Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

AIDS, STDs and other health issues

What on Earth does homosexuality have to do with this? You can't correlate a specific sexual orientation with risks and infections that are universal to sexuality itself. Having references that support statistical claims such as "homosexuals are more likely to contract HIV than heterosexuals" does not necessarily merit its inclusion in the article, as these type of claims cannot be presented like some blanket statement over the entire nature of homosexuality itself. The entire notion screams POV. The fact that it was added, and is meticulously maintained, only by editors who huddle together within spheres of religious and ex-gay articles really frightens me. This needs to be brought to the attention of an administrator or someone with a more neutral interest in the subject who can decide its appropriateness. 74.242.121.34 (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what Requests for comment are for. MantisEars (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the general thrust of the first three sentences that 74.242.121.34 wrote, and I made a similar point at least twice somewhere else on this page. As for the user's fifth and last sentence, be careful what you wish for—er, that is to say, administrators are editors like the rest of us, only they wear toolbelts or something. About that fourth sentence, huddling is banned in certain countries, isn't it? At any rate, MantisEars's suggestion is a good one, although so many sections of the article are in such flux right now that it may be better to wait a bit. Rivertorch (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There are health issues which affect those who practise homosexuality more than those who don't, and I think we should mention that. If not in this article, then a separate one. Particularly in the case of HIV, we have a source which links the fact that an MSM can be both the receptive and the insertive partner with a higher risk of HIV infection. I'd say, instead of abolishing the section, we improve it so as to somehow point out that it can't be applied to all homosexuals. Any thoughts? Darimoma (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about "practis[ing] homosexuality", since quite a lot of people have mastered it . . . but there's a real inconsistency going on with this article. We're reminded at frequent intervals that not all gay people have the sort of sex that comes naturally to them, yet the same editors who remind us of this want to make sure that health issues with correlations to certain behaviors within subsets of the gay population get mentioned in the article. Whatever the intentions of those editors, which I assume to be good ones, the effect is to raise the spectre of non-neutrality. If there weren't so much concern over the size of the article, I'd lean towards inclusionism of the health issues, but placing it in a proper context would require a major expansion, which isn't likely to go over well. My other concern, as I mentioned a while back, is also one of inconsistency: there are health issues with correlations to certain behaviors within subsets of the straight population, yet the heterosexuality article doesn't mention them. (And it shouldn't mention them—because they don't have anything to do with heterosexuality per se, just as the ones here don't have anything to do with homosexuality per se.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This article "refers to sexual behavior with or attraction to people of the same sex, or to a homosexual orientation," which I think is way too broad to adequately cover everything, but that is my opinion. Hence we aren't here just to cover a homosexual orientation, but also sexual behavior with people of the same sex, regardless of sexual orientation. Yes, that is confusing to have to constantly switch between both segments of people (although it helps that there is a large overlap between the populations), which is why I advocate separating the articles. If you look at the sandbox page on homosexual orientation, which I am purposing, you will see there is no mention of health risks, in fact there is only a brief mention of same-sex relationships with a link to the main article, where it is clear the health risks are not associated with a homosexual orientation, but to men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women. Ideally, I would suggest summarizing the sections which overlap between homosexuality and same-sex relationships, including everything from sodomy law, to same-sex marriages, to health concerns. But whatever we do, health concerns should be kept with the other sections on same-sex relationships. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The AIDS, STDs and health issues sections belong in the Human sexual behavior, Gay community, Anal sex, Oral sex and similar articles, not here. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Redundant information

Now that there is a new homosexual orientation page, we need to decide how to get rid of the redundancy between these two pages. I think we all agree that the Theories of causality, Malleability of sexual orientation and Pathological model of homosexuality should be summarized. I have tried to do this and have summarized the information on Talk:Homosexuality/Sandbox. I also think that Coming out and Sexual orientation and the law are specifically about a homosexual orientation and should be summarized, but I am okay if they aren't.

The other thing is that there is a lot of redundant information between this page and same-sex relationships. Things like Same-sex relationships in history, Same-sex couples, Same-sex sexuality, Religious perspectives on same-sex sexuality are pretty much redundant with what is on the homosexuality article. I think we should decide what all we are going to keep and work on the sandbox page until we come to some agreement. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think sexual orientation and the law should be removed since only about sexual orientation and most of the contents are repeated on the homosexual orientation page. If no one objects, I'm taking it out. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I also want to get rid of the redundant information on the same-sex relationship page, mainly, Sexual practices and AIDS, STDs and other health issues, Government recognition of same-sex unions, and Art and literature. These sections are strictly about same-sex relationships, and are already covered on the same-sex relationships page. The sections have as much to do with bisexuality as homosexuality. To be NPOV, we would either need to cover the exact same information on both pages, which would be highly redundant, or keep most of the information on the same-sex relationships page, which applies to both homosexuals and bisexuals. Furthermore, it is POV to assume the risks that apply to men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women apply to all gay men and lesbians, simply because of sexual orientation. I want to replace all those sections with the summary detailed on Talk:Homosexuality/Sandbox. I also want to take out the empty sections Theories of causality, and Malleability of sexual orientation. According to the sandbox page, this brings the size down to 95 kb, which is still too large, but is much closer to where it needs to be, and a step closer to getting this back to GA status. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that helped a lot, but I still get a warning saying that it needs to be split into smaller articles. I think the next easiest section to shorten is the History section. There is tons of redundant information between that and LGBT history. My suggestion would be to summarize that section starting on the sandbox page. Does anyone else have any ideas of how we can shorten it? Joshuajohanson (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem with the last two edits, which left a dangling </ref> tag. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bias Towards Male Homosexuality in Article Pictures

Why is it that every visual example of homosexual art or other media is male oriented? What about putting lesbian historical or artistic visual media somewhere in this article as well, or is this just a man thing? 125.175.84.194 (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is well taken. I don't have time at the moment, but if anybody wants to add lesbian images, there are plenty to be found on the commons at [1]. Textorus (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I just noticed that this article is semi-protected. Would the person who did this please place the required tag on the article. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Opposite sex relationships

This section currently uses the acronym "LGB", where simply putting "gay & lesbian" would make more sense. It is not unusual for bisexual people to have opposite sex relationships, as this is part of their orientation. The use of the acronym implies that bisexuals, too, date opposite sex people as a means of cover-up, which would be highly incorrect and may fall under an unintentional case of bisexual erasure by whoever wrote that paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.119.71 (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Well spotted. Darimoma (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Homosexuality is basically the attraction in between the people of the different sexes ,while this kind of things are common and are now welcomed even by the government of many countries ,but it is not that openly discussed in the India due to various social stigmas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.208.36 (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The "homosexuality" article is not impartial

After reading the article titled "Homosexuality" I found that it lacked the usual standard of impartiality found on wikipedia. The points put across in the document especially to do with religion were misleading and biased. It has no information about why some religions and countries are morally against homosexuality. It also has no information about the risk of HIV, AIDs and other related STDs and illnesses which are directly linked to homosexuality and that seriously diminish life expectancy and personal health and hygiene

for further discussion on the point please contact me at "doctorjohndavies@googlemail.com" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.66.188 (talk • contribs)

You may be more comfortable with Conservapedia. seicer | talk | contribs 13:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The main reason for this is the length of the article. It's already longer than one would hope for in a WP article, so some info is just linked to on other articles. There is a fairly decent explanation of protestant reasons for opposing homosexuality on the Religion and homosexuality article, which is linked to in this article, and the health risks are specifically linked to gender - thus you'll find more on them on the Men who have sex with men and the Women who have sex with women articles. I think the religion section is fairly NPOV (a couple of comments could maybe do with some brief explanation of counter positions, but that's about it). If you have any specific comments, please do give them here. I can understand that you'd appreciate us to email you, but it's better if we can all see the discussion going on (plus no one has to reveal their email address to complete strangers).Darimoma (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Americas section

While the Two-Spirit identity was vastly common throughout the continent, if not universal, to call it the most common form of same-sex relations is presumptuous I would say. It is most likely that most homosexual activity took place within male-male or female-female identities and that the third gender was also expressed but not on the same scale. The Two-Spirit was a "between-gender" identity...neither male nor female but a combination. Homosexual and bisexual men who identified as male likewise not engage in this transgender role but would seek out relationships as men with other men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.249.252 (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. If you have a source for this, it should be incorporated into the article. Rivertorch (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality is biologically speaking, a defect which can be cured genetically, isn't it?, is there much dispute about that?. Rodrigue (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In a word, no. First homosexuality is not a defect. Homosexuality is, biologically speaking, genetically determined, just like your skin color, hair color or eye color, and can be changed, long term, just as easily. Generally genetic traits cannot be changed, you are born with them. It is theorized that some homosexual behavior or inclination can be environmentally influenced (as opposed to genetically) but this does not speak about it from a biological perspective. Some behavior learned from the environment can be changed through environmental conditioning. But then, why would someone want to do that? It would be like if you learned to write with your left hand, why would you want to force yourself to write with your right hand, and not your left hand? Atom (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, these kinds of questions are probably best fielded at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous. Atom (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Map Changes

Joshua,

The map of the world with the Illegal/Legal information was correct before you changed it. Note the original file on the Wikipedia Commons.

Under the Section that said "Homosexuality Legal" and listed subheadings of "Same-sex marriage" etc..etc... the subheadings, albeit a a bit misleading, were to show areas in which it was not only legal to be homosexual but various stages of "acceptance" among the country (ie: some accept homosexuals to the extent where they are given equal rights of marriage).

Your changes showed that same-sex marriage in, for instance, Saudi Arabia is punishable by death. In actuality, the institute of "same-sex marriage" does not even exist in Saudi Arabia, so how can one be put to death for it? Rather, the map is showing that by BEING homosexual you are put to death. Just as in many countries being discovered to be homosexual can result in prison time.

Just a thought...the map needs to be re-worded, but as it stands now, the "new titling" of "same-sex marriage legal" and "same sex marriage illegal" is incorrect. --Nsaum75 (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The new title was actually "Same-sex relationships legal" and "Same-sex relationships illegal", not same-sex marriages. Saying homosexuality is illegal makes it sounds as if you can get the death penalty for a homosexual orientation, when in reality you would only get it for having a sexual relationship with a member of the same sex. I agree that saying same-sex marriages are illegal doesn't make sense. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Joshuajohanson, In actuality, in many islamic countries, if you are homosexual or are suspected to be of homosexual orientation, then you do get the death penalty. If they find you having sex with someone of the same gender, it only makes it that much 'easier' to prove your homosexuality and punish you. --Nsaum75 (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not true. You may be spuriously charged with a crime such as sodomy, but "being gay" isn't illegal. In fact, Islamic law requires four witnesses to the act, making successful prosecutions unlikely without circumventing the law. em zilch (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How Islamic law is applied/interpreted/etc, however, is up to the clerics/judge(s) in the matter, as well as the country in which it occurs. Of course, if we listen to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, there are no homosexuals in Iran. --Nsaum75 (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, "Islamic Law" as it were, is perverted in the actual written law of many of these countries, and moreso in how it is enforced. A recent execution of an Iranian teen comes to mind, and I'm pretty sure there were no witnesses to any act.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we know for sure that the actual laws prohibit a homosexual orientation? That is quite the accusation for these countries, and I think we need to have good sources before we make that assumption. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, you're right, the laws usually only forbid homosexual acts, not being homosexual. See Homosexuality and Islam as a guide. Note that advocating for the LGBT movement or similar things may also be illegal in some countries. Note also that in many cases, any sex outside marriage is illegal, both for the male and female partner even if enforcement isn't always equal and the punishment is not always as harsh as the punishment if homosexual acts are involved. It's also important to remember that given the secrecy and lack of transparency in many countries, precisely what is happening in them is unclear and many people, for a variety of reasons spread misinformation. See for example the case of Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni where it has been claimed they were executed for consensual sex, but that doesn't appear to be what actual happened (the actual case may still be disturbing to many but it does emphasise IMHO how easily misinformation can be spread). In other words, don't assume something is true just because you read it somewhere. This is precisely the reason why we need excellent sources, and not just someone's random opinion based on their understanding of the situation/law/Sharia. On a tangent, Transsexuality in Iran may be interesting for some. Nil Einne (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

See also the case of Makwan Moloudzadeh who was executed for rape. Again many details of the case are disturbing but contrary to what it sometimes claimed [2] he was accused of rape, not consensual (homosexual) sex. Interestingly enough also, Ahmadinejad may not have actually said there are no homosexuals in Iran. [3]. P.S. for a completely different albeit unsourced take on the Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni case, read [4]. Nil Einne (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

See Sharia as that is primarily the source of homosexual persecution in Islamic countries. On a country by country basis the governmental law varies, but in most Islamic countries (all but Turkey??) Sharia overides all other laws. Atom (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think any reliable information we have about countries making homosexual orientation illegal would be very valuable. However, we can't report guess-work, and I am sure many of these countries for which the map says homosexuality is illegal is in fact only same-sex relationships which are illegal. I have started a discussion of this at Image_talk:World_homosexuality_laws.svg. If no one objects over there, I will make that change over here. Also, right now the map is in the same-sex marriage and civil unions section, but this also has to do with making same-sex relationships illegal. I want to move it to the same-sex relationships section. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any countries where homosexual orientation is illegal? I don't know of any. But there are indeed many countries where 'homosexuality is illegal, for example, Jamaica, Trinidad, mmost muslim countries, etc. Bushcutter (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. The APA states "sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality." According to the lead, "Homosexuality refers to sexual behavior with or attraction to people of the same sex, or to a homosexual orientation." Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and saying certain countries make a sexual orientation illegal is misleading. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Saying certain countries make a sexual orientation illegal is not misleading, but just true. It's obvious that outlawing homosexual orientation, that is outlawing homosexuality, doesn't make any sense. But don't forget that those countries which declare homosexuality illegal do not have any common sense when legislating. They enact laws punishing homosexual orientation because they represent backward societies; they don't have any kind of serious council or something like that to get advice from when enacting laws. They enact nonsensical laws based on religion, backward traditions, feelings or just popular outcry. Mreq (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. It is possible to outlaw homosexual acts, and many countries do so. However, there is no way to outlaw homosexuality in and of itself; in the absense of any overt act, how is the law supposed to know one's orientation? TechBear (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Micov's edits

The edits by User:Micov on Homosexuality were removed because of a few flaws in presentation; however, the information still seems relevant and backed-up. Any objections to putting them in (in the right place)? Darimoma (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The problems were multiple. The writing was sloppy, sweeping generalizations were made, at least some of the conclusions drawn were almost certainly beyond what was supported by the sources, some of the studies were really old, some of the wording came across as scare tactics, and, perhaps most importantly, the level of detail, perhaps even the topic itself, doesn't doesn't lend itself to inclusion in a general article on homosexuality. Anal sex, maybe—not homosexuality. Here, it is way peripheral. As was pointed out recently on this page, heterosexual behavior is also associated with various health problems. So what, I ask. We're an encyclopedia, not a catalog of worst-case scenarios for various populations.

Speaking of recently, I'm not sure who sicced the bot on this page nor do I have the time right now to research it, but given the number of discussions we keep returning to, 30 days is too soon to archive. Rivertorch (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

She left me a message on my talk page asking for assistance with that. I see no problem with it being introduced appropriately. I think it needs to be more concise, and the citations should be checked. You could help him with that. Others may have objections to the balance of neutrality. That can be worked out after the others issues are worked out. I put it at Draft of edit for Homosexuality article if you want to help her edit it for inclusion. What section do you think is most appropriate? Atom (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That information is specific to men who have sex with men and the main portion should be on that page. I think it is related to homosexuality, but only so far as same-sex relationships are related. I do not think it should be implied that someone is at higher risk just because of their sexual orientation. There is a small section on sexual behavior, and I think a brief mention should be included there. It should include other health problems mentioned on the MSM page. It should be brief and not overwhelm the other topics. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I put the content on a subpage of her main page and edited it. After editing it is improved, but still needs alot of work. I haven't checked the citations to see how reliable they are. I figured, after the edit, she could follow up and tighten it up and put it on the page for others to critique if she still was motivated. Here is what it looks like -- at User:Micov/Homosexuality draft.

"Anal sex can be an important risk factor for intestinal parasitism.[13] High rates of intestinal parasitism are found in MSM throughout the world.[14] The prevalence of amebiasis is approximately 4% overall in the United States, however the prevalence of E. historylitica or E. dispar in the gay population of New York City and San Francisco approached 40-50%.[15] Guardia lamblia and Entamoeba histolytica have long been regarded as 'exotic' organisms, but are 'hyperendemic' among gay men attending STD clinics with up to 20 excreting cysts."[16] In a controlled study 67.5% of 200 homosexual men but only sixteen percent of 100 heterosexual men were found to be infected with intestinal parasites"...These findings suggest that the male homosexual community may be an important reservoir of potentially pathogenic protozoa."[17]"

Keep in mind I don't agree with the viewpoint or research. My first thought would be to research the citations to make sure they are reliable, then make it read a little better, and then, since it is too technical, try to simplify the language. Atom (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality in ancient Celtic tribes

A section for this should probably be added under Europe so as to not limit it to just Greece and Rome. A few Roman historians point out homosexuality in Celtic tribes. Although the details and sources listed under the ancient Celtic articles are scarce. Can anyone obtain more information before adding this to the article? Ceejus (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

tone

I came here to look for a list of dates of decriminalization of homosexuality. Wikipedia does not appear to have this, beyond the handful of dates mentioned under "Politics". I cannot help but note that this article is in an abysmal state in terms of encyclopedic tone and neutrality. I am not going to invest time trying to fix this, but can editors please try to observe a minimal semblance of writing neutrally? It is clear, of course, that the "LBGT" articles are mostly written by "LBGT people", but please try to make this circumstance a little bit less painfully obvious. First of all, discussion of legal issues needs to be disentangled from the generic rambling discussion of societal attitudes, "oppression", etc. Assume that the reader is interested in mere facts, not political sermons. The constant implication that the position of the majority is "wrong" raises giant WP:REDFLAGs. You cannot present this as the justified fight of a tiny minority who was "right" all along against evil mainstream society who was "wrong" all along. WP:DUE says that mainstream positions should receive precedence. It is highly dubious to state "the gay community first began to achieve actual, though limited, civil rights". Civil rights are for citizens, not "communities". The "right" here referred to is the single issue of the legality of homosexual acts, which was not a civil right prior to the 1960s, and which is now a civil right in most countries. Etc. Frankly, the entire article would need to be rewritten from scratch to get rid of the inherent bias present in every turn of phrase, and I say this not because I want to see any sort of "anti-gay" view given more precedence, but simply because it hurts to see such blatant violation of Wikipedia core policy. You can state the same facts in neutral language, please try. --dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 14:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Where to start? If you had checked the recent history of the article and the archives of this talk page, you would have seen that enormous changes have taken place here in recent months, including a split into two separate articles, major rewrites of disputed sections, and myriad discussions about neutrality, some of them stemming from a GA review. Much work remains to be done, and I agree that a complete rewrite is probably called for, but I cannot agree with the reason you give or, indeed, with anything else you say. For starters, your assumption regarding the LGBT status of WP editors is unfounded, absurd, and patently offensive in that it implies a correlation between alleged neutrality problems and sexual orientation. You go on to advocate disentangling things which are thoroughly interrelated, see "political sermons" where a diverse crew of editors have detected none, and suggest the article assigns "right" and "wrong" positions where it simply does not. You then put forward the idea that civil rights apply only to individuals, not groups, which aside from being demonstrably false is fringe in the extreme. To add injury to insult, at least one of your edits to the article introduced a serious grammatical error. (I'm having Internet problems and am not going to attempt a revert. Anyone else?) Sorry you think the editors who have been working so hard on this have done such a piss-poor job in terms of NPOV; believe me, more than one or two of us have tried very hard to get it right. Rivertorch (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rivertorch. Also how can you claim to know the "mainstream" position on this issue? Are you simply assuming the mainstream is homophobic, or do you have a source?--Agnaramasi (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a job for... {{sodoit}}! But seriously, let's all play nicely, kids. Dissenting viewpoints are critical to the collaboration process, but dab; a less accusatory tone is probably in order here. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 08:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

9 References?

9 References for the 2-7% homosexuality rate in the intro section seem excessive. 5 at most seems good enough? Inseeisyou (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd vote to keep the 9. The only disadvantage (I can see, at least) is that the article looks slightly messier. Slightly. I think it's fine. Darimoma (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC) indented added by ~ L'Aquatique[talk] to improve readability

Health hazards

A woefully poor amount of information is included on health hazards. AIDS played a huge role in the history of gay sex, and it is all but completely ignored. This section needs to be expanded. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

By all means, make sure any statements made about homosexual sex should apply to sex between women as well. --Moni3 (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a place where we can strive for equality between the sexes. Men will never get cervical cancer, etc. Haiduc (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand your statement Haiduc. Yes, men cannot get cervical cancer. However, AIDS isn't exclusive to men, or to a specific sexual orientation. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not mean to be argumentative, I just think that men's and women health realities are so different as to require two separate discussions with no need for any parallelism between the two. NOt that this has to be strategized one way or another, let's just bring stuff in and see where we end up, that's all. Haiduc (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's true. However, I have heard many times someone's rationale for some kind of negative statement that has a practical effect against homosexuality is that gay sex is harmful: AIDS is the reason homosexuality is immoral. Anal gonorrhea is the reason same sex marriage, gay teachers, or giving gay partners insurance benefits is bad practice. Well, it's not. Gay sex includes women having sex as well men having sex safely and responsibly. Any section listing the dangers of gay sex needs to include the dangers (or lack thereof) of sex between women. --Moni3 (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. And in the same vein perhaps we should document the fact that the harmful aspects of gay sex are not limited to gays at all, and that in particular anal sex is something that is widely practiced by both gays and straights, and likewise reflect the fact that there are very many gays (and straights) who have no interest in anal sex at all and enjoy other forms of intimacy. Haiduc (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is transparent. I don't think any discussion is needed. Dybryd (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it's transparent. AIDS probably does deserve somewhat more attention in the article, primarily because of its impact on gay culture and its role in the increasing political consciousness of LGBT communities in the 1980s and '90s, but it has no connection to homosexuality per se. Rivertorch (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry gentlemen, but this sort of thing is over the top. It is like writing an article about the Titanic and avoiding any meaningful discussion of icebergs the icebergs that sank it because icebergs have nothing to do with ships. I have in my house the parting gifts of my dead gay friends, whose loss was and is devastating to me personally and to the gay community and to the human community. AIDS is a defining event no less than Stonewall, maybe more so than Stonewall, it is a reality that has to be confronted in this article, together with the unsafe sexual practices that fueled its rise, practices which if they were not irresponsible in the heady days of the seventies are certainly irresponsible now, as is clearly recognized by thinkers and spokesmen in the gay community (see [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/us/29rofes.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/H/Homosexuality&oref=slogin this).

At the same time we need to mention that there is nothing intrinsically "gay" about these practices, I do not think that this section should be allowed to become a foothold for agenda driven attacks on homosexuality. Haiduc (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I sympathise with your points, Haiduc, but to continue with your analogy: the Titanic article should indeed mention the effect of one particular iceberg on this particular ship (perhaps in detail), but a long section on how icebergs form and their historical impact on marine life and shipping would be rather out of place. So we don't need loads of information about AIDS in general here, but something about its impact on late-twentieth-century gay culture would seem appropriate. garik (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely with you, garik. Haiduc, I'm not quite sure what you're saying is 'over the top' - the comment you were responding to said "AIDS probably does deserve somewhat more attention in the article, primarily because of its impact on gay culture and its role in the increasing political consciousness of LGBT communities in the 1980s and '90s". Doesn't that fit with what you think the article needs? Olaf Davis | Talk 13:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed by the intelligence in the debate, but take it from an old fart: the only way to incorporate the above concerns, all of which are necessary for balance and comprehension, is to deal with this stuff in a main article, not in a short subsection. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, it should be dealt with in the main article and summarized in a short subsection. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Were there any women on the Titanic? Of course, have a section on AIDS. But don't pretend it's a "health hazard" either specific to or general to "homosexuality". The modern western gay male perspective tends to overwhelm general coverage of homosexuality on Wikipedia anyway.

This article is not called male homosexuality or modern homosexuality or American homosexuality (or, if you'll pardon a little talk-page POV slippage, non-monogamous homosexuality). I suggest a section called "HIV and AIDS in the gay male community."

[ETA: heh. I just checked the blue link in my list above ... and it's a redirect to this article. Maybe the two things are synonymous after all.]

Dybryd (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone can explain why the subsection AIDS and STDs among Western men who have sex with men is beneficial to the article, it should be removed. This article is about homosexuality, not Western homosexual men and certainly not Western homosexual men who have sex with other men. There is an article entitled Men who have sex with men, and that is the appropriate place for such content (although it would need some work before being added there). In fact, there is a link to that article in what has been added here. This is analogous to the Heterosexuality article's going into detail about the increased risk of cervical cancer to straight women who have many children or whose partners are uncircumcised. That would be inappropriate, and so is this. My good faith is substantial and I am hesitant to revert without discussion, but I am detecting some major POV problems with these additions and would like to see an effort at consensus before content so peripheral to the topic of the article is permitted to stay. Rivertorch (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the need for a world-wide view. That was one of the reasons I said it needed expanding. In a couple of minutes I was able to find tons of information both about women and men outside the western world. A good discussion about the dangers of receptive anal sex among men should also apply to all men who have sex with men around the world. Give it some time. It won't be hard to find even more information.

I also agree that this article isn't just about homosexual men who have sex with men and homosexual women who have sex with women. In fact, one of my complaints is there is woefully poor amounts of information on homosexual men and women who are either celibate or just have opposite sex partners. However, I do think it is related. If we can have sections on art and literature about same-sex couples, instances of same-sex couples in history, parenting by same-sex couples, laws allowing and prohibiting same-sex relationships, Melanesian same-sex rituals (which seem to have NOTHING to do with orientation) as well as same-sex behavior in animals, we can most certainly talk about health effects of same-sex intercourse. I mean really, if same-sex marriage is legal, it doesn't matter if it were two lesbians or two bisexual women getting married. Yet we include it in this article. In my understanding, homosexuality is both about men who have sex with men/women who have sex with women as well as same-gender attraction. If needs be, we could make that distinction and cypher off portions of this article to the appropriate buckets. For instance, most of the causes of homosexuality are about same-gender attraction and not about people who have same-sex relationships.) But I just don't see that happening any time soon. Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Joshuajohanson, this material is fundamental to the article. My only suggestion (other than some broadening of the discussion) is to indicate earlier in the discussion that it is not the mere fact of same-sex relations, but casual anal sex with multiple partners in particular that has been the vehicle of these epidemics. Haiduc (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So are we then also going to go into the BENEFITS of same-sex intercourse? Prostate stimulation, better oral sex than from female partners, blah blah blah. I really don't see the place for this in the article. If we are going to be fair and balanced, then we would also need to go into the reasons why homo-sex is beneficial to one's health. It's tangential (not to mention highly POV) and should be in another article. Furthermore, if you're referencing AIDS, casual anal sex is not the cause of the epidemic in most of the world. As said above, does the Heterosexuality article go into the dangers of straight sex?Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, man-on-man anal sex IS the cause of the HIV epidemic in most of the world. But if you're going to hold the opposite position, you'll have to supply some pretty good references! I've got mine ready - have you got yours :-) Bushcutter (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You say that with such confidence, but on what basis? Currently, 60% of AIDS sufferers are in Sub-Saharan Africa, where heterosexual intercourse, blood transfusions and other routes are the most common causes of infection, and where the number of female sufferers outnumbers the number of male sufferers. So yeah, let's be clear on our terms. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

See Current CDC statistics for the U.S. [5] Transimission Category -- Estimated # of AIDS cases in 2006. High-risk Heterosexual Contact 11,754; Injection Drug Use 6,795; M2M Sexual Contact, 16,001; M2M & Injection Drug use 1,803. Although it is close, these stats show that M2M transmission is LESS than Heterosexual transmission and intravenous drug transmission in the U.S. Atom (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But there are also more people who have straight sex than gay sex. Percentage-wise, M2M transmission way outdoes straight sex, putting them in a special high risk category. Also, that was 2006. In 2008 they estimate that over half (53%) of the new infections will occur in gay and bisexual men. And I don't think anyone is arguing drug use isn't also a high-risk category. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But again, we're getting way off topic. Some mention of AIDS and its impact on gay people in the West probably has a place in the article, but a "health hazards of homosexuality" section? Hardly. You'll notice there's no comparable section in the heterosexuality article. NPOV means that we don't pander to the desire of homophobes to fill up every LGBT-related article with irrelevant information designed to push an anti-gay agenda. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it, I really don't think AIDS has a place in this article. In gay community, yes. But there's no inherent link between homosexuality and AIDS, except that HIV was first observed in gay men. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm with you up to that point. I agree that AIDS should not be a focus in this article. And it should cetainly be in gay community as AIDS and a lost generation of gay men has had such a dramatic impact on the gay community. I'm not sure how it could be left out entirely -- even though I am not sure how it would best fit. Atom (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Receptive anal sex is the most "successful" mode of transmission from one person to the other, and only MSM can have receptive anal sex, get HIV, and then perform insertive anal sex on someone else. That being said, I agree that it has more to do with same-sex relationships than homosexuality and it is already covered on that page. A gay man who does not have same-sex relationships is not in a high-risk group like MSM are. In the Talk:Homosexuality#Redundant_information section, I have already suggested deleting this as well as other redundant sections that are specific to same-sex relationships. Since no one commented, I was going to delete this whole section and the other sections on same-sex relationship, but then people started commenting here. If you object to this section being deleted, please comment in the redundant information section. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Exploding Boy, per my earlier comments. Let's kill the section. Rivertorch (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The section should stay. MSM (sex) is clearly a pattern of homosexual activity, and the main source of the spread of HIV in (sub-Sahara) Africa. HIV lives and thrives in the rectum. HIV is extracted from a male rectum by means of a penis with a foreskin, and is delivered to both male and female rectums later on, where it is absorbed by the unique, specialized virus-absorbing tissues of the receiving rectum. To imply that it's needle sharing addicts who propogate HIV in Africa is silly and deceptive. It's Africa homosexuals in places like Zambia & Mozambique who get drunk and have forced sex with youths who create this uniquely African homosexual plague. According to the one of the CGD's broadcasts on the spread of HIV in Mozambique, the favourite method of spreading HIV is getting drunk and having sex, including homosexual sex, with many people each night. Homosexual entertainment really spreads HIV big-time. Bushcutter (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Flat-out lies about HIV. The principle vector of HIV in Africa -- in most of the world, in fact -- is heterosexual intimate contact. HIV enters the body through the mucus membranes, and a vagina works just as well as a rectum. HIV can also enter the body through cuts and abraisons, such as the ones that can occur on the penis during vaginal intercourse; that is how female prostitutes pass the disease on to men. HIV "lives" in the bloodstream. And "specialized virus-absorbing tissues"? I don't suppose you have any cites from actual peer-reviewed research to back up any of your absurd claims? Or are YouTube videos the very best you can manage? TechBear (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not just flat out lies, but I think we can say obvious trolling too. Exploding Boy (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

When you see nonsensical phrases like "specialized virus-absorbing tissues", "uniquely African plague", and "homosexual sex", is it even worth responding to? (Rhetorical question. Obvious answer: yes. Silence could be mistaken for consensus.) Rivertorch (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My investigation regarding homosexual behavior has led me to many health findings that are not documented in any of these major topics view on this site. That brings into focus who the writters are that score these so called "fndings." It is evident that, although it is not politically correct to identify such findings, I find myself in need to set the record straight and therefore I will identify some of the health hazards associated with this lifestyle. First, it has all kinds of sexually transmitted diseases. There are too many to list. All of which are incurable, but many are uncontrollable, AIDS being the KING of them all. Second, there is a high degree of promiscuity associated to praticipants. It is recorded that 75% of all homosexuals are sexually active with more than 100 to 1,000+ partners in ones lifetime. This is extremely out of the normal for a civilized society. The average heterosexual has just a one, two, or three in his or her respective lifetime. Many of which have only one. Third, all the hurtful practices associated with the act of homosexual behavior. Such as fisting, which tares the rectum of the receiver. And let us not forget "rimming" which creates feces, bacteria in the ingesting male. A medical doctor said that every weekend in San Francisco there are young men that come into the emergency room looking for medical attention due to rectal trama. "It looks like hamburger meat." This is not safe sex! Fourth, is the domestic abues of both men and women homosexuals. Men are 6 to 8 times more likely to be offended by one's parter than heterosexual couples, while even worse are women 8-10 times more likey. Fourth, is the rate of death of the gay community. Men and women are likely to live 20-40 years less than heterosexuls, thirty being the most accurate. No one is talking about this tradegy. Fifth, is the alcoholism, illegal and legal drug abuse associated to the gay lifestyle, most us which is to dim the pain of self abuse.

Now, why have some of these facts not been recorded? "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS." I encourage you to check the facts before you drink the punch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.117.90 (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously we can't take your word for all of this, and some claims seem, quite literally, unbelievable. However, if you can offer some permissible sources, I'm sure we'll look at them, and, if methodologically sound, put them in. But unsourced claims such as those you're offering are not allowed on Wikipedia, for obvious reasons. Darimoma (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nor should they be allowed on talk pages. This was a soapbox rant, not a constructive addition to the discussion. I generally find it better either to ignore or revert such nonsense, but good-faith-assuming extremist that I am, I'll pose four questions to User 64.203.117.90 (who I'll assume is just very confused and irrational and not a troll). 1. Do you have spell-check, and, if so, don't you think that even the more gullible among us might take your rant a little more seriously if you used it? 2. Why are you—along with nearly everyone who posts similarly silly rants—an unregistered user, which erodes your credibility before you say one word (and makes you less anonymous than you would be otherwise)? 3. Do you really think that SHOUTING is the best way to emphasize a word or phrase, or do you employ that method because using wiki markup is a sign of having drunk "the punch" you refer to? 4. Has it occurred to you that no one really cares about your "investigation regarding homosexual behavior" or, indeed, any investigation you purport to have conducted, because, in case you missed it, this is an encyclopedia? Rivertorch (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

reproduction not possible

I placed a sentence at the and of paragraph 1 modeled after the matching one at Heterosexuality

The physical action of homosexual relations is not capable of sexual reproduction among humans without the use of assisted reproductive technology.

-Zeus-^u|c 19:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I added something more. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And thx, you gave me an excellent idea. We can have a reproduction subsection and merge parenting section there. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to revise this passage twice, mainly just for the syntax, and it's been reverted twice. I'm not going to get into a revert war. Here's the passage as it now stands:

The physical action of homosexual relations is not capable of sexual reproduction among humans without the use of current assisted reproductive technologies. In the future, however, lesbian couples may have their own biological children from eachother, as well as gay men thanks to stem cell research.

"The physical action of homosexual relations is not capable of sexual reproduction" is overly wordy; why not "Homosexual relations cannot result in sexual reproduction"?

"In the future, however, lesbian couples may have their own biological children from eachother, as well as gay men" -- Does this mean that lesbian couples may have their own biological children from gay men? That's what it says. "From" is the wrong preposition here in any case, and "eachother" is not a word.

User:Phoenix of9 has reverted this passage to the same wording three times now, which I believe is a violation of WP:3RR. Agathman (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Wording such as this: "In the future, however, gay and lesbian couples may have their own biological children from each other" makes it confusing. This may mean something like this: [6], ie: one of the gay couple can inseminate (natural or via Artificial insemination or IVF) one of the lesbian couple. And four of them raising the kid(s) together. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not really the most obvious interpretation. Zazaban (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"gay and lesbian couples may have their own biological children from each other". What does "each other" mean exactly? Within couples or between couples? Thats what I'm talking about. Current wording does not make that clear. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Then the simplest thing to do is to remove 'each other'. Zazaban (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"gay and lesbian couples may have their own biological children"? No shit. They can already do that. I feel like you two (you and Agathman) didnt even read this artice: Sperm cells created from female embryo Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to be nice, okay? I think that both User:Zazaban and I are just trying to come up with a wording that clearly expresses your idea. This is WP:AGF time. I've just tried once again to come up with such a wording; see if you like what I've got now. If not, how about let's try ideas here on the talk page until we can reach a consensus? Agathman (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your wording is unclear as well. "gay couples and lesbian couples may be able to produce their own biological children". This may mean different things. Anyone, who isnt infertile, can have biological children. Yes my wording didnt read well, but the idea was far more clear. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I really dont like "produce". Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) How about "In the future, however, gay couples and lesbian couples may be able to have children that combine the partners' genes, thanks to stem cell research."? Agathman (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No. It may mean 2 lesbians combining their genes with a male. Which may also be possible in the future: Babies with three parents ahead Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to me like the best wording, though I would prefer "stem cell research may allow..." instead of "... thanks to stem cell research". – Steel 20:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then: "In the future, however, stem cell research may allow gay couples and lesbian couples to have children that combine both partners' genes." Using the word "both" ensures the reader will see that only two people are involved, and I got rid of "thanks to." Agathman (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"The physical action of homosexual relations is not capable of sexual reproduction among humans without the use of current assisted reproductive technologies." - Current assisted reproductive technology allows the physical action of homosexual relations (for example, anal sex between men) to produce children? Really? – Steel 20:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I think the english language is incapable of explaining this issue with few words. So we will have to do some longer explaining. Let me think. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually instead of gay or lesbian, we can just use same-sex couples. I'll come up with a text, also adding more issues and sources. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Really the whole issue of use of current technology might better be separated out and discussed at greater length. Artificial insemination is one option of women; men might use in vitro fertilization and a surrogate mother. In each case the child shares genetic material with only one member of the couple. Needs sources, etc. For the purpose of introducing the future tech stuff here, How about this:

"Homosexual relations cannot result in sexual reproduction. In the future, however, stem cell research may allow same-sex couples to have children that combine both partners' genes." Agathman (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Is speculation about future genetic possibilities really necessary—or even appropriate—for this article? I would say not; maybe split it off into another article (or, better yet, just wait a while). Whether I'm right or wrong about that, the sentence "Homosexual relations cannot result in sexual reproduction" is certainly unneeded and, actually, rather funny. Lots of things cannot result in sexual reproduction. Examples include everything from asexual reproduction to masturbation to shopping at Kmart. Is anyone likely to be confused on such a basic point of biology? Rivertorch (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you there. My main concern is that, whatever this says, it should say it clearly. I've now spent way too much time on it. I still say that shopping at K-mart can result in sexual reproduction, though.Agathman (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you may have a point there. If the consensus is to keep it, I'll happily put on my copyediting hat (bought during a Blue Light Special) and help with the wording, but I don't want to waste my time if it's going to be deleted anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I've taken a whack at it to present everythinga bit more in context etc. Hope it helps. -- Banjeboi 15:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It looked better. I'm not clear on why the reproduction part got put back in (the sentence Homosexual sex does not lead to sexual reproduction). It seems gratuitous and pointless. Phoenix, why do you think it's important? Rivertorch (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Should we also delete the definition of homosexuality from the article since it is obvious? Is that "gratuitous and pointless" as well? Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've restored my clean-up efforts and the "reproduction" content is in the second paragraph:

In January 2008, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that same-sex couples have the right to adopt a child.[89][90] In the U.S., LGB people can legally adopt in all states except for Florida.[91] Same sex couples are not capable of sexual reproduction unless they utilize a surrogate or assisted reproductive technology; this may change with stem cell research.[92]

I think this includes the content without giving it undue weight. The rest of the ection there is all about parenting so is organized as such. The reproduction content is tied to LGBT adoption which would seem to make sense. I see no reason the section would be titled "Reproduction and Parenting" as if we weren't discussing people of a minority who have been historically persecuted and marginalized instead of a species of animal. Is there a compelling not to accept the cleaned-up version? -- Banjeboi 08:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to stress that while homosexual sex doesnt lead to reproduction, many homosexual people are biological parents. So why did you delete reliably sourced information? Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Defining homosexuality right up front is critical because there has been much confusion and disagreement over it, which has led in the past to unnecessary contention, edit wars, hard feelings, etc. Consensus was reached to use a broad, inclusive definition, and to put it in the lede. So, to answer your question, no—it's not gratuitous and pointless, but neither has it been obvious to many, many well-meaning editors. The question of reproduction, on the other hand, does seem incredibly obvious. I think it's a reasonable assumption that virtually everyone old enough and intelligent enough to be using Wikipedia as a reference work knows that sexual reproduction involves a female and a male, so stating the obvious—that male + male or female + female ≠ reproduction—does seem gratuitous and pointless. I'm not applying those adjectives to disparage your wording; I'm saying that the wording is inappropriate in the context of this article. Different methods of parenting are appropriate to discuss here, but it just doesn't need the disclaimer about "homosexual sex," as you put it above. After all, opposite-sex couples engage in many of the same sex acts that same-sex couples do, but it's hardly reasonable to expect an article on oral sex, for instance, to note that it can't lead to reproduction. Rivertorch (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Oral sex article: "Although a common misconception,[14] oral sex (by means of fellatio) alone cannot result in pregnancy.". And as I said: "I think it is important to stress that while homosexual sex doesnt lead to reproduction, many homosexual people are biological parents. So why did you delete reliably sourced information?" Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be talking past each other. I'm not sure how to explain myself any more clearly, so I'll leave it alone for now. (For the record, I didn't delete any information. I assume you're addressing another editor.) Rivertorch (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We do state that information but we don't overstate it per WP:Undue. And I think we should treat a brief news article about studies that sexually active teens exploring their sexuality are more prone to being parents carefully. The gist of that article, IMHO, was that although being a teen parent was stigmatizing it was still less negative than being considered gay or lesbian. -- Banjeboi 21:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:Undue??!? Dont be ridiculous. Whats the majority view here? That LGB people have 0 kids?? Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As is stated above the section is about parenting not reproduction which seems worthy of minimal inclusion. The most salient point is that LGB people are parenets by a variety of means. Thus we don't lead with although biological unable to produce offspring ..... Instead we give an overview and include each area with due weight. As such you may be inserting details that might be better on the main article about LGBT parenting.

Among other issues, mostly due weight, clarity and MOS I also removed:

“ In British Columbia, Canada, lesbian and bisexual youth has been found to be up to seven times more likely to get pregnant than their heterosexual peers while boys were more likely to cause a pregnancy if they identified as gay or bisexual. A 1981 survey in San Francisco found that homosexuals have only one-fifth as many children as heterosexuals. ”

This seems awfully pointy and the gist of that first source, IMHO, was that although being a teen parent was stigmatizing it was still less negative than being considered gay or lesbian. Wedging in pointy facts would seem to degrade this article but may help the main parenting article. -- Banjeboi 23:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article, while thats one of the reasons, its not the only reason. The point wast about stigma tho, it was about fertility rates and comparison (San Francisco vs BC) Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Health section

I am reverting this edit for the following reasons:

• The higher incidence of HIV and other physical disorders is already mentioned in the previous paragraph. Mentioning it in two consecutive paragraphs raises questions of redundancy, at the very least, and very possibly undue weight.
• Depression, substance abuse, and suicide are already mentioned in the following paragraph. Again, mentioning it in two consecutive paragraphs raises questions of redundancy, at the very least, and very possibly undue weight.
• The three cited references are problematic:

1. The first one, http://www.xtra.ca/BinaryContent/pdf/human%20rights%20complaint.pdf , is highly specific to one country, its authorship is unclear, it is a complaint and not a neutral statement, and, while it lists references, it doesn't make clear their context or how they can be validly interpreted within, let alone beyond, Canada. Ultimately, then, it fails as a reliable source and its relevance is questionable. (As an aside, it also contradicts the reference in yesterday's edit about blood donations, but that's neither here nor there.)
2. The second one, http://www.netassets.co.za/medical/medical.asp?websiteContentItemID=67274 , is a nonworking link and thus cannot be evaluated.
3. The third one, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-347665/The-people-punish-Mr-Blair.html , is only relevant to the topic of this article in the most peripheral way. More importantly, it is an opinion piece, not a news article. It implies that HIV is attributable to "lifestyle choices". Nice. Very neutral, that.

It is possible that some of the material in this latest edit would be salvageable, with proper sourcing, but I would like to reiterate this one more time: as a general overview article, Homosexuality should not delve into unnecessary detail in any one section. Complaints filed against Health Canada by LGB activists? That's almost certainly too much detail for the health section of this article. The danger of subtle POV creep also remains. Rivertorch (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, we need more info about aids and stuff, its important. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Malleability

Regarding this edit, which I am reverting:
That a "new line of research" is reportedly beginning is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in this overview article. We really need to stick to established science (i.e., theories or at least well-tested hypotheses), not speculation, however well-meaning and plausible. Rivertorch (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it was a good faith edit and also endorse the reversion. The CNN article appears to show that the study is primarily about lesbian orientation, not all LGBT. Also, the concept of fluid orientation is already covered in Homosexuality#Malleability of sexual orientation, which says: "... For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time" That viewpoint and this reference has not risen to a level of acceptability compared to the mainstream references, and the American Psychiatric Association, that show homosexuality as being fixed. The US Surgeon General has said "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed". Adding another opposing viewpoint sentence would be WP:UNDUE. If additional RS studies can be found that establish a better scientific basis for fluid orientation, by all means lets include them. But only in proportion to their prominence in the scientific literature. — Becksguy (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The article does not contradict Surgeon General and builds up on Kinsey's and APA's (sexuality continuum) research. Please do not revert RS'ed material. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all reliably-sourced material is appropriate for this (or any) article. The object here, if I'm not mistaken, is to create a tightly-written overview article that is as close to 100% verifiable and free of undue weight as possible. To do that, some research that is less than well-established must be relegated to other, more specific articles. I stand by my decision to revert. Rivertorch (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems like you misunderstood the article just like the guy who added it at first. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can only speak for myself, not for any other editor. I've read the article a second time now, and I don't think there's much to misunderstand; it's not particularly complex in its treatment of the subject. My intial objections to the edit, stated above, still apply—and here's another one: the source is largely a puff piece, long on anecdote and celebrity name-dropping, woefully short on evidence collected from the mainstream of academic inquiry. Having said that, I'll also say I think it makes some interesting claims that, if better sourced, would be quite appropriate for another WP article that delves more deeply into issues of fluidity. Rivertorch (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)