article. Thank you.

I will respond more with some additional reliable sources sometime in early April when I have more time to spend discussing this issue. Any comments posted in response to this I will read (and, Seth Mahoney, if you post something on your sources, I will certainly look into them before I post my own if I challenge the material presented), but will not respond until early April when I have more time.

Also, if someone could educate me on this, is it typical to have things randomly deleted by anonymous users? And does the life of the article depend on someone constantly keeping backup copies of the currently approved version? (This is more of a general question, but a yes or no to these questions would really help me to understand how things work around here). - 7SEFIROSU 24:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the townhall link simply because this is not an article on gay marriage, and the link is therefore not directly relevant to this article. Perhaps it can be added to gay marriage or something. That was the entirety of my reasoning - there's no agenda going on here. -Seth Mahoney 03:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

>>I did not suggest that there was an "agenda" with regards to the Thomas Sowell article, but it was listed under the "Marriage" portion of this article, which apparently managed to keep the above posted article on the 42 yr old with the 16 year old. How did that manage to make the cut but the Thomas Sowell article was somehow not relevant enough to warrant placement? Where is the line drawn? - 7SEFIROSU 04:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

When I cut the link, it was at the bottom of the article, not in any particular section. As far as the marriage section in this article, it should be kept to a minimum, basically stating that there is some contemporary debate over gay marriage, and leaving the rest to the article gay marriage. -Seth Mahoney 04:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb that will probably only support my own weight, so find a different branch. I did not read all of your posts because they are all along the same train of thought, which is dominant in society now. But I'm going to suggest an alternative to the explanation of Homosexuality.

As we all know, we live in the free-ist land in the world (U.S.A. and all else who followed). So, this land has proposed an idea for living. This idea taken to the extreme results in a Utopia. Now remember, this is an alternative to the common thought pattern amongst you evolved monkeys.  :) And what happens or starts to happen in a Utopia? Freedom of Pleasure/Happiness. Do I need to go further?? Well, I'll say this, I'm straight by choice. I love girls, and I only love my own penis. You see, when people start to get too comfortable, they start to become lazy, and when they start to get lazy they choose convenience, and when they choose convenience they choose what's closest to them...etc. This is a normal behavioral pattern, especially in a society reaching Utopia. So, I propose an alternative... Non Laziness/Progression. All you gay people stop being lazy. Go find a girl, start a band, read a book, start a business, etc. Learn the science of seduction, and become a dog chasing a cat. Because the gay vibe is infiltrating in an undesirable way. I live in Los Angeles and it's very deep, and it leads to an over indulgence of pleasure, which is not good. It's disgusting. Stop fucking up the world! Sorry, I had to say that, even though it's not as bad as murder or rape, but it's on the opposite side of the spectrum. Don't fall into the pleasure pit, get off the drugs (even if they are prescription), go get sober (detoxify) and learn how to talk to girls. Amen. [4]

-Dre.Velation May 28, 2006

Total BS. I am one of the laziest men I know, I love convience, and I'm nowhere near being gay. --24.165.225.41 04:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The above post by Dre-valation is one of the funniest things I have ever read. People become gay because they're lazy?!!!! With all the endless persecution gay people have been subjected and are subjected to across the world, all the stress it causes in your private life, the problems with your family, not to mention the fact that it's far harder to find another gay man or woman than it is to find someone straight, how is it easier to be gay?

Also, FYI, a lot of gay men and women don't take drugs/ aren't addicted to pleasure. They're just normal people who have jobs, live their lives and have to put up with bigotted and impossibly ignorant crap from loony american bible-bashers like you. Finally, I just looked at your profile and it appears you believe in Intelligent Design Theory mixed in with a load of New Age rubbish and some Christian Fundamentalism, which just goes to show you have absolutely no authority to comment on any topic related to science, or anything else for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.196.239.189 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)

Check the American Psychological Association's website and their page on sexual orientation and it's lack of "danger" or mental illness. [5] It's a solid source, though the fanatics will probably claim otherwise. --AWF

"Modern captalism"

found this section lacking of neutrality

seams to me that it doesn't define modern ( maybe compemporary would work better ) and also gives the socio-economical system a characteristic it doesn't have. ( Yes, in includes social. politics. therefore, is it really that "gay-frendly" ? )

seams to me that this section is about companies and their attitudes towards the gay community. something like that would probably work better

i'll give a try in "fixing" it , but since i fell that anything in altering an article like that is controversial, just wanted to give a heads up

NPOV and Behavior Modification section

I still believe that the behavior modification section is POV. Removing the phrases I did was not lying to the readers, as suggested by User:FCYTravis here. This diff shows the changes that FCYTravis made to this section, after I undid an outright reversion. My edits made no claim of credible evidence, they stated the simple fact that some (many) that undergo treatment for homosexuality find it to work. Also, POV scare quotes were again added around the word treatments. While the majority of the mental health community may believe homosexuality to be innate and unchangable trait, mainstream organizations do not as a whole adopt this philosophy. Even Robert Spitzer, the doctor that spearheaded the movement to have homosexuality removed from the Diagnostic Manual in 1973, has found evidence supporting reparative therapy. These sites also cite a variety of sources, including several clinical trials, that show support for reorientation therapy: [6], [7], [8], [9].

Also, the website peoplecanchange.com (edited out to escape blacklist) was blacklisted as spam immediately after I used it as a source for homosexuals that find reorientation therapy effective. I know of no incident where this website has been used as linkspam. If there is one, will someone please point me to it? If not, way not cool. The source I added for the potential damage of reorientation therapy was retained and presumably not blacklisted.

These things should be fixed. I added the NPOV tag at the top of the page because of these things. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 20:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream organizations all reject and condemn reparative therapy, as mentioned on the broader Wikipedia page - these include the American Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and many, many others.

"The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a 'cure.' ...health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people's sexual orientation through 'reparative therapy' and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm."

Per NPOV policy, "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view." It is fair to state that there is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence which supports reparative therapy and it is fair to state that mainstream medical and psychological organizations reject it as useless and potentially damaging. To ignore this would not be "NPOV" - it would, in fact, be a biased whitewash. With regards to my mistaken edit summary, Cookiecaper, I apologize to you for failing in my duty to assume good faith. FCYTravis 21:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The quoted statement is misleading. I would venture that many members of those associations do support or at least believe that reparative therapy can be effective. Spitzer is just one example. Because they are not in the majority or because the governing body of an organization to which they belong disagrees with them does not mean that they do not exist. Statements that minimalize this population of professionals should be changed. The quotes around the word treatments should be removed, and peoplecanchange.com should be removed from the blacklist and added back into the article unless someone can point me to the place where it's been used as linkspam. And apology accepted. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 22:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, statements that minimalize that population of professionals are true, hence they should *not* be changed. Just because something is negative does not mean it violates WP:NPOV. It only violates WP:NPOV if it paints a distorted picture of the subject. To minimize or ignore the fact that the mainstream of scientific, medical and psychological thought has wholly rejected so-called "reparative therapy" would, indeed, give the subject credence which it is not due. As for the peoplecanchange link, I don't know why it's in the blacklist. See Meta:Spam blacklist and make a note on the talk page. FCYTravis 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And the point I'm trying to make is that the mainstream hasn't wholly rejected reparative therapy. Refer to this NARTH memorandum that cites a 1977 survey as returning 68% of AMA professionals answering "Is homosexuality usually a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal variation?" answered affirmatively and the results of a 1995 survey that the memo summarizes as "a large majority of psychiatrists believed that homosexuality was a pathological adaptation when obligatory". The page at http://peoplecanchange.com/Resources_Links1.htm lists five seperate organizations that direct those seeking reparative therapy to nearby therapists, further suggesting that although the governing parts of the authoritative organizations these professionals may belong try to suppress it, there is still a significant portion of therapists that not only support but practice reparative and gender-affirmative therapy. I know that not all negative comments are POV, but the ones denouncing and trivializing reparative therapy in this article are. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 02:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Citing a 1977 survey about homosexuality is like citing a 1936 survey about Nazi Germany. You're not likely to get results indicative of today's point of view. Neither of the surveys actually address so-called "reparative therapy." They instead discuss whether homosexuality is an alleged adaption or a variation. They make no mention of whether the surveyed groups believe "reparative therapy" works. On the other hand, we have numerous citations which present the verifiable position of every mainstream psychological and medical group; to wit, that reparative therapy is pointless, ineffective and potentially harmful to the individual. The "five separate organizations" are all religious or "ex-gay" groups - none of them are professional medical or psychological organizations. Hence, it's perfectly proper to point out that mainstream medicine and psychology wholly reject reparative therapy. FCYTravis 05:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism

I snipped this

Hinduism has dealt with homosexuality in its own way, with two of its major Gods Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu engaging in sexual courtship and intercourse producing a baby, with the latter in a female attire. The act was necessary to end the demon who had extracted a promise from the Gods that he never be killed by anyone except the offspring of the two major Gods, contemplating its "impossibility". Also in the Hindu holy scripture, The Ramayana, we see certain male sages desiring to kiss the incarnation of Vishnu, Rama. In an another Hindu holy book Mahabharatha, we enounter Sikhandi, a girl brought up actually as a boy in the hope that one day he will "convert" into a man, as was "due". Sikhandi was "supposed" to be born as a boy, in the king's family, as granted by Lord Shiva. Sikhandi "trades" his womanhood for masculinity, with a Gandharva, post "his" marriage to a girl, when Sikhandi's parents decide that only marriage will make a man of him. Hinduism is by and large tolerant of homosexuality what with its inclusion in its history and scriptures. Castrates and Eunuchs have a unique place in the Indian society with many of them performing at marriages and on other occasions such as the birth of a male child in a family.They usually move around in groups with a "head", though not necessarily. Hindu scriptures as such do not speak anything against sexual minorities, with some even projecting them in positive light. Hinduism therefore may be called a "Gay-friendly-religion", if such a term exists. However in modern India, sexual minorities face the same problems that their counterparts elsewhere face, if not greater. Incidences of harrasment based on sexual orientation are extremely rare in India, but Indians taking a cue from the rest, are catching up with others in this regard too. To cite an example, there was wide spread disapproval regarding incestuous lesbianism shown in Deepa Mehta's movie Fire . Indian movies (Bollywood) (which form the chief entertainment means for a large part of India) rarely ever mention homosexuality, which in some ways is considered better as opposed to possible negative potrayal.

There may be some salvageable content here, but it's too long, is totally uncited, and has no business being in the intro. Could someone write a sentence or two about Hinduism for the religion paragraph that is in the intro? Morwen - Talk 12:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add two things to the point that in most Hindi movies there is no mention of homosexuality. First, this is undoubtedly true for Hindi movies just as it is for the cinema of every language and national culture. In no national cinema that I'm aware of is homosexuality mentioned in more than in a tiny fraction of all movies. Second, while gays aren't often mentioned, queers indeed are. It's common to see hijada-s depicted in Hindi films. The category of hijada doesn't easily map onto that of gay or homosexual, but it certainly does onto that of queer. Hijadas are most popularly understood as being either intersex (hermaphrdites) or eunuchs (biological men who've had penis and/or testicles castrated). In fact, they include many who are anatomically and biological male but socially interstitial male-female. The book "With Respect to Sex" by Gayatri Reddy addresses many issues about hijra identity, culture and practice. Interlingua 16:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Gay animals

It is unlikley that homosexuality is as common in animals as that section in the article implies. That section in the article is misleading and should be fixed.-D

Until you have valid and verifiable sources for your claims, the section stays as is. Also, please sign your contributions by adding -~~~~ at the end. -Seth Mahoney 23:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I support Seth on this matter. This has to come down to citations, not your opinion. Alienus 23:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Its not my opinion, Lead is a mutigant check for yourself. "Which can at high levels have damaging effects on brain functoins." (www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/CSEM/lead/physiologic_effects.html)-D

The editors of this article have already provided numerous citations. If you feel a view is unrepresented, it is your responsibility to provide citations, not ours. Also, please sign your contributions by adding -~~~~ at the end. -Seth Mahoney 23:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. It is your responsibility to provide relevant citations. Your link to information on the effects of lead on the human nervous system is decidedly irrelevant. -Seth Mahoney 00:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

How so?-D

If you can't understand why it is up to you to show the relevance of your contributions, then you shouldn't be contributing. It is increasingly difficult to believe that you are trying to make good-faith contributions to this page, and easier to believe that you're just wasting our time. Finally, sign your contributions by adding -~~~~ at the end. -Seth Mahoney 00:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry,i misunderstood ur msg. It is relavant considering if the link i was reffered to on that section compared animal 'gayness' to humans, how is the effect of chemicals on thier respective nervous systems much different? (not a user, cant sign as a user, dont know how.)-D

Sorry about the good faith/bad faith thing. It sounded like you were just being absurd. I'm still not sure where you're going with this, but at least it seems related. Maybe I can make myself clearer, though. Your claim seems to be that the way this article presents animal sexuality is POV, because it claims that animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior. My point of contention is that your opinion on animal sexuality is irrelevant (and so is mine). If you're going to add a criticism of that claim (and that would be the thing to do, not blank the entire section), then you need to find some authority who has made the argument, add "so-and-so, however, responds to this claim like this..." and follow that with a reference to the journal or book or a link to the webpage where so-and-so responds to the claim. If you can't find a reference, then what you add is what is called on Wikipedia "original research", meaning something you came up with yourself, and it will be reverted. -Seth Mahoney 03:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a citation from philosopher and natrual scientist Luiz Sérgio Solimeo

There Is No "Homosexual Instinct" In Animals Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.

-- Clashing Stimuli and Confused Animal Instincts

To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.

Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.

Third, an animal's instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal's behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.

In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.[4]

At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal "filicide," "cannibalism" and "homosexuality."

-- Animal "Filicide" and "Cannibalism"

Sarah Hartwell explains that tomcats kill their kittens after receiving "mixed signals" from their instincts:

Most female cats can switch between "play mode" and "hunt mode" in order not to harm their offspring. In tomcats this switching off of "hunt mode" may be incomplete and, when they become highly aroused through play, the "hunting" instinct comes into force and they may kill the kittens. The hunting instinct is so strong, and so hard to switch off when prey is present, that dismemberment and even eating of the kitten may ensue.... Compare the size, sound and activity of kittens with the size, sound and activity of prey. They are both small, have high-pitched voices and move with fast, erratic movements. All of these trigger hunting behavior. In the tomcat, maternal behavior cannot always override hunting behavior and he treats the kittens in exactly the same way he would treat small prey. His instincts are confused.[5] Regarding animal cannibalism, the Iran Nature and Wildlife Magazine notes: Cannibalism is most common among lower vertebrates and invertebrates, often due to a predatory animal mistaking one of its own kind for prey. But it also occurs among birds and mammals, especially when food is scarce.[6] -- Animals Lack the Means to Express Their Affective States

To stimuli and clashing instincts, however, we must add another factor: In expressing its affective states, an animal is radically inferior to man.

Since animals lack reason, their means of expressing their affective states (fear, pleasure, pain, desire, etc.) are limited. Animals lack the rich resources at man's disposal to express his sentiments. Man can adapt his way of talking, writing, gazing, gesturing in untold ways. Animals cannot. Consequently, animals often express their affective states ambiguously. They "borrow," so to speak, the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so on.

-- Explaining Seemingly "Homosexual" Animal Behavior

Bonobos are a typical example of this "borrowing." These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos, says:

There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.

First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.

Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.[7]

Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."[8]

Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:

Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.[9] Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:

Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent.... And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.[10] Other animals engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion.

-- "Homosexual" Animals Do Not Exist

In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11] Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[12]

For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex.

Nonsense: no matter how hard or how often an animal mates, it will never have any effect on how well or badly that animal survives. Mating is not about survival, it is about instinct. Does the animal know it is procreating another generation of its own kind? Why, you've already said that's impossible, as animals have no capacity to reason. It must therefore be directed only by its instincts, which are the range of pre-programmed responses and strategies it has for dealing with all situations. It is fallacious that we can distinguish between errant and legitimate actions by animals. If an animal mates with another animal of its own gender, we can only conclude that instinct, in some way, is its motivation.

Nuttyskin 17:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It Is Unscientific To "Read" Human Motivation And Sentiment Into Animal Behavior Like many animal rights activists, homosexual activists often "read" human motivation and sentiment into animal behavior. While this anthropopathic approach enjoys full citizenship in the realms of art, literature, and mythology it makes for poor science. Dr. Charles Socarides of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) observes:

The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal's motivation he is applying human psychodynamics--a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach.[13] Ethologist Cesar Ades explains the difference between human and animal sexual relations:

Human beings have sex one way, while animals have it another. Human sex is a question of preference where one chooses the most attractive person to have pleasure. This is not true with animals. For them, it is a question of mating and reproduction. There is no physical or psychological pleasure....The smell is decisive: when a female is in heat, she emits a scent, known as pheromone. This scent attracts the attention of the male, and makes him want to mate. This is sexual intercourse between animals. It is the law of nature.[14] Even biologist Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was cited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in their amici curiae brief in Lawrence v. Texas and is touted as proof that homosexuality is natural among animals, is careful to include a caveat:

Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena....We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer--in both the gathering and interpretation of data--come to the forefront in this situation.....With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)....With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations."[15] Dr. Bagemihl's interpretation, however, throughout his 750-page book unabashedly favors the animal homosexuality theory. Its pages are filled with descriptions of animal acts that would have a homosexual connotation in human beings. Dr. Bagemihl does not prove, however, that these acts have the same meaning for animals. He simply gives them a homosexual interpretation. Not surprisingly, his book was published by Stonewall Inn Editions, "an imprint of St. Martin's Press devoted to gay and lesbian interest books."

Irrational Animal Behavior Is No Blueprint For Rational Man Some researchers studying animal "homosexual" behavior extrapolate from the realm of science into that of philosophy and morality. These scholars reason from the premise that if animals do it, it is according to their nature and thus is good for them. If it is natural and good for animals, they continue, it is also natural and morally good for man. However, the definition of man's nature belongs not to the realm of zoology or biology, but philosophy, and the determination of what is morally good for man pertains to ethics.

Dr. Marlene Zuk, professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside, for example, states:

Sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think. You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic, that they have sex to procreate. ... Sexual expression means more than making babies. Why are we surprised? People are animals.[16] Simon LeVay entertains the hope that the understanding of animal "homosexuality" will help change societal mores and religious beliefs about homosexuality. He states: It seems possible that the study of sexual behavior in animals, especially in non-human primates, will contribute to the liberalization of religious attitudes toward homosexual activity and other forms of nonprocreative sex. Specifically, these studies challenge one particular sense of the dogma that homosexual behavior is "against nature": the notion that it is unique to those creatures who, by tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge, have alone become morally culpable.[17] Other researchers feel compelled to point out the impropriety of transposing animal behavior to man. Although very favorable to the homosexual interpretation of animal behavior, Paul L. Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge in Canada, nevertheless cautions: For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural. They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable. Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes.[18] The animal kingdom is no place for man to seek a blueprint for human morality. That blueprint, as bioethicist Bruto Maria Bruti notes, must be sought in man himself: It is a frequent error for people to contrast human and animal behaviors, as if the two were homogenous. .... The laws ruling human behavior are of a different nature and they should be sought where God inscribed them, namely, in human nature.[19] The fact that man has a body and sensitive life in common with animals does not mean he is strictly an animal. Nor does it mean that he is a half-animal. Man's rationality pervades the wholeness of his nature so that his sensations, instincts and impulses are not purely animal but have that seal of rationality which characterizes them as human. Thus, man is characterized not by what he has in common with animals, but by what differentiates him from them. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man's rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature.[20]

To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and, therefore, his free will. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is to attribute to them a non-existent rationality.

From Science To Mythology Dr. Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance research displays his fundamental dissatisfaction with science and enthusiasm for aboriginal mythology:

Western science has a lot to learn from aboriginal cultures about systems of gender and sexuality...[21] To Western science, homosexuality (both animal and human) is an anomaly, an unexpected behavior that above all requires some sort of "explanation" or "cause" or "rationale." In contrast, to many indigenous cultures around the world, homosexuality and transgender are a routine and expected occurrence in both the human and animal worlds...[22]

Most Native American tribes formally recognize--and honor--human homosexuality and transgender in the role of the 'two-spirit' person (sometimes formerly known as berdache). The 'two-spirit' is a sacred man or woman who mixes gender categories by wearing clothes of opposite or both sexes .... And often engaging in same -sex relations. ... In many Native American cultures, certain animals are also symbolically associated with two-spiritedness, often in the form of creation myths and origin legends relating to the first or "supernatural" two-spirit(s)....A Zuni creation story relates how the first two spirits--creatures that were neither male nor female, yet both at the same time--were the twelve offspring of a mythical brother-sister pair. Some of these creatures were human, but one was a bat and another an old buck Deer.[23]

Dr. Bagemihl applies this androgynous myth, so widespread in today's homosexual movement, to the animal kingdom with the help of Indian and aboriginal mythology. He invites the West to embrace "a new paradigm:"[24] Ultimately, the synthesis of scientific views represented by Biological Exuberance brings us full circle--back to the way of looking at the world that is in accordance with some of the most ancient indigenous conceptions of animal (and human) sexual and gender variability. This perspective dissolves binary oppositions....Biological Exuberance is...a worldview that is at once primordial and futuristic, in which gender is kaleidoscopic, sexualities are multiple, and the categories of male and female are fluid and transmutable.[25]

Conclusion In summary, the homosexual movement's attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature, by proving its animal homosexuality theory, is based more on mythological beliefs and erroneous philosophical tenets than on science.

So you have a citation (one that I disagree with - this person would do well to mind his own advice regarding reading into animal behavior). Now you need to note where it came from. If it wasn't a website, you'll need when and where it was published, and all that good stuff. It will likely be argued against, on grounds that the person making the argument isn't notable enough, and so on, so it is a good idea to collect more sources.

As far as your theory as to animal sexualities being caused by chemical differences, you're far from alone. Most people think all sexuality is somehow biologically caused, and that would in the end translate to a chemical cause. Of course, that doesn't automatically translate into some sort of deficiency.

As far as your theory as to my motivations, you would to better to keep them to yourself. Telling someone that they'll just do this or that doesn't help to win you friends. -Seth Mahoney 18:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The website is narth.com. These people are philosophers and scientists. They have done experiments and years of research, so needless to say, scince your opinion is irrelavent(u said it yourself), and the proof is in the pudding, adjusting the article is now justified. Argue as you want.-D

Unfortunately, what you've done to the article is notice what you perceive as a POV and replace it with the opposite POV, which is no more neutral than you assert it was before. Further, narth is far from unbiased. I'm reverting the change. (Or, I guess, someone else will do it for me. Thanks!) -Seth Mahoney 19:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

And where is your proof of them being 'biased'? They are no more biased than you. Until you can prove this with citations, your statement counts as 'original research' and is void.-D

They may well be no more biased than me, but you'll notice that nowhere in this article does it say, "according to Mr. Mahoney, such and such." -Seth Mahoney 19:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

D, make sure you actually review your edits before posting them - your edits just then were hurried, containing typos, general poor spelling and inconsistencies. In addition, for the thousandth time, please add ~~~~ after your comments here. You can do that even if you're not signed up for an account. Although I would recommend you sign up (by clicking "Sign in/Create account" at the top of this page), since your IP address has a history of vandalism and that really does detract from your credibility. --Dave ~ (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the bias Mr. Anon - the text you pasted here was taken directly from either the NARTH[10] or the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property[11] websites. The author is no scientist, ('natural scientist' is just a weasel phrase to claim legitimacy since he has no hard science degree like biology) but rather a Catholic anit-gay activist per his short bio at the FTP website: "As a researcher and writer, he specializes in philosophical and theological topics and has several published works. Mr. Solimeo has been in the United States assisting the American TFP since 1999." (emphasis mine). His other easily discoverable works include screeds against gay adoption[12] and saying that the 2004 tsunami was punishment from God[13]. Both those anti-gay articles are part of a larger work from TFP: Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same-Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement. Hardly a NPOV source. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 21:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite, frankly,I too think that it is a damn shame that gays aren't treated like humans, i really do, however, u cant let your desire for acceptance stifle logic. I dont know what its like to be 'alternative', however, u must be logical. Frankly, i know better, but to those who dont, thier being mislead. I mean, wouldnt people trying to be accepted rush things and not look closley? Im sure theres some gayness maybe, however to say it is 'common in the animal kingdom' without reliable sources per se is ludacris. Just think about it. You are a philosophy major, so u should be pretty rational.-D 12:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, precisely, that there are reliable sources in the article, and NARTH is not a reliable source. -Seth Mahoney 18:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not?-D (64.75.71.5 19:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC))

Because NARTH is known to be biased, and is known to have released information that is not factual. You'll note the following text, for example, from the article NARTH:

On May 17, 1997 NARTH published the results of a two year study involving 860 clients and 200 psychologists and therapists. Mainstream psychological associations called the study "heavily biased", because each of the therapists supplied data only on their "success stories". The organization did not report their success rate at converting patients with a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation. They did not make distinction between homosexuals and bisexuals in the program. They also did not differentiate between homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals among those leaving. This study has not been accepted to be published in any peer-reviewed medical journal. -Seth Mahoney 18:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the time has come to stop responding to the above poster (User:64.75.71.5) until he starts following Wikipedia's policies. He has repeatedly been asked to sign his posts, yet persists in not doing so. He also persists in pushing a particular point of view and seems unwilling to accept the fact that there are ways of doing things on Wikipedia. Exploding Boy 18:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think, at least, that this poster is trying to sign their posts - you'll notice that the date has started showing up at the end, at least.z -Seth Mahoney 18:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, on the assumption that that's in fact the case, here's one more attempt: to "sign" your posts, please type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will "sign" your posts with your user name and the date. Exploding Boy 18:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And these scintists who blasted narth, were they gay or straight?-D 64.75.71.5 19:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll note the final sentence: This study has not been accepted to be published in any peer-reviewed medical journal. I think you can find the answer to that question there. -Seth Mahoney 19:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, perhaps it is somewhat foolish to assume homosexuality can be cured, because it cant. They do however poses some good points.-D 64.75.71.5 19:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, they really don't. But I think you're missing the point anyway, which is that NARTH is not a reliable source for any information. -Seth Mahoney 19:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Because they are 'biased'? Pretty much anything is biased, but its just how well they cover it up which makes the difference. I mean, why is it so hard to accept that gayness is uncommon in the animal kingdom, and that two males humping is a show of dominence?-D busboy 02:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite simply put, to believe that "two males humping is a show of dominance" requires that I assume to know more about what is going on in the mind of the animal than to believe that two males having sex is a homosexual act, or that males or females who are documented as showing a preference for the same sex are homosexual does.

But back to your first statement, "sure, my source is biased, but so is yours" is the argument of the losing team.

As for your question, it is not just that they are biased, but that they have knowingly released false and misleading information in the past. -Seth Mahoney 08:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Already, you have just proved my point. By saying that "to believe that "two males humping is a show of dominance" requires that I assume to know more about what is going on in the mind of the animal than to believe that two males having sex is a homosexual act, or that males or females who are documented as showing a preference for the same sex are homosexual does." shows that humans are rather ignorant about the thought process of an animal which is 'gay'. For example, would you consider a man who tends to let other men perform sexual favors on him, gay? If so, why?-D Busboy 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually read this article? The definition of 'homosexuality', from the intro:

it refers to a sexual orientation characterised by lasting aesthetic attraction, romantic love, or sexual desire exclusively for others of the same sex or gender. It can also refer to the manifestation of that orientation in the identity of an individual, possibly at odds with that person's sexual behaviour. Finally, it can refer to sexual relations with another of the same sex regardless of one's sexual orientation, self-identification, or gender identity.

You'll note that that definition is substantially different from the definition of 'gay', the term you keep using, which refers to an identity orbiting that which is referred to by 'homosexuality'. Your strawman arguments aren't going to work. If you have a point to make, make it. If you have valid references to show, show them. If not, I'm quickly losing patience for this debate. -Seth Mahoney 18:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

See?! You said, it can refer tosame sex sexual contact, not that it is per se. I don't mean homosexual tendincies or behavior for that matter, I mean distincly homosexual like yourself. And what does "strawman arguments" mean? Seriously, I don't know.-D Busboy 19:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A strawman argument is when you represent someone else's argument as weaker than it actually is. In this case: You're using 'gay' where we're using 'homosexual'. They refer to different things, and among the differences are the fact that 'gay' refers to a social identification, which of course is something that animals aren't known to participate in (or at least aren't known to do on the level human beings do). 'Homosexual' generally refers to acts and tendencies, which are things that animals are known to show. So to say that animals engage in homosexual behavior is completely non-controverial. To say that some animals show homosexual tendencies is equally non-controversial, unless you've got a vested interest in covering that sort of information up. To say, likewise, that some animals are known to have lifelong homosexual pairings is also non-controversial. To say, however, like you are representing us as doing, that animals are gay is controversial, because "animals are gay" includes all assumptions about what is going on in the minds of animals which we can't actually know. -Seth Mahoney 19:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Scince you describe homosexuality in anything as "same-sex sexual activities, between the same sex", How bo you know that the things we consider 'sexual' really are? Is this a strictly human perception? If so then it is inaccurate to say that there are homosexual animals.-DBusboy 19:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that we can define 'sexual' in such a way that that question doesn't come up for most practical purposes. But, you know, if you want to add "Animals can't be known to engage in homosexuality because we can never know whether or not the things we think of as sexual really are sexual.", you're welcome to, though I'd bet it would be reverted within minutes. -Seth Mahoney 19:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what i meant! I dont think these things are homosexual in the sense of 'romantic love', I think that those homosexual penguins are asexual, the strong parenting instinct makes them desire to raise an offspring, and the 'sex', well...a strong flock instinct.-D busboy 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think its safe to say that animals are, for the most part, sexual beings. I also don't think that it is necessary to theorize beyond that. If we see, say, a male dog that exhibits a preference for sex with other male dogs, we should call that dog 'homosexual', by definition of the word 'homosexual', and any theorizing beyond that point (for example, the whole dominance bit) should be seen as pure speculation. If we see some homosexual penguins, we don't need to posit a strong parenting instinct or a flock instinct or any other instinct - just note the observed behavior and use the most appropriate word to describe that behavior: Homosexual. -Seth Mahoney 21:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A true philospher indeed. However, i just wanted to lower the amount of homosexuality suggested in the article. And, how can a dog perfer 'sex' with other male dogs? Sex for dogs is just for procreation. You dont see two male dogs trying to get stuck together after breeding.-Dbusboy 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

(I giggled a little when I saw that your intention is to lower the amount of homosexuality suggested in the article homosexuality.) A dog can exhibit a preference for sex with other dogs of either gender, I suppose. And how do any of us know what sex is or is not for, for dogs, anteaters, or humans? Where does this sort of information come from, and under what authority do you claim it to be true? -Seth Mahoney 16:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sex, whatever kind, is for procreation. When animals do the horizontal boggie,they wish to procreate. Even with you, sex with a man is for procreation. When you and a man cannot conseve, as you wish to, u move on to another mate. Animals have what i call a 'fish brain' or savage brain, which cannot think, in terms of sex, beyond procreation. Since procreatoin is thier only way to survive as a species, homosexual sex would be utterly impractical, considering two men or women cant consive. P.S, would you mind if i wiped that narth section? -D busboy 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That sex is for procreation is a particular POV, and one that is highly debatable at that. That animals have sex to engage in procreation is a particular POV, and one that I think requires that we assume to know more that is going on in animals' heads than just saying "this animal is homosexual". That my having sex with another man is an attempt to procreate is a particular POV, and one that is patently false (I do not want to have children). To claim to know what animals can or cannot think of is to assume to know what is going on in their heads, something that isn't required by just saying "this animal is homosexual". The sentence on survival actually makes no sense - if it were true, neither animals nor humans would engage in same-sex sex. And yes, I would mind if you wiped the NARTH section. -Seth Mahoney 17:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the biological reason that animals feel an urge to have sex (and, typically, receive pleasure from doing so) is largely related to procreation. Having said that, the animal may well be having sex because it feels good, not because it has any particular procreational goals. After all, the biological reason for a thing doesn't have to be the individual's reason.

In addition, there are other biological reasons for sex which are much less directly related to procreation; a good example is the creation and maintenance of pair-bonds. The problem with Busboy's argument is that it puts our genes' implicit goals above our own goals, which is a fine example of the naturalistic fallacy. Alienus 19:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What is sex for? Procreation. Even if you yourself do not want kids, this is not for you to decide. Your sexual excitement is a response for u to procreate. You have no idea how complex your mind truly is. If you dont want to have kids, you 'can' decide this. If a complex brain can, then how would a dog brain decide. Sex for pleasure for non-great apes animals is to complex. They might get the gist of sex for pleasure, but, overall it is for procreation. If animals had sex for pleasur, they would all the time, and there would be utter chaos.-Dbusboy 20:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OH NO! THERE'D BE UTTER CHAOS! HOLY HECK NO! NOT UTTER CHAOS! ANYTHING BUT THAT! FCYTravis 20:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you're saying I don't get to decide? Why not? Humans are capable of birth control. Alienus 21:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's the final deal: You're assuming to know things about animal brains/minds that cannot be known. End of debate. -Seth Mahoney 21:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If they cannot be known, why do assum to know them by saying there is homosexuality as a choice in animals which the section strongly suggests.-Dbusboy 13:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Reread my comments above. Saying the animal is homosexual is not assuming anything at all, simply describing their behavior. And I have no idea what you mean by "as a choice in animals". -Seth Mahoney 19:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

To alienus, just because we have birth control doesnt mean we have a say in when we chose to have kids. If we had a say in that i wouldnt be here.-Dbusboy 19:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. With birth control, we can always prevent a birth, usually by preventing conception or implantation, but definitely by aborting the pregnancy. Alienus 20:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, sex is a response for when your body wants to reproduce, not when u want to per se. If anyone had a say, you would think during coitus.-D64.75.71.5 19:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This body happens to have a functioning mind, so it doesn't have sex unless the mind wants to. And when it does have sex, the mind decides whether to take precautions against pregnancy. Alienus 20:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, shouldn't the section instead be changed to 'homosexual behavior in animals'? Because the section clearly implies 'Animals are gay'.-Dbusboy 02:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds better than "Gay animals." The problem with much of these kinds of arguments is that we are not always sure what the animals are reacting to. It generally takes animals some fumbling around to get things figured out. Monkeys (or maybe it's apes) who do not engage in sex play while young are inept or even unable to achieve intromission in adulthood. If memory serves, males will try mounting males and also females, but their copulatory attempts receive greater reward with the females so, 'tis said, they tend strongly to settle down to a steady "diet" of females. Are they "having sex" with same-sex individuals? Yes. I guess. But is that a function of their desire or of their confusion and ineptitude at that time? On the other hand, I think I have read about males of certain species forming sexual preferences for each others, and the bonobo gorillas apparently find female-female intercourse quite satisfying. Anyway, whatever they are doing they probably do not bring along all the cultural stuff that being gay entails. 金 (Kim) 07:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That's all true, but the title of the section was not "Gay animals". It was "Homosexuality in animals", which just doesn't make the sorts of implications that busboy insists. "Homosexual behavior in animals", on the other hand, is a clear tip of the hat to conservatives who insist on acknowledging only homosexual behavior and not homosexual persons. -Seth Mahoney 16:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

So then we can all agree...'Homosexual behavior in animals' is good then?-Dbusboy 23:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No, we certainly do not agree that "Homosexual behavior in animals" is good. As I suggested immediately above, it has a conservative POV slant that is completely unacceptable. However, I'll defer to community consensus if most of y'all disagree with me. -Seth Mahoney 00:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Oy vey...What is wrong with conservatives? What is the slant?! Dont keep me hangin'.(no pun intended)busboy 18:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what the pun might be. There is nothing inherently wrong with conservatives (that was difficult to type). There is, however, something wrong with a conservative POV. Wikipedia does not represent conservative or liberal POVs, so pushing either way isn't a good idea. -Seth Mahoney 02:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not represent conservative or liberal POVs

Thankfully untrue: the liberal POV would have both arguments presented with equal weight; the conservative only values its own.

Nuttyskin 17:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

So basicaly, my idea is too conservitive and that is POV because it cateres too much to one type of person?-Dbusboy 13:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Basically, your idea carries a subtle shade of conservatism that is inappropriate in an encyclopedia article. -Seth Mahoney 17:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh...well, if it's so subtle maybe no one would notice?-Dbusboy 19:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are you even trying to argue this? -Seth Mahoney 19:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Because, I just dont see the POV. That change is in direct relation to what we diputed earlier regarding describing thier behavior rather than thier mental process.-Dbusboy 13:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't like the phrasing, but I'm not going to change it unless there is a clear community consensus to do so. -Seth Mahoney 01:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur that using the "behavior" qualifier is adopting the right-wing's "framing" language and is subtle POV. It also breaks parallelism with other section titles ("Homosexuality and society", "Business and attitudes towards homosexuality") and is more verbose when a more concise term (homosexuality) is sufficient. If the article were titled "Homosexual behavior", then perhaps. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 06:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting debate and dialog. Basically, without writing a long essay, is the argument that "animals cannot be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, in the same way that humans can, because animals don't think in terms of self-definied sexual identity"? Can we reach consensus by shifting the language from a tone of "Homosexual behavior in animals" (Using both the word "homosexual", which may be value laden, and "behavior"), to something like "same-sex activities in animals" (removing the gay=homosexual (even though same-sex *means* homo (same) sex (er... sex), and shifting from a word like "behavior" (implies conscious choice) to activity, which has less anthropomorphic loading...) Ronabop 08:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Kim: so, you are basically saying that anmals are 'at first' homosexual because thier own sexual identity is not clear to them in the early stages of thier lives?-Dbusboy 01:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering. If the entire reason we can perform sexual intercoure is for reproduction... why do men have a prostate. It has absolutely no reproductive value since men can't reproduce via their anuses (unless I got taught very bad biology). Can anyone help me out with this, I mean, I am correct when I say a prostate is what allows men to enjoy homosexual activities, aren't I?

Sorry, I didnt think anyone was going to write back, sorry i took so long to respond. Now, the prostate, although does allw men to enjoy anal sex, is not what it is there for. When I said, sex is for reproduction, this means sexual organs as well. For example: When two men have sex, Though thier sex is not for reproduction, everything about the activity is, (such as the erection, the man's phallic stimulation and eventual ejaculation.) A variety of things lead to sexual arousal, but sex, for the most part is for reproduction.-busboy 19:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bah. Unless you believe that a god(s) designed us for a specific purpose (and maybe even then), there's no reason to believe that anything in the world not designed by a human being or an animal to produce a certain effect has any sort of purpose whatsoever. That something, say an erection, can have a certain effect does not mean that it is supposed to be used to do that (ie, that it has a purpose). Sex, erections, ejaculation, arousal, eggs, sperm, etc. are not for reproduction - they just happen to have that effect sometimes, which in general is a good thing for our species. -Smahoney 20:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

1)How was your break? 2)WHAT? DUDE, if sperm, eggs and so on weren't for reproduction, how did you get here?! I said SEX is for reproduction! Now, even though your sex probably wont cause pregnancy, like I said before, everything about your sexual organs IS for reproduction. simply put, SEX IS FOR REPRODUCTION, EX: YOU, YOUR MOM AND DAD HAD SEX, AND MADE YOU, IF SEX WASANT FOR REPRODUCTION, THEN NOITHING WOULD COME OF IT. busboy 00:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I can throw a rock, and hit someone in the head with it. Does this mean that rocks are for hitting people in the head with? That something can lead to something else does not prove that it is for that purpose. -Smahoney 22:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, how clever. 1)yes, rocks are for hitting. 2)Even though sex is for other things it is predominatley for reproducing. -- unsigned comment added by User:busboy.

Please sign your posts using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. And... Good grief. Is this discussion still going on? Exploding Boy 01:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Pshaw. It is unlikely that the majority of sexual encounters result in reproduction. So how can the leap be made to saying that it is for reproduction? Its not even the only means to reproduction anymore! -Smahoney 03:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, ordinarily, i would write back, however, as exploding boy said, we really should continue this argument elsewhere, before people get fed up. Write me on my discussion page if you wish to comment further on sex and its true pourpose. In the meantime however, If u have anything else on animals, and wether or they can be gay or not, this is where to comment.busboy 21:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible problems in the "Polemic" section

• "It is abuse of the young." Encountered in "Erotes," a dialogue of the early Christian era by "Lucian."

This refers to pedophilia, not homosexuality. It should be removed.

A hypothetical example: Two 65 year old men living together and having sex are definitely homosexual, and definitely not abusing the young.

• "The male form is superior to the female form." Medieval Arabic text included in the Arabian Nights (The Debate Between the Wise Woman and the Sage).

This argument would support homosexuality only in the case of men. In the case of a homosexual woman, it would seem to advocate heterosexuality. Thus, it argues equally for and against homosexuality. Thus, it should be removed.

Please respond with comments/criticism. --Zaorish 22:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)--Zaorish 21:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, surely "dissipation of vital force" could be a criticism of recreational sex in general? --Dave ~ (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, since "vital force" is (1) not a scientific concept and (2) isn't defined here, I'd say it should be.

There was no more discussion on this after 1 day. So I'll go ahead and delete these. If you want to discuss more, please post here.--Zaorish 21:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I also added a note to the quote from the Indian guy, that it refers to male homosexuality.

Off-topic I find it really funny that both the biggest defenders and critics of homosexuality completely ignore lesbians. This article is just another example of that. It's almost as if that in ignoring women, these people suggest men are somehow more important! Ridiculous. --Zaorish 21:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

One day is a fairly short period of time to wait. I've restored the "vital force" and "male form" sections. I don't think that it matters that the latter argues only for male homosexuality (though it could be read as arguing for lesbianism, as well), since it is still an argument for homosexuality, and since lesbianism hasn't been recognized for fairly large chunks of history. As for the former, restricting polemics to those that use scientific concepts only seems a little overbearing.

Off topic, I agree that its weird that lesbians are often ignored. -Seth Mahoney 21:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why you disagree on the removal of the "abuse of the young" quote. --Zaorish 22:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The criticism of corrupting the young was addressed to men who were in relationships with adolescents, quite often adolescents in their mid-teens - as can be seen from iconographic materials still extant - rather than with little children. Furthermore, this was a practice freely engaged in by the majority of an often high-level functioning male population, rather than the compulsive behavior of a small disordered minority. Age structured homosexual relationships are simply another form of homosexual relationships (as you will see in the "Forms" section) and inherently belong in this article. Haiduc 22:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, Haiduc, and it has validity, but I still don't quite agree. Please see my hypothetical example above. Homosexuality, as understood today in developed-world society, doesn't include relationships between men or women and adolescents. In modern Western and Japanese society a sexual and/or romantic relationship between an adult and an adolescent is considered pedophilia or "lolita complex" (or a similar word, unfortunately I'm not a law student), irrespective of sexual orientation.

I understand that historically, such things were true, but as we understand it today, saying that "[Homosexuality] is abuse of the young" would not be logical or relevant to modern, developed-world environments. On the other hand, "[Pedophilia] is abuse of the young" would make perfect sense.

Perhaps one way to paraphrase what I'm saying is that significant historical changes in the definition of the word "homosexuality" should be taken into account in the Polemic section, especially the modern definition, since it is most important. Otherwise, the arguments seem confusing and self-contradictory (see my previous arguments under this topic). I invite further comments, and thank you, Seth, for reminding me of the "discuss first" ideal.

--Zaorish 05:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Most men, no matter how they label themselves, are attracted to youthfull looks. This is why pederasty was relative widespread in many different cultures, while the number of adult men, who find males of their own age "totally hot" has never been very strong. Besides that, the definition you have quoted here is simply incorrect. Please read the wikipedia-articles about this subject to better informed next time. Fulcher 23:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that the claim "homosexuality is abuse of the young" isn't logical, but its certainly relevant to the modern world, considering that the claim is still being made. The Family Research Institute [14], for example, has said that something like 2/3 of child molesters are gay men. -Seth Mahoney 19:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't mean that 2/3 of gay men are child molesters. Moreover, even the FRI used the term "child molester" to describe child molesters, not "gay men."--Zaorish 16:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And it's worth pointing out that the American Psychiatric Association disagrees with them completely. Exploding Boy 16:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's more to do with suppressed sexuality than homosexuality. The same goes for Catholic priests, for example. (Yes, I know this is my POV, but I haven't got time right now to go around digging up evidence) --Dave ~ (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My only point is that the truth or falsity of the claim "2/3 of gay men are child molesters" is irrelevant when it is still fairly widespread. What is relevant to the section in question is that the claim, true or false, is used as a way to attack gay people (gay men specifically) and question the legitimacy of same-sex relationships. -Seth Mahoney 01:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So most gay men don't rape children?-Dbusboy 00:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I was wrong to assume good faith here. Discussion over. All changes by you to this article will be reverted in the future. -Seth Mahoney 19:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What? I honestly didn't know that. The bible wrote that most sodomites go after little children.-Dbusboy 02:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No it didn't, and the Bible is a useful source for very few topics. —Guanaco 00:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it did. It spoke of the beatting of the first sodomite based on the idea tht they go after little children. I was raised by the bible as well.-Dbusboy 00:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

so, it's mistaken!--tasc 01:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly not a user trying to make a good faith argument. More like vandalism-by-engaging-users-with-idiocy. I'm of the opinion this busboy should be banned from editing this page. -Seth Mahoney 01:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Calm down Mr. Mahoney! I sid that i was just mistaken. I was raised by the bible so, I probably still have much to learn. If you think i am misguided, teach me of your lifestyle. If not, all i can do is guess. I wont cange the page either. I want someone to agree with me first.-Dbusboy 01:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this a case of "Don't feed the trolls"? ps- I apologise I know my signature is sloppy but it seems to be having trouble with my usernameWeenerbunny 195.153.124.163 14:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality in Central Asia

There are numerous references to Central Asian homosexual traditions on this and other homosexuality-related pages. Could you clarify where exactly in Central Asia (which peoples and coutries for example) and provide references if you can? The link connecting to Homosexuality and Islam primarily talks about Middle and Near Eastern societies.

Please see Pederasty in the Islamic lands for more details and references. Haiduc 02:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

External links

Forgive me, but I think that the external links section should be purged. The links there present focus solely on the “pro-gay” positions, organizations, articles, etc. Now, as an openly gay individual, I am not advocating that we counter them with their “anti-gay“ equivalents. I feel that they should be removed and the links should relate to relatively objective examinations of homosexuality, the homosexual culture, and the studies that have been done. Links to things like GLAAD, GLSEN, Lambda Legal, etc. should probably factor out to Gay rights, with other links going elsewhere.—Kbolino 02:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Objective examinations of the (one) homosexual culture? -Seth Mahoney 02:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Read: cultures in which homosexuals participate—Kbolino 03:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay, just so long as we're talking cultures, plural. -Seth Mahoney 03:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Page Reversion

My page reversion was done because those links you added were POV.--Adam ^(talk) 01:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well it's pov without them. There's not 1 single anti-gay link there, it is possible to be pro-gay biased just as much as it is possible to be anti-gay biased. This section is EXTREMELY biased because there's ~40 pro-gay links and not 1 single anti-gay link.A Clown in the Dark 01:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean that pro- and anti- views are equally represented on every page. Ideally, it means that neither is represented. In other words: Don't complain about someone else's bias when trying to push your own. Now, if you have a comment to make about the links that are here currently and how they could be cleaned up or moved to more appropriate articles to make this article more NPOV, throw it out. -Seth Mahoney 19:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well ok I guess you have a point. I would just like to make clear however that I think that anti-gay people are really stupid, and I'm not in anyway trying to push their agenda, I just figured it would be better to show both sides of the arguement and let the reader decide what to think. A Clown in the Dark 02:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think its sometimes appropriate to take tactics like that in articles like gay rights or maybe feminism, but in an article like homosexuality, we should really stick to trying to stick to talking about what homosexuality is and isn't, and various related cultural phenomena. I think the links should just stick to immediately relevant issues, and not go into, say, gay rights topics. But, you know, that's just what I think. -Seth Mahoney 03:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That is totally wrong about "NPOV," because there is no such point of view. The information presented here about homosexuality is extremely favorable towards homosexuality and not neutral. In other words, the posters highly favorable towards homosexuality ARE making a value judgment. Why not allow the links against homosexuality as a different point of view? Instead of stamping out other points of view, why not allow them? -Richard Gladding (User:69.250.18.129)

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end. Saying the article is pro-gay or "favorable toward homosexuality" doesn't really go a long way toward fixing the issue. To put it bluntly: Be specific or quit wasting our time. -Seth Mahoney 22:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, there is a section on homosexuality in animals which is arguing or implying that because animals exhibit homosexuality then human homosexuality is appropriate as well. I tried to add "An argument for human homosexuality being natural is that monkeys exhibit homosexual behavior. But monkeys are not human beings and do not have the reasoning and moral decision making higher levels of human existence. A common tactic of justifying a human behavior is by comparying it to behaviors exhibited in the animal world. Animals, however, operate according to pure psychological conditioning, which is apparently their highest level. Human beings have the ability to self-reflect, to reason, and mold their lower psychological and behavioral levels according to a moral framework." The previous was removed. There isn't even a section worth mentioning that refutes any of the justifications for homosexuality in humans that largely comprise this page. If the point of Wikipedia, in this case, is to understand homosexuality, why not include other arguments than those that are homosexually sympathetic?

To go through and really make this web page more descriptive and balanced, it would take a considerable amount of time. What is the point of doing so when any Tom, Dick or Harry can censor and remove reasonable and rational explanations and arguments concerning homosexuality? -Richard Gladding 69.250.18.129 00:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, stop adding these links. As I already pointed out some of your interpretations are misguiding. I do think that not a single link doesn't fit neither here nor to the Marriage. --tasc 00:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should give the page a more careful read. Nowhere in the section titled "Homosexuality in animals" is the claim being made that, because homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom, it should be accepted among humans as well. Is there somewhere else in the article that you're finding this claim?

Let me be perfectly clear: When I ask for specifics, I want quoted citations followed by what you think is wrong with them.

Finally, you obviously do think it would be worthwhile to work on this page, or you would not be constantly adding these links to it. So why don't you work with the rest of the editors, instead of against them? -Seth Mahoney 00:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Mahoney, the web page says, "This article is about human homosexuality. For animal homosexuality, see Non-human animal sexuality." That's at the top, you can't miss it. Even without that statement, including a section on animal homosexuality is out of place and can only be construed as supportive of human homosexuality. As you well know, or should know, that is one of the many arguments in favor of human homosexuality being acceptable. Why not include information that argues animal homosexuality is not supportive of human homosexuality being acceptable? Does any one else out there get this?

The external links still point to sites that are favorable to homosexuality as an acceptable practice. Why not include links that are unfavorable to the practice of homosexuality?

The editors should seriously look at the massive bias that is on the homosexuality page.

-Richard Gladding 69.250.18.129 01:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion of what appears to be hidden in the spaces and punctuation marks aside, that argument does not appear on this page. The article is about homosexuality. The short paragraph + a link to the main article is a common enough disambuation technique. You can find it used on pages all across Wikipedia in order to point interested readers to other pages. Finally, to say "homosexuality is this or that" is not to be "favorable to homosexuality". The decision has been made (on this talk page, in this section, right before your first contribution) to remove all LGBT-rights related links, supporting and against, to another page so that this one can focus on what homosexuality is, not on who likes it or doesn't.

Finally, as I stated earlier, I doubt many of us have the patience for your empty bias claims. If you have specific passages you believe to be biased, copy them from the article and paste them on this page along with an explanation of why you think them to be biased. If you can't be troubled to go to that small amount of effort, I can't be troubled to consider your requests. -Seth Mahoney 01:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok Mahoney, you aren't getting it. My previous post still stands which you have not adequately addressed. The argument IS there using animal homosexuality as supportive of human homosexuality being acceptable. The page here is about human homosexuality, which is why the animal homosexuality is extremely suspicious. Additionally, NOT questioning homosexuality as an acceptable practice implies to a degree that it is acceptable.

If this page is trying to "focus on what homosexuality is" then why are other viewpoints that disagree with the practice of homosexuality being vigorously removed? Specifically, the link "http://www.fhu.com/roys_articles.html" I included leading to an article Gays in Society, the Growing Clash, which DOES give a rational and reasonable explanation about what "homosexuality is."

Your statement of "Finally, to say 'homosexuality is this or that' is not 'favorable to homosexuality'" is incorrect as the page stands. Specifically, the GLSEN link points to a web page that prominently says: "The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network strives to assure that each member of every school community is valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression." If that isn't favorable to homosexuality I don't know what is.

Mahoney, greetings from a fellow philosophy major.

-Richard Gladding, signing off for the night 69.250.18.129 01:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Gladding, there is no need to confirm or deny the acceptabilty of homosexuality, or of spaghetti, or any other topic featured in this encyclopeadia. This is a general page focusing on all aspects of homosexuality, and links to specialized pages on those aspects. If there are aspects of the pro and con debate you feel are insufficiently covered, indicate them here and expand on it in an appropriate related page (Criticisms of sexual behavior, for example). Haiduc 02:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it is you who isn't getting it. If you have specific complaints to make about text that is actually in the article, quote the text and make the complaints. You also have the option of making the edits yourself. Complaining about some imagined bias achieves nothing except irritating editors and wasting time. If you do have issues with text that is actually in the article, I'd be happy to hear it - my goal, like most of the editors here, is to make a better article, not sneak a bias under your nose.

As far as human and animal homosexuality appearing on the same page, I have addressed that point. It appears in order to provide a link to a related page for interested readers. The same style of disambiguation appears on plenty of other wikipedia articles. There is no intended, subtle link implied, other than the obvious: That these are both instances of homosexuality.

Finally, not including a voice against does not represent a view in favor. The intended direction for this article is currently, I believe, to remove voices both for and against, moving them to more appropriate articles, like gay rights. The goal isn't to hide biases, but to move the text to appropriate pages. Your interpretation of NPOV as meaning "representing all views" is, I believe, currently going out of fashion on Wikipedia, the primary example against being articles on Nazism and racism (where, most of us contend, NPOV does not require us to include arguments for Nazism or racism). -Seth Mahoney 02:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article

I moved this here:

The opposite situation seems to obtain in homonormative societies, where men whose primary attraction may be to the opposite sex nonetheless engage in the homosexual practices prescribed by their respective culture.

For the following reasons: 1. I've never encountered the word 'homonormative' outside wikipedia. 2. Name one homonormative society (if this refers to what I suspect it does, 'homonormative' is a complete misnomer). -Seth Mahoney 19:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't disagree that "homonormative" seems to be a junk word, however the concept of a society where homosexuality is a proscribed behavior warrants exploration... Usually it is a coming of age behavior, and may not be demonstrated by all members or for their entire lifetimes, the Sambia tribe would be one where all members seem to participate in ritual homosexuality for a period of their lives, but eventually are expected to procreate. In any case it's discussed briefly on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and that's probably where it belongs. Rainman420 22:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The Sambia case was exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote that. And for that case, given that the question of whether what's going on there even counts as sex, I'd stick by my terming 'homonormative' a misnomer. -Smahoney 22:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say that, though this article still needs work, it has come a long way in a fairly short amount of time, and with some heavy vandalism. So a big thanks to all of you who put in the work. -Seth Mahoney 01:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Links and POVs

Okay, here's the deal. The proposal was made to remove all links to sites that represent rights-related issues, pro- and anti- gay groups, etc. I'm here to argue that this does not mean the removal of links to sites about gay history, art, culture, etc. These are cultural manifestations of homosexuality, and as such deserve mention here (or should be moved to more specific cultural articles). They are not here to "promote a homosexual agenda" or some such idiocy. To the editors removing these links: Explain why you feel the need to do so (something better than "they're pro gay, and them faggots are tryin' tuh make us all into gays!"). Maybe we can reach some consensus here rather than engaging in an edit war. The following seem to be the problem links for you. What are your issues with each?

• Encyclopedia of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender & queer culture
• Gay History & Literature (Rictor Norton)
• Halsall's Gay History Page
• Gayinfo: famous gays, lesbians and bisexuals

-Seth Mahoney 02:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to come in after the fray, but it seems to me we are cutting off our nose here. Why not leave the links as they were, they were valuable, and include a section for opposition to homosexuality? I am appending the missing links below, just so we know what I am talking about.

Organizations active for legal protection of same-sex families

   * Stonewall (UK) - gay lobby group in the UK
   * Outrage (UK) - direct action gay political activists
   * Human Rights Campaign
   * Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
   * Lambda Legal Defense Fund
   * NGLTF (National Gay & Lesbian Task Force) US Lobbying group
   * Out In America

Organizations that offer support to gay youth

   * CampWEHO - message boards
   * Mogenic - magazine consisting of various articles, as well as profiles and chat
   * Youth.org - Nonprofit site

Organizations that offer support to lesbians and gay men

   * American Psychological Association
   * International Lesbian and Gay Association
   * London Lesbian Gay Switchboard - the first in the world, started as East London Gay Switchboard in 1974.
   * Soulforce, Inc. - interfaith movement representing GLBT people.
   * Gay Men's Health Crisis - mostly information on HIV / AIDS prevention and management
   * Gay Health - health-related information for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals
   * Keshet-Rabbis - A growing list of Conservative/Masorti Rabbis who support Gay Jews.
   * People Like Us 3 - the main gay equality advocacy group in Singapore

Organizations that offer support to lesbian and gay families

   * Proud Parenting
   * Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays

Periodicals

   * The Advocate
   * 365Gay news
   * Out (magazine)
   * Southern Voice Online
   * Outrate.net - Critical consideration of gay-themed cinema and gay cinema spectatorship
   * White Crane (magazine)[21] - A Journal Of Gay Spirit, Wisdom & Culture

Haiduc 02:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord, you guys are too much! There is no dissenting opinion on the homosexuality page. Why? Because I can only surmise most if not all of you are affirming homosexuality. Why not have a dissenting opinion at least in the links section? It is pretty funny, if you go over and check the ex-gay page it reads like "a propaganda piece against conversion or exiting the gay lifestyle: It's weighty and argumentative as an op-ed newspaper article would be: It reads like more of an attack than an infomative prospective of what is at issue with this topic" as one poster in the discussion writes. Oddly enough the links section there has a great many links in opposition to being ex-gay. Overall, the links there need to be pared down, but the dissenting opinions SHOULD BE balanced with the links in favor of being ex-gay.

-RIchard GLadding 69.250.18.129 05:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Since scientific opinion is nearly unanimous in denouncing conversion "therapies" as hokum, it makes no sense to "balance" information with nonsense. It should be indicated as such and linked to for informational purposes and that's it. As for "dissenting opinion" that reminds me of my grandmother (born 1897) who thought whites should not mate with blacks. I'll be sure to list her as a dissenting opinion in the racial equality article. But I do agree with you that there should be a small section for the contrarian gallery with the other links, which will of course go back. Would you like to select a couple for inclusion. I am not familiar with the field. Haiduc 13:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The idea was originally that pro- and anti-gay links (and hey, if we're going to have a list of anti-gay links, why not throw Fred Phelps in there? He's certainly well known and anti-gay enough, no?) actually have nothing to do with homosexuality per se. They have to do with peripheral articles like gay rights, homosexuality and religion, ex-gays, and so on, and would be more appropriate at the end of those articles. To get to Mr. Gladding's obnoxious opinion, there is, and there should be, nothing to dissent on this page. This page should be about what homosexuality is, not about who thinks what about it. That can be reserved for other pages. -Seth Mahoney 17:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with this position - this is not about dissent or advocacy, that simply belongs on other pages, like Gay rights. FCYTravis 18:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I should have noticed this sooner, but clearly Richard Gladding's arguments here are at least partially motivated by a desire for self-promotion. One of the links he keeps adding ([15]) appears to be his own website. -Seth Mahoney 18:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if anyone is interested they could write an article on Conversion therapies and link to it from this page, since the information should be accessible somehow. Haiduc 19:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There are already articles on ex-gay and reparative therapy. FCYTravis 19:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

We also have religion and sexual orientation, biology and sexual orientation, choice and sexual orientation, homosexuality and Christianity, homosexuality and Islam, homosexuality and medical science, and homosexuality and morality. Do we really need another page on conversion therapies or another page on people who think homosexuality is icky? -Seth Mahoney 19:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is going too far. User 69.250.18.129 is just readding his links whenever anyone reverts, without any comment and without participating in this discussion. Does anyone know the process to go through to get an IP banned? -Seth Mahoney 21:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for violating 3RR. —Guanaco 21:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Revisited

I'm not exactly sure why people are so desparate to get the AFA, of all groups, listed here, but the see also section isn't really the place for it, unless they offer an NPOV look at what homosexuality is. They do, however, work just fine as sources for quotes or information on their organization. The polemic section would be a good place for this, as would Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, Homosexuality and psychology, etc. -Seth Mahoney 01:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"taxes on homosexual boy brothels continued to be collected until the end of the reign of Anastasius in 581"

Anastasius reigned a century before 581. Please somebody correct either the year or the Emperor.

Thank you for catching that. It was a typo, the correct year is 518. It has been corrected. Haiduc 18:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Treatment section

This article failed to mention the numerous options out there for those of us who have had homosexual thoughts and feelings. I have added a section on treatment that touches on some of the alternatives and benefits. I realize that this is a controversial topic for some but it is important for people to know what they can do about their situation. Also it is 100% relevant to the topic, and this is something with which I have firsthand experience. IceOwl 07:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

there is a section Homosexuality#Behaviour modification. I think it's more relevant and full of citation unlike your addition. --tasc 07:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, I will work in the existing section instead. -IceOwl 07:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to "work" as you once did. Your modification will be also reverted! Read WP:NPOV --tasc 07:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The old section was very biased. The new section is less so. Do you treat all the new users like this or do you have a hard-on for me? -IceOwl 07:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What you call biased. Please provide evidence that the treatment does work before claiming it works. --KimvdLinde 07:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten it again. It suggested that gays were deviants which is not at all NPOV. I also notice that some of you are getting very close to falling foul of WP:3RR. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already listed IceOwl on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. —Guanaco 07:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Drosophila and Fruty gene

I will add in due time a small section about Drosophila and the fruty gene (call fruitless now for political correct reasons). Mutants of the gene make males homosexual, and other mutants make females lesbians. --KimvdLinde 03:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Homosexuality#Gay_animals (above) for some of the considerations when adding such a thing to an article (is the animal gay in the human sense, or is it an animal having sex with members of its same sex, but not gay?)... but it (the research) certainly does sound interesting. Ronabop 11:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Drosophila = fruitfly. It has to do with a complete change of orientation, males with the mutatnt gene have no interest for females, court males and try to mount them as well. --KimvdLinde 16:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I knew Drosophila = friutfly. I wasn't referring to the pun on "fruit", I was referring to the long discusssions on whether an animal can be "gay" or not gay, or even *have* such a thing as a "sexual orientation", irrespective of their actual physical actions... Okay: here's a short mental game which might summarize the prior discussions. Imagine a gene in, say, a canine, where ingesting meat made them vomit. Does that gene affect whether or not they are "vegitarians", or, rather, does it affect whether or not they are "herbivores"? How about conditioning experiments, where any time they tried to eat meat, they were shocked... are they true vegitarians, in the human sense? Ronabop 08:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Constantly bail the leaky boat

Someone deleted "gender" from the end of the basic definition of "homosexuality." Here is why I cannot agree with that change. I can understand why this was done, but I reverted it because the objective of an article like this should be to bring as much clarity as possible to an already thoroughly confused topic, not just to say things that can be defended as "logically correct." The underlying problem is that society intrudes upon relationships that people perceive to be problematical, and that intrusion can include the classification of a relationship between same-gender individuals as "homosexual" because they both appear to be men or both appear to be women. The determining factor in sex is whether the individual will be capable on maturity of, is currently capable of, or was once capable of producing sperm (male) or ova (female). But an androgenized female (i.e., an XX individual with a penis, the appearance of having testicles, etc.) living a sexual life with an ordinary male would generally be categorized as gay. And a male with an entirely female body type living with an XX female would most likely be regarded as a lesbian. In jurisdictions where homosexual relationships are illegal, there frequently is no problem when a sex change operation has made the relationship "conforming." (What it actually does is make two XX people living together or two XY people living together look o.k. to the authorities.)

I have no idea how one is supposed to figure out what to call two XX-XY "chimera" individuals, one whose superficial appearance might be masculine or might be feminine or might be otherwise, and the other whose superficial appearance might be any of the above. In my personal opinion it's nobody's business but their own. The only trouble is that in the real world of today somebody will probably object to any possible variety of sexual coupling except missionary position on Saturday night by one XX and one XY person, both consenting.

In accessing this discussion page I happened to re-read the "to do" list, and it occurs to me that a frank discussion of these very basic but recalcitrant facts might simplify everything else that needs to be said in this article. The only time that I can think of when "homosexuality" is not just a matter of some intrusive expression of opinion or delighted discovery of unexpected variety (both side dishes when compared to the real issues of love and of sexual compatibility) is when reproduction is being thwarted in an otherwise good relationship. 金 (Kim) 02:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I just had a quick look through the above discussions, particularly the parts about "gay dogs" or whatever the characterization was. ;-) It is difficult enough to understand one's own motivations and impulses. I may wish that one thing would arouse me and that another thing would not, but it is often difficult to anticipate potential revelation of one's untoward desires. (It's also difficult to avoid puns, damn it.) It is more difficult to understand the factors motivating other people. When we think we do it may be because we know, or think we know, what would be going on with us under the circumstances. When it comes to understanding animals, it is even more difficult for untrained observers to correctly interpret what is going on. For one thing, some behaviors are motivated very powerfully by agents such as pheromones. For instance, semen is regularly harvested from high-priced stallions for sale to owners desiring to artificially impregnate their mares. A padded mock-up of the posterior half of a mare sufficiently strong to bear the weight of the stallion and some secretions from an estrous mare are all that is required to initiate breeding behavior. A gelding smeared with the same secretions would likely be mounted in the same way. Young dogs typically go through a period when they try to mount non-estrous females, owner's legs, etc. This appears to be a trial-and-error procedure that eventually puts the male dog on the right trail, after which time mounting inappropriate objects ceases. Young monkeys actually have to go through an experimental period in early life, otherwise they are sexually inadequate in maturity. I once saw a tomcat mount a friend's new suede shoes. Since he ignored everybody else's shoes in a household of a dozen or so male students, I have to conclude that there was something arousing in the chemicals used to tan the leather. (Regretably that friend never again wore those shoes in the company of the rest of us, so the possibility that other factors may have been involved was never tested. He was a physicist, you see.) The pre-natal developmental peculiarities that produce freemartins are well known.

What has changed in the last few decades is that scientists have become more objective in recording and studying other phenomena that were once said never to occur, especially instances of same-sex bondings in which the individuals behave very much as conspecifics behave in other-sex bondings. Whatever is really going on in these cases may still be open to question, but the old idea that only human beings are so perverse as to sexually bond with members of the same sex seems to have been given the lie. The discovery of non-human same-sex bondings analogous to human reproductive bondings (even to the extent, if I remember correctly, that some same-sex bird pairs that nest in flocks may appropriate eggs to hatch and raise as their own) gives us a greater context in which to understand our own sexual and affectional behavior, just as studying chimpanzee warfare may give us a better understanding of our own inter-group aggressive behaviors. 金 (Kim) 03:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Attitudes to Homosexuality in the middle ages

A couple of us were debating attitudes to homosexuality in the middle ages, in reference to Richard II and Edward II (and others), at Talk:Richard II of England. Is there anyone around with an interest in the history of attitudes to homosexuality in the late middle ages in Europe who could give us a heads-up on any information on this subject. A long shot, I grant. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)

Historical and geographical practices

I just have a few minutes, so I'm moving these paragraphs here rather than make all the changes myself:

Michel Foucault and his followers have argued that the homosexual is a modern invention, a mental construct of the last 100 years. While true of homosexuality as a scientific or psychological category, there are examples from earlier ages of those viewing their sexuality as a part of a human identity and not merely a sexual act. One cited example is the 16th-century Italian artist Giovanni Antonio Bazzi who adopted the nickname "Sodoma", which is viewed by Louis Crompton as something analogous to the modern gay identity.

Until some issues can be worked out:

1. Foucault didn't have followers. This isn't a religion we're talking about here.
2. Foucault's arguments need to be sourced. (Actually, this sounds like an argument from Jonathan Ned Katz, not Foucault per se.)
3. It isn't a mental construct according to the Foucauldian paradigm, it is a social construct.
4. The counterargument, "While true of homosexuality..." needs to be sourced.
5. The argument involving Giovanni Antonio Bazzi needs to be sourced - name dropping is insufficient.

And:

While some premodern societies did not employ categories fully comparable to the modern homosexual or heterosexual dichotomy, this does not demonstrate that the polarity is not applicable to those societies. A common thread of constructionist argument is that no one in antiquity or the Middle Ages experienced homosexuality as an exclusive, permanent, or defining mode of sexuality. John Boswell has criticised this argument by citing ancient Greek writings by Plato, which he says indicate knowledge of exclusive homosexuality.

1. The first sentence needs to be sourced (stated as fact, it is POV).
2. The second sentence needs to be sourced.
3. John Boswell's claims need to be sourced.

-Seth Mahoney 02:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Shifts in ex-gay

Lately, there has been a concerted effort on the ex-gay article to shift its point of view away from neutrality. Since this article is related, I'm asking that any editors who are knowledgable on this matter join in. Alienus 08:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In what direction? horseboy 12:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter? Our goal is neutrality. Alienus 12:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Pre-20th century views

Until the spread of Christianity and Islam, most religions made no distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relations. This sentence in the intro is okay, but should it not also be made clear that as such, there was no concept of sexual orientation (as we now understand the term) up until the modern age? SouthernComfort 16:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, although saying there was no concept of sexual orientation is a bit stronger than I'd like. -Seth Mahoney 02:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There really is no such thing as homo or hetero sexuality ... both terms are amazingly modern. - Augustulus

Vandalism?

This is weird, when I visited the page I found a sentence right at the beginning that was obvious vandalism... so I wanted to edit it out, but surprise! I can't find it when I edit the page! How is that possible? --IronChris 20:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hum, ok, I just checked and the offending sentence has disappeared. Oh well, I guess I'll never know... --IronChris 20:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1. People can start and complete edits between the last time you loaded the page and when you clicked on the "edit" function. 2. If you want to know what was there, who put it there, and when it was removed (and by whom), check the edit history.—Kbolino 01:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph on religion in intro

Looking at it again, I think the entire paragraph concerning religion in the intro is unnecessary since there is already a section on religion further down. Why the need for mention of religious views at the very beginning? SouthernComfort 09:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Psychological Rebellion

I moved the following section here:

Homosexuality can also be a psychological rebellion against society. Although it seems as if society has severed ties with fundamental roots, several traces of original humanity still shows within the precedents of society. Heterosexuality, for example, was used to animals in order to reproduce and hence ensure the survival of one’s own species and is now adapted as the basic sexual orientation as opposed to homosexuality and asexuality. Hence homosexuals rebels against this precedent set by early species in order to either draw attention consciously or subconsciously to themselves. Though many people believe that subconscious rebellion should not be blamed on the conscious mind, it is up to the conscious mind to determine what kind of material is suitable to be fed to one’s mind, therefore bringing the “blame” of homosexuality back onto the conscious mind (existentialist-wise). Most of the popular pro-rebellion propaganda is fed to children though the liberal media. Recall that revolution sells better than morality. Anti-homosexuality propaganda is enforced by early dating religions whose essential teachings have been forgotten and now heaps blame and reasoning on an almighty.

because, as written, it is original research. With sources, and properly edited, I'd be fine with its reinsertion. -Smahoney 00:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Rebellion? So Im gay because I want attention and to rebel against society? lol. I didnt know that one!

Yes, subconsciously you want to rebell against this heterosexual-flaunting society.

Please, both of you, sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end. -Smahoney 00:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this article as a guest and then realized that it was moved when I created a username. Cheau The GOD 01:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but it is generally preferred that when you add stuff to talk pages you follow it with -~~~~ whether you have an account or not. -Smahoney 01:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to change the title of this section it "Psychological Rebellion". May I? Cheau The GOD 01:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose. But why? Wouldn't it be more useful to cite sources or something? -Smahoney 01:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose this is more opinion than fact since the theory has not yet been coined.Cheau The GOD 01:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If it hasn't been used by anyone else, then it is probably original research, and does not belong in the article. See WP:NOR. -Smahoney 01:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

So…if it’s not plagiarized, then it’s not considered fact? Cheau The GOD 00:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between referencing someone's work and plagiarization. Seriously, see WP:NOR. -Smahoney 00:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Article too long?

Seeing that the article is now above 70kb whereas the recomendations is arround 32kb, maybe it could be an idea to move the section on Homosexuality in society to a separate page. After all, this page seems to be more about what homosexuality is. Just a thought... J.Ring 23:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this would also be an idea for the history section. J.Ring 23:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Anthropology

This section of the article contains this statement:

"... Two-Spirit or shamanic gender-changing practices seen in native societies."

What on earth does the term native mean in this context?

T. (Not a registered user. This is the first time I've put anything on a Talk page. I've only ever corrected typos in articles before. (And added a bit about the town shield to the one on Tullamore in Ireland.))

I'm going to stick four tildes here to see what happens: 87.232.43.104 00:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Four tildes will do quite nicely ( in fact, it is the recomendation )If you are not registered the wiki uses your IP as your user identity, otherwise it will use your registered username. If you are contributing a lot, you may want to consider signing up for an account, as it makes it easier to follow a discussion ( i.e, who is saying what ). J.Ring 13:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah. I'll stick to h2g2. Just a bit of moonlighting on Wiki ever so often.

Is native the right word here? I doubt it. A very old-fashioned use of the word.

T. (Same person, but possibly different IP address.) 87.232.43.104 21:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Gay rights opposition

The recent changes to Gay rights opposition may interest some of the editors here. Al 12:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Even more so now. Did you know anything about the evil gay agenda?! Al 03:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was evil but suit yourself. Chooserr 03:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And there's a new POV hot-spot, courtesy of Chooserr: Homosexual agenda. Al 04:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ouch, compared to Nazi Germany, and it is valid too. Sucks to be on the opposition side of that argument JayKeaton 04:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

They don't care. The opposition to equal rights of any stripe is and has historically always simply been willfully too stupid to realize that having an ideology comparable to Hitler's is bad for business! Their ideology thrives on ignorance and stupidity. E. Sn0 =31337= 04:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

pro and con

i am unhappy with this section, the headings make it sound like this is a collection of valid arguments while it entirely consists of jewels like: "it leads to plagues and natural disasters" or "'The male form is superior to the female form, some of these things should be mentioned maybe in a historical context but as it is now it looks pretty weird

trueblood 08:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There is obviously no claim to validity, nor can any such objective discussion exist. These are simply historical arguments used by people over the ages to defend and attack relations between people of the same sex. This whole section is a "historical context", and unfortunately of current interest as well since some of those arguments are still being bandied about. If that is not sufficiently apparent perhaps we could come up with a better introduction for it. Haiduc 10:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual agenda

The homosexual agenda article needs more input. Please come join us if this issue interests you. Al 04:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality and peadophilia original research

I have now removed twice a section that tries to link homosexuality with pedophilia, using a single, hightly partisan and conservative website and resorting to original research to make the point. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

GG :) E. Sn0 =31337= 23:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Disorder?

How come everytime I put homosexuality down as a disorder, someone deletes it? Is the "label" disorder NPOV? If so, how?busboy 03:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that the above comment was added by 63.235.87.185, not busboy, and that neither has any edits on the homosexuality article. Fireplace 04:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Busboy added it, i just didint sign in.busboy 04:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Come on, you know better than this. Also, you should make contributions while signed in so as to avoid the above confusion. -Smahoney 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't "know better than this", please to explain if it is NPOV or not...please.Busboy 05:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality is not a disorder in the view of all mainstream psychological organizations, thus it is clearly not NPOV to call it one. FCYTravis 06:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, its really not worth it. Check here [16] for the last bout, and here [17] for this user's history of vandalism. I doubt this is in any way a genuine question. -Smahoney 13:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality is not a psycological disorder, yet it is a disorder in some way, indeed.Busboy 07:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

VANDALISM?!?!? I never EVER vadalized a page EVER! How did I ever vandalize anything? For the most part, 95% of what i claim is true in one way or another. Prove me wrong, and i will agree, and withdraw from editing any controversial section.Busboy 17:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you denying that you edited from the IP 64.75.71.5? Because, if so, it is curious how you both signed your contributions similarly here [18]... -Smahoney 01:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you gay? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 17:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Why?Busboy 18:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't "experienced" being gay, don't pass judgement based on pure observation and distant speculation. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 18:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Im not "judging" anyone. Homosexuality is a type of disorder, but i want to find out why no one seems to agree with me.Busboy 18:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Realistic, modern people don't consider homosexuality to be a disorder anymore. If you really want to say it is, you're likely to encounter a lot of conflict from the raging mob. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 18:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Holy christ. Homosexuality is a disorder . My problem is that most people are unwilling to hear the truth, and the fact that i am debating against gay people dosent seem to help my case any.Busboy 18:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Debating against gay people? Are you saying you have a problem with homosexuals? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 18:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No, not at all. Does "disorder" imply that there is something wrong with it?Busboy 18:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but your choice of words in your previous response was misleading, to say the least. In all honesty, you're not going to get anywhere with this, so you may as well spend your time doing more productive things. No debate is going to change the article so much as to say that homosexuality is the equivalent of a disease. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 18:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hold on now, I never said that homosexuality was a disease. "Disorder" and "Disease" are 2 different things.Busboy 18:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if we're not going by that definition of the word disorder, then I apologise for my choice of words. But the rest of what I said still goes, there's really no point in trying to get that put in the article. Homosexuality isn't something that can be helped. Should we call hetrosexuality a disorder as well? That's also something that can't be helped; and the fact that the majority of people are hetrosexual, or that it's the natural norm, is beside the point. They are both things that can't be helped, but I'm pretty sure hetrosexuality wouldn't be called a disorder due to the sole fact that we live in a predominately hetrosexual society. The article won't be changed to say that homosexuality is a disorder, unless perhaps it's included in a part that gives different peoples' opinions on it. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 18:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, however calling it a disorder in these modern times is like calling blue eyes a disorder. Is having blue eyes a disorder? Technically, yes, however, because it is no real problem to those who have them, it is called an "eye color". Homosexuality is a disorder because, through natrual law, it serves no real pourpose. Nothing comes of two of the same sex mating, and is for the most part rare. Heterosexuality is not a disorder however, because something comes of it.Busboy 18:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What colour should eyes be? And who's to say what eye colour is normal, and what colour is disorderly? By your definition of disorder, and your explanation, it can probably be agreed by quite a few people that homosexuality may be a disorder. But that's not what makes this encyclopaedia work. Neutral point of view is what this encyclopaedia uses, meaning if that's what some people think, it should probably be included in the article; but it shouldn't replace anything, and it shouldn't suddenly be what the majority of the article is based on. If you really want to include that in the article, you should discuss it with the other editors of the article; ask them what they think. But nobody will agree to replace what's there now with what you're proposing, so don't ever expect that to happen if you decide to ask for other peoples' opinions. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 18:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because something serves no purpose doesn't mean it's a disorder. Disorder implies a malfunction of some kind, and homosexuality does not prevent that person from engaging in heterosexual intercourse and making babies. I also think that calling it a disorder is somewhat of a stone-age viewpoint, though that's just personal opinion. -- Steel 19:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Would u call nechrophilia or pedophillia a disorder, if so y? (note: i am not comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or nechrophilia)Busboy 19:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd call necrophilia a sexual perversion, since the people are kinda not alive... As for paedophilia, it depends on whether it's meant technically, as in a very minor age difference; or if it's a person that only likes children, and not adults. In that case, I'd call it a sexual perversion as well. But I wouldn't call either of them disorders. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 19:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Neither of those are disorders. Yes, they're looked down upon in our society (and I'm not supporting either of them here), but there's nothing inherently wrong with them, you could imagine a society where both are common and acceptable. -- Steel 19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG?" dude, if someone has sex with corpses or children, that defintley seems like something is wrong there!Busboy 19:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's because we were all raised that way, and doesn't really have much to do with homosexuality at any rate. -- Steel 19:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Paedophilia isn't always that bad, but because of the whole thing about it being law, it implicates people unnecessarily. If there's an age gap of a year either way of the law, does that still make paedophilia so bad? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 19:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

well, europeans started this whole childlove thing, so ill leave it at that. However, scince a malfunction causes homosexuality, logically, it would be a malfunction or disorder.Busboy 19:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The causes of homosexuality haven't been proven or confirmed yet, so as likely as that may be, there's no proof to it as of yet. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 19:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It dosent take 15,000,000 dollars and a team of scientists to figure out that two of the same gender having sex and being sexually attracted to each other is a result of a hormonal disorder of some type.Busboy 19:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that may be true; but there's no facts. Also, that theory has its own article. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 20:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm tellin ya, its not worth the effort... Don't feed the trolls. -Smahoney 01:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You know what?! Homosexuality is NOT A DISORDER!!! Drop it! Hearing that it's a disorder and me being gay pisses me off! There is nothing wrong people like me!! IT'S NOT A DISORDER NO MATTER WHAT PEOPLE SAY!--Dil 02:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Dammit man, what are you being so sensitive about?! First off, I HAVE NEVER VANDALIZED ANYTHING! I HAVE NO CLUE IN HELL WHAT U MEAN BY "TROLL"! 2) I NEVER SAID THAT THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH HOMOSEXUALITY, PERSONALLY! Why are you being so sensitive about this? The very fact that you get "BAD" from "DISORDER" puzzles me. I never said "gays r bad people"!Busboy 05:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Pay closer attention in the future. You're responding to two people. -Smahoney 06:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

oh...well in that case, y r u calling me a troll?Busboy 06:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that you fit the description to a T. -Smahoney 15:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone needs to calm down and assume good faith. It's really not worth getting so stressed out over one word. -- Steel 15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

FINALLY!! Some logic I think we can all agree with!Busboy 07:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the anger is coming from the fact that in medical terms, disorder means something is wrong. An eating disorder involves your body doing somethign that isn't right (over eating or being unable to eat), in fact, one dictionary describes disorder as: " A disturbance or derangement that affects the function of mind or body, such as an eating disorder or the abuse of a drug." Calling Homosexuality as a disorder, is the equivalent of calling it something that is wrong with the person,a dntherefore as bad a thing as annorexia or drug abuse. Which it's not. Therefore the term "disorder" is not NPOV, and I can't see how it could be. Jacobshaven3 09:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. "Disorder" is essentially similar, if not identical, to "disease". We all know how calling a natural variation of human pigmentation a disease is very NPOV and bigoted; why not extend the same logic to natural variations in human sexuality? E. Sn0 =31337= 18:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I love to read logic, it makes my life easier. Well, This is true, however, I'm coming from natrual law, not political corecctness, where the controversy stems from. In any real sense, (through natrual law of course) Anything that lowers the overall amount of productivity, if not a disease or injury, is a disorder. In nature, homosexuals cannot reproduce, therefore, they lower the productivity of a specified tribe or otherwise. Basically, homosexuality lowers productivity, which, through natrual law, would make it a disorder. Busboy 04:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In some way I can see were you are coming from, but were do you class homosexual acts if the person has already had children? What about homosexuality in tribes were they then have productive relationships? Soon, due to stem cell research, a woman will be able to have offspring without the need for a male, if she could reproduce on her own (or with another woman) would homosexuality be a disorder? As well as that, do people that choose to not have kids, to use contraception, to have abortions or other ways of preventing it; do they have a mental disorder since it's going against the norm? Jacobshaven3 09:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would class homosexual acts as follows: If the person has kids, it is still a fault, everyone is bisexual to some degree, but true bisexuality is a form of homosexuality. 2) Homosexuals can be productive in terms of building, & hunting & such, yet they are not productive in the most important way, procreating. 3) If a woman could reproduce natrually with another woman, it would not be a disorder, only because, then women would then be natrually sexually attracted to other women. In nature, you are supposed to be attracted to those whom you impregnate, or who impregnate you. 4) Those who try to prevent pregnancy do not have a mental disorder, because, without contraception, they would reproduce anyway.Busboy 13:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that everybody is bisexual to a degree? Do you have any proof of that? Some people aren't attracted to women at all. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 13:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

-Well then they're lying. And any straight man who says he's never had a homosexual experience or fantasy is also lying. What? People lie. -Augustulus

Let me rephrase that: All heterosexuals are bisexual to a certain degree.busboy 16:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If all hetrosexuals are bisexual to a certain degree, then that would make it a natural occurance, and not a disorder, as there's nothing to compare slight bisexuality to that would suggest that it is a disorder. Something's only a disorder if it's not normal. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 17:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

True bisexuality is a disorder, as it is a form of homosexuality. Occasional same-sex fantisies or otherwise are normal.busboy 7:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

no, True bisexuality is NOT a disorder.--Dil 01:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, folks! The intended purpose of this page is to discuss changes to the relevant article. There are many possible forums for a general debate on what constitutes a psychological disorder. Or you could use email!

DanB DanD 02:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, Dan. Busboy, how about you admit you are wrong and just concede the whole bloody thing? E. Sn0 =31337= 02:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Because, if I were wrong, you would have to show me why i'm wrong. The problem is, scince I am debating with people of an opposite sexuality, you aren't seeing this thing past your beliefs that I am saying "Gays have a disease".Busboy 04:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just get over yourself. Nobody is saying what they're saying just because they aren't straight. They're saying it becaus they aren't all as narrow-minded and bigoted as some of the people on this planet. If you want to continue this stupid conversation that has clearly led to nowhere, do it somewhere else where your opinion is wanted. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 04:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Narrow-minded and bigoted". Well, now look who is being narrow-minded. Well, I'd hate to break it to you man, but what you call "narrow-minded" is what natrual law calls "The truth". Look, perhaps I have been a little insensitive, but it is not to be mean. No one likes having disorders, and no one wants to be labeled, but what is, is. Just because you accept having it, doesn't lessen what it actually is.Busboy 05:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC) P.S.: What time is it in the uk, if you don't mind telling me.

Both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have openly stated, for quite some time, that homosexuality is not a defect, disorder, or illness. Period. And when homosexualiity is cited as appearing quite often in the animal kingdom, I think that negates your "natural law" comment. Newsflash: facts don't change simply because they make you uncomfortable. We have the research and credited proof in these studies and organizations. You don't. --AWF

Busboy means something entirely different by natural law than you seem to think. S/he's wrong, in the end, because natural law theories are moot, but strawman arguments aren't really going to make that case. -Smahoney 05:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...I did not mean those types of natrual laws...To AWF: You know that the only reason the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association dont label homosexuality as a disorder is because, you know that if they did, gays would be rioting in the streets arguing with them why it isn't! Don't try your tricks here, IT WON'T WORK!Busboy 05:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Although previously irritated, I have now become quite fond of this never-ending, watchlist-cluttering thread. Is homosexuality more natural than "natrual", or is it the other way around? Discuss to your heart's content.DanB DanD 07:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As fascinating as these issues are, I think we're losing sight of what the talk page is for. Would this discussion help improve the article in any way? -- Steel 11:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think it would. I don't think its improving the talk page in any way, either. —ptk⁂fgs 13:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen, dude(s), Like I said, I don't wan't to clutter anything....I Just want to know why you are so defensive over being "labled", so to speak.By this, I mean, is homosexuality natrual? Yes, yes it is, however, "Natrual, doesn't always mean "good". The context in which I am using natrual, means "occuring in nature", not, "Normal", the context in which everyone else seems to be using it in. Busboy 03:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the point of this talk page is not to debate whether or not a topic is "good" or not, but to provide non-partisan information about said topic. In modern-day psychological opinion, it is incorrect to label homosexuality as a disorder. Please stick to the topic and the facts. —ptk⁂fgs 13:01, 23 August 2006 (EST)

Opinion not fact. Also, is eveyone intrpreting this as a psychological thing? I intentended for the tone of this debate for homosexuality to be more of a hormonal thing...4.140.228.117 06:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Kinsey and the "10 percent"

To the IP "198.103.172.9" that keeps posting about those Canadian numbers disproving Kinsey, a few notes:

If you check Kinsey's wiki page, you'll see that, although many people based the claim that "10% of people are homosexual" on his work, he never actually said this. What his study found was that 10% of male subjects had been exclusively homesexual for a period of at least three years at some time in their lives. The incidence of exclusive, lifelong homosexuality he found was 4% among men and 1-3% among women.

Secondly, while Kinsey's research was groundbreaking, his subject selection wasn't really random, and his numbers have long been superseded by other, more rigorous studies. What you are trying to "disprove" is only a folk conception of Kinsey and his relationship to current research, not anything quoted in the present article.

So that's why people are treating your addition as irrelevant--it's nothing to do with bias. DanB DanD 22:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

John Corvino

I've retrieved this long section from history and moved it here. Rightly it should probably go on a page discussing his book, linked *off* that page, but at least it won't be lost. Wjhonson 20:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It could also make a valuable source for a few existing (and probably unsourced) sections in this article. -Smahoney 20:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few snippets to his bio but really it needs a serious expansion into a full paragraph. I've added some web links so someone can follow them and try to form a better bio. I might look at it again in a while, but at least its a start. Wjhonson 20:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone added thsi back in. It's way too much space to devote to one guy's essay for an article on a broad subject unless you can establish that his essay is at the center of all debate, which of course, it isn't. I'm taking it back out. Ace of Sevens 15:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What about a link to the Corvino article at the bottom of "Polemics"?

DanB DanD 20:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear anon reverter: Knock it off! The Corvino article is just too long, and too one-sided, to go on the main "Homosexuality" page. That aint "homophobic vandalism", it's just sense. If you have an argument why it should be, talk about it on the discussion page, don't just get into pointless reversion wars that clutter up people's watchlists. I again suggest a link to Corvino under the "Polemics" heading. DanB DanD 23:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've put up three separate copies of the Corvino essay summary for deletion. Can we please not create any more? See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Corvino_on_Homosexuality --Ptkfgs 20:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the anon editor who keeps making these changes is paying attention to the talk page, and unfortunately her/his IP address keeps changing, so we can't reliably send messages to their talk page. Any ideas on what to do? -Smahoney 20:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The articles listed at AFD were all created by logged-in users. Hopefully my copyvio claim will prompt a speedy deletion across all three and simplify the situation. For the moment, we have to deal with the copy here by reverting it; Homosexuality is listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Homosexuality with a request for semi-protection; if the vandalism here continues or escalates, that will hopefully solve the problem here more decisively --Ptkfgs 20:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection earlier today at WP:RFPP. -- Steel 20:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hurrah! -Smahoney 20:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about copyvio? I copied the text from the anon who was posting here. It appears to be a summary, not a quote, and summaries are not copyright-protected. So.... what's the issue? Wjhonson 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A summary is a derivative work, and while I am not an expert on copyright law, I strongly suspect that this particular derivative work would not be considered fair use. --Ptkfgs 21:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A derivative work, would be some sort of mechanical, non-artistic expression derived from the original work. So if I quoted every third sentence, that would be derivative. A summary is an artistic expression, obtained by perusing the work. You, the artist (editor) are reading the arguments and re-formulating them into a shortened version. That form of expression is not a copyright violation. A book review, is a summary of a kind. And these are published all the time, without the author's consent, which isn't needed because they are new expressions. Wjhonson 21:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please at least read Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Derivative_works. --Ptkfgs 12:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

more non-western art/lit?

Although I've been involved in expanding the Art and Lit section, I'm a bit concerned that it is focusing more and more on American popular culture. Can someone add some stuff on, for example, the openly gay Chinese megastar Leslie Cheung, and other non-western stuff? Or, alternatively, should some of this material be moved to the main "homoeroticism" page? DanB DanD 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You might try asking User:Haiduc. -Smahoney 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Holy Christocentrism, Batman!

While making a minor edit to the "Religion" section, I saw that it now speaks as if a Hindu India had been conquered by the Christian British Empire and thus exposed for the first time to "Abrahamic" religions with their tradtion of homophobia. In fact, when the British conquered India it was already under the control of a different Abrahamic faith, Islam--and had been for three hundred years! And in fact, the social forms of homosexuality seen in India today can be traced back to Muslim influence, and are not native Hindu customs.

In general, the presentation of so-called "Abrahamic" religions as monolithically homophobic is a pretty big inaccuracy in a number of Wiki articles on sexuality. I don't know if there's room to correct the section as it know stands--does anyone have suggestions? Or should the inaccurate summary just be cut, and the detailed analysis placed on a subpage? Let me know, or try whatever fix seems best on your own--otherwise I'm just gonna start snipping. DanB DanD 23:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Any innacuracies should be corrected. Corrections should be sourced, even if the text they replace aren't. -Smahoney 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of pro-Homosexual studies

The accuracy and reliability of pro-homosexual studies are debateable because of significant sampling error problems, e.g. the study of homosexuality in twins. The Hooker study for example suffered from both sampling errors and from researcher biasbecause Evelyn Hookerwas an advocate and supporter of the Mattachine Society, an early homosexual activist group whose members such as Harry Hay formerly belonged to the Communist Party USA. Others include poor controls, such as Simon LeVay's failure to account for the effects of AIDS in his 1991 study of the brains of male homosexuals. NPOV should include both pro- and con views for the sake of balance. This article should NOT be a soapbox for homosexual activists to "prove" that homosexuality is either normal or natural without counterbalance. Considering all arguments surrounding homosexuality are subjective, not objective in nature, I say the debate regarding the scientific merits is fair game. The term homophobia is a loaded politcal term that has no place in any article related to homosexualty, save for the article homophobia itself. Wikipedia is/should be a neutral educational tool that should not advance any particular viewpoint, and the NPOV rule regarding heteronormativity itself violates the intent of the NPOV rule. Because homosexuals who use Wikipedia find something "homophobic" is not significant grounds for excluding those facts or opinions they find uncomfortable. There's an old saying "There's my truth, your truth and the inconvenient truth." [User:Pravknight]--64.93.1.67 16:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There's plenty of research now that is not subjective. The criticisms of LeVay you mention are discussed in the detailed article Biology and sexual orientation--this main page is a summary, not a place for close analysis.

The Homosexuality and psychology article would be the appropriate place for discussion of Evelyn Hooker's research. Why not add your concerns about her sampling methods there?

Of course, this subject is one characterized by researcher bias on both sides, but that isn't to say that objective research is not being done, or that it can't be objectively evaluated.

DanB DanD 16:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Good article promotion

Hi all,

I have promoted this article to a good article. I noticed some of my changes were reverted during my review. This is no problem but please consider all my changes thoughtfully. I try not to make any controversial changes during my reviews and I try not to change anything unless I believe it really affects the article's quality.

Cedars 02:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies between articles regarding incidence

The follow line occurs in the section on incidence: "While acknowledging that under-reporting may still be a problem, more recent population studies have shown that between 2 and 3.3% of the male population are exclusively homosexual and male homosexuality is a bimodal trait, that is, very few men are bisexual"

However, from the main article ( Demographics of sexual orientation ) you would get the opposite impression. In particular, the reference doesn't exist in the main article, and the references that do exist appear to suggest the exact opposite. I suggest that the line is either reworded into "One study suggests..." or moved into the main article, as the section on incidence currently appears to contradict the main article it refers to. 83.108.157.39 01:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a big problem throughout the LGBT pages. Everyone picks the studies that fit their PoV--you can't always correct it easily because a behavior-based definition of orientation will favor lots of bisexuality, while a desire-based definition will greatly decrease it and an indentity-based one will almost completely eliminate it, so you can get very different emphasis while still using reputable sources.

What about setting an informal policy that everywhere it's mentioned, numbers based on both behavior and self-identification be given?

DanB DanD 02:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking a better idea might be to make the sections refer to the Demographics of sexual orientation one, with more general statements in the articles they feature in. After all, the most honest answer is probably along the lines of "It is hard to define, and we don't really know". 83.108.157.39 01:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

biological basis

i thought people here would be interested to read this if they haven't already, it's still relatively recent. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13555604/ I would have posted it in LGBT commons but we apparently don't have one. I'm not sure whether to laugh or to ponder... Zappernapper 07:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Me being gay, I will laugh at it because that is totally stupid. Yeah I have older brothers but thats not what makes me gay. And also I have 2 brothers so how come my middle brother isn't gay, also? It's like how they are saying that we can get cancer from basically anything lately. lol--Dil 13:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say that how gay you are depends on how many older brothers you have, it sais that the statistical probability that a male child is gay is greater if the mother has previously given birth to male children. It doesn't mean that you can't be completely straight and still have older brothers. If you prefer, you coudl put it this way: if you are straight, you are less likely to have older brothers than if you are gay, and the difference in probability is small. 83.108.157.39 01:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"figures nearer 10%"?

I have never seen a study with a figure for homosexuality anywhere near 10% - except of course for the Kinsey study, which actually found 4% for exclusive male homosexuality, and 1-3% for exclusive female homosexuality. The 10% is for men only, and refers to those who have been gay in behavior for three years or more at some point in their lives (covering quite a lot of schoolboys and prisoners).

Kinsey's problematic to use as a standard for a number of reasons, and here we also seem to be calling him a "gay activist" which is...arguable. In any case, I am not aware of any other demographic studies that could really be said to be "by gay activists." Which studies are meant?

DanB DanD 18:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to cite a variety of sources, pointing out the difficulty in determining a precise number (after all, it depends entirely on how you ask the question - "have you ever had a homosexual experience?"; "do you identify as homosexual?"; "have you ever had a long-term homosexual relationship?"; "are more than 50% of your sexual encounters with members of the same sex?" - each has its own difficulties and assumptions). -Smahoney 21:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree.DanB DanD 22:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church

The following entry should be slightly modified:

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

The second sentence should be modified to read:

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

Problems with the existing entry:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huh...what about Byzantine rite Catholics? Are they better placed under Catholic or Orthodox as far as this question goes...or do they need their own category? I don't think we can quite say they're "presumably" in line with Rome on this. I know some Byzantine-rite Catholics are part of Axios, so...

Also, anon guy, can you source the claim that the church privileges celibacy above lawful married sexuality? I remember that as being the subject of a lot of waffling and debate.

Also, do you happen to know the origin of the term "homogenital"? Do you see it in official statements of the church?

Also, can you give sources for the Ratzinger quotes, in case we want to incorporate them into the article?

DanB DanD 17:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion Section

I deleted the example of India from the religious section. Correcting its inaccuracies would have required the addition of a couple of paragraphs, out of proportion to its importance.

The section remains non-encyclopedic, frequently inaccurate, and strange in its selective emphasis. Anyone else want to dive in?

DanB DanD 01:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Everyone should have their say in democracy.

That's why I return the comment which was censored soon after it appeared. Funny propaganda, especially where the authors touch on the matter of homosexuality beingnatural/unatural. Homosexuality IS unatural in the sense that it is always a marginal and pervert thing in the animal world. If it were as widespread as most articles regarding this mater suggest, life on earth would not evolve. Plato knew that, but we should also, it does not take a genius to make simple observations of the outside world. Certain organisations can preach what they want for this group to gain more influence and rights, which are not given to its representatives by nature (e.g. offspring raising), but this does not change the fact, that pervert is pervert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.5.255.111 (talk • contribs) .

This page is for discussion of the article Homosexuality, not for discussion of homosexuality in general. —ptk✰fgs 11:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides, wikipedia is not a democracy. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 05:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And besides all that, please see WP:V and WP:NOR. :) Luna Santin 05:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)