Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

There are Articles on Animal Sexuality, Homosexuality in Animals, and Homosexuality (under Human Sexuality)

ALL articles need to be expanded--there is need for Cross-linking (as has already been done) for fair treatment of each article; there is No Need for Merger or blurring the articles in the hyper-linked format

Contents and Organization of Wikipedia – Topical; relationship to article on “Homosexuality”

One of the major organizational tools or methods for Wikipedia is delineated in Wikipedia’s “Outline of Knowledge”. (Please see the major entry for Outline of Knowledge in Wikipedia.) [Note: The word “Wikipedia” itself comes partly from the word “encyclopedia”. The word “encyclopedia”, by definition implies an organization of the branches of knowledge topically and (usually) alphabetically. Thus, although there will be ongoing modification of knowledge topics, there is no argument that there will always be a “hierarchy” of organization and abstraction and restriction in any given article; if that latter fact were not so, there would be no ability (and thus no rules or guidelines) by which to organize the information in any given article or article groups in Wikipedia.]

When you have consulted the “Outline of Knowledge” for Wikipedia, you will note that under the Category of “People and Self” you will find the sub-topic of “Relationships”. Thus, categorically—going right back to the “root category,” we are speaking about “People” in these topics, not animals. Continuing, under “Relationships” you will find the sub-sub-topic “Sexual”.

Further, animals do not use the English language or any of Wikipedia’s human language. Animals have no demonstrated word or concept for “homosexuality”. That is a human word, concept, and construct. First and foremost, you are anthropomorphizing animals (and also giving short shrift and doing a disservice to animal biology and zoology and to human homosexuality) and animal sexual behavior by labeling it with terms such as “homosexuality” and “animal transvestitism”. That research and discussion itself is in its infancy and no broad conclusions have been reached and agreed upon. (I would refer you to the quite limited research on the topic in the literature.) Homosexuality—in terms of its HUMAN psychology, genetics, developments, and expressions are unclear and a topic of great debate and ongoing research at this time. To suggest that we can even understand Animal Sexuality in the article in Wikipedia—never mind its relationship to Human Sexuality—let alone do that reasonably well in one or two short paragraphs under one article—is pure folly. Without getting into in-depth discussions of metaphysics or epistemology, I am suggesting that to do justice to BOTH Animal Sexuality (which comes organizationally under “Zoology”) and to “Human Sexuality” and “Homosexuality” (which come organizationally under “People” and “Relationships” and maybe “Anthropology”) that we omit blind inclusion of “Animal Sexuality” within the articles on “Human Sexuality” and “Homosexuality” for many reasons—not the least of which are organizationally it makes no sense within Wikipedia’s own organization. But, more importantly, it blurs and confuses both articles. Crosslinks (hyperlinks) can be included within the article on “Homosexuality” to the article on “Animal Sexuality” (and, in fact, those links are already included in both. I urge a clarification and development of the articles separately, rather than the confusion and inappropriateness of beginning to blur the articles together—in the name of ease of use for the perusing community. In this day in age, BOTH those articles stand to be lengthened and broadened and developed—so why mesh them together?

Further, there is the issue of Neutrality. The way that the “Animal Sexuality” sub-section was written under “Homosexuality” had the makings of a scientific argument that there is a basis or rationale or justification for human homosexuality found in animal behaviors that have been labeled “homosexual” by recent and very young scientific studies. There is no consensus in the scientific community on the significance of those limited and young studies. According to Wikipedia policy, there can be no such conclusion presented in an article that are not documented, PLUS, social or political or categorical arguments cannot be made that are not concrete, documented, conclusive, and neutral in their presentation. If the history of the editing of the article on “Homosexuality” is reviewed carefully by the upper echelon of Wikipedia editors, it will clearly be seen that inappropriate and unauthorized editing has been done within this very section under the article “Homosexuality”. Until that type of behavior ceases or is resolved or decided upon, this section cannot be kept within this article because of breaches or neutrality, documentation, referencing, editing wars, and organizational resolution. This can be well-documented by reviewing the history of the article in question.

Finally, with regard to eliminating and censoring other users documented entries in this or any article—and in particular for the user Phoenix09 or for those participating in this talk resolution: There is no prerequisite education or qualifications for editing articles (for example, by asking editors personal questions like, “What are your credentials?” or “What is your education?” or “Where did you come from?” or “Where did you learn to be an editor?” In fact, constantly suggesting that line of questioning or concern to another user would be considered harassment and grounds for complaint. But, quite simply, it is against Wikipedia guidelines to do such. Thus, a few of your lines of questioning are inappropriate for Wikipedia, Phoenix09, and as such I would politely ask you to cease and desist that line of comment and question and stick to the objective and concrete information of this debate on organization of content. This is not a debate on political litmus tests or club membership or personal resumes—not at all. This is a debate on the appropriate topical circumference and umbrellas of particular articles within Wikipedia guidelines. That type of activity must cease. Editing of this article showed inappropriate, disrespectful, and non-Wikipedian actions taken against genuine edits in this section before they were even standing for 24 hours--let alone according to the grounds presented for the edits themselves. That is PROOF of the inappropriateness of this section within the Homosexuality article--based on treatment of the related topic. That type of editing war must cease until the topical and neutrality and organizational and scientific arguments are resolved in the talk section. Please re-familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines from the get-go—starting with the introduction as to what Wikipedia is in itself—a wiki—before engaging in inappropriate edits that have not been resolved in talk. Thanks! Rbfitz0529 (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum page. Your personal opinions about "anthropomorphizing animals" is irrelevant. Find reliable sources and add what they say into the articles. "Homosexual behavior in animals" is a relevant subject to this article and is summarized here. Also, your response was too wrong, I couldnt read all of it. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rbfitz0529. I've been participating in some of the difficult discussions among editors of the Rick Warren article about how to appropriately present information about the controversy associated with Obama's choice of Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. I saw your post on the subject -- welcome to the discussion -- and I noticed you raised the issue of neutrality, which has been one of the thorniest parts of the discussion. Several of the editors of the Rick Warren article have expressed what I regard as political positions on the subject of homosexuality -- no harm in that -- but those positions have at times seemed to impede us from agreeing on how to best serve the reader. Which leads me to offer a comment regarding your post above. Without having read the arguments you mentioned about the rationale or justification for human homosexuality, I suspect they would more properly be described as political than scientific. A *scientific* discussion of the justification for human homosexuality is no more likely than a scientific discussion of the justification for gravity, i.e. the question of whether a phenomenon is *just* wouldn't typically fall within the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists would more likely develop, test, and argue theories about the evolution, causes, physiology or psychology of sexual orientations and behaviors. To complicate matters, some scientists express political views on the subject of sexuality, and in doing so may cite scientific studies in support of their arguments, but such advocacy itself is not something I think could be described as strictly scientific. That said, an article about sexuality could reasonably include a representative variety of arguments about rationale and justification because whatever the merits of those arguments may be, such arguments have indeed been part of the general public discourse on sexuality.

A related point: you mentioned that people may do a disservice to the fields of biology and zoology by labeling animal sexual behavior as homosexual, and I think you may be confusing the word's association with a human social identity and its use to refer simply to sexual behavior between members of the same sex in various species (including but not limited to humans). Scientists would not typically use the word "gay" in reference to animals, but scientists do indeed use the word "homosexual" to describe some behavior in animals. Though "homo" comes from the Latin for "human being," in this instance it's a prefix derived from the Greek "homos," or "same," such as in the words homozygote, homonym, and homogenize.

I have no opinion regarding how animal sexuality should be referenced in an article on human sexuality -- I'm just posting here because I think we'll collaborate most effectively if we have similar understandings of terms, and rough agreement on where to draw lines between scientific and political content. I make no claim that the definitions and lines I've presented here are universal, but they may be helpful. Benccc (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I read the article and saw a sentence that illustrates the point I tried to make above regarding the line between science and advocacy. The sentence is: "This discovery constitutes a major argument against those calling into question the biological legitimacy or naturalness of homosexuality, or those regarding it as a meditated social decision." "Legitimacy" and "naturalness" in this context are values-related terms, and biological phenomena have no inherent rightness or wrongness; observations and measurements and reports of the phenomena may be done well or done poorly, but the phenomena themselves simply exist. So "biological legitimacy" does not seem coherent to me. Perhaps the following wording would be a reasonable replacement:

This discovery was cited by some as evidence that homosexual behavior should not be described as "unnatural."

Of course that would require a citation, and I don't have one handy. What do you think? I don't know what "meditated social decision" means so I didn't attempt to replace it. Benccc (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The proposed rewording is a slight improvement, because we really must eliminate the phrase regarding it as a meditated social decision and try to avoid the words biological legitimacy. In fact, legitimacy is really best addressed in the other subsections of this article which are concerned with social and political issues, and legitimacy isn't really a relevant part of the biological and zoological subsections of this article. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 05:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Further down this page, under the heading "Proposed text," I see that the sentence in question would be struck altogether, in which case the change I propose is moot. I don't think the article suffers from elimination of that sentence. Benccc (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality in animals section

Technically, no one appears to have done the 3RR nasty yet, but the back-and-forth reverting isn't productive. I suggest a compromise: that the section be reinserted but in significantly condensed form, and also that the particulars get hashed out here before any more relevant additions or deletions are made to the article. My take on it is that the information in the section is relevant and valuable but that we need to keep in mind the goal of shortening (with an eye to merging) the article. Comments, please. Phoenix? Rbfitz? Anyone? Rivertorch (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreement - it's a long section that needs to be only a summary paragraph given the pointers to full articles. This has been done with other articles (can't think of an example.) —EqualRights (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The section Rbfitz removed was already small. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It was over 6kB in an article that already is pushing the boundaries of acceptable article size and will somehow need to accommodate lots more content if the proposed merger happens. Please, one of the two of you, take the high ground and stop reverting; any further reverts of this section are clearly disruptive editing. Get a third opinion or ask the Mediation Cabal for help or—best option of all—use rational discussion right here on this page and seek consensus. Rivertorch (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

For me to revert is not disruptive editing. That section is reliable sourced and has been there for a long time so it requires a consensus to remove it. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not see consensus for removing the section. The section is much smaller than its article. And this article is big, but homosexuality is a big subject. So I'm reverting your edit. Belasted (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also note that this article is called Homosexuality, not Homosexuality in humans. Humans are the main subject, but it's worth noting homosexuality in animals, unless this article is changed to Homosexuality in humans. Belasted (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Per Belasted. Also it is relevant for these reasons: "Studies indicating prenatal homosexuality in certain animal species have had social and political implications surrounding the gay rights debate.[153]" "Bagemihl said that the book is also meant to address "homophobia and bias in the scientific community," These are reliable sourced and are relevant to humans. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur, also per Belasted, although I still support shortening the section. Rivertorch (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, ok, I guess it can be shortened. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm very much in agreement with you, Phoenix of9; and if you are able to shorten it, i would say that is marvelous, concision is always helpful. And i want to also emphasize that Belasted makes a very important point: "...this article is called Homosexuality, not Homosexuality in humans...", and we must also not fall into the temptation to choose a political rather than scientific viewpoint when it comes to treating humans (as a species) as though we were not simply just another species of creature, while there are so many other kinds of animal species, and it is only our anthropic viewpoint which causes us to put Homosexuality In Humans into a bigger(?) category and more prominently displayed heading than Homosexuality In Animals-- when, in fact, it could be argued from a zoological/biological scientific perspective that Homosexuality In Humans is merely one of thousands(millions?) of subcategories of Homosexuality In Animals. Any suggestion otherwise (in the way we editorialize the information) would have to be carefully examined and found to be verifiable, otherwise it risks being accidentally politicized simply because of our (often unconscious) anthropocentrism. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 03:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed text

See what you all think about the following:

Homosexual sexual behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys, and the great apes. Homosexual behavior has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documentedis well documented in 500.[143][144] This discovery constitutes a major argument against those calling into question the biological legitimacy or naturalness of homosexuality, or those regarding it as a meditated social decision. For example, male penguin couples have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg in nesting and brooding. In a well-publicized story from 2004, the Central Park Zoo in the United States replaced one male penguin couple's stone with a fertile egg, which the couple then raised as their own offspring.[145]

The genetic basis of animal homosexuality has been studied in the fly Drosophila melanogaster.[146] Here, multiple genes have been identified that can cause homosexual courtship and mating.[147] These genes are thought to control behavior through pheromones as well as altering the structure of the animals' brains.[148][149] These studies have also investigated the influence of environment on the likelihood of flies displaying homosexual behavior.[150][151] Georgetown University professor Janet Mann has specifically theorized that homosexual behavior, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimizes intraspecies aggression, especially among males.[152] Studies indicating prenatal homosexuality in certain animal species have had social and political implications surrounding the gay rights debate.[153]

According to title, a year 1999 book by biologist Bruce Bagemihl, "the animal kingdom [does] it with much greater sexual diversity -- including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex -- than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept." Bagemihl said that the book is also meant to address "homophobia and bias in the scientific community," as well as to challenge social critics who, he says, often base their antigay positions on claims that homosexuality doesn't appear in nature. The book "offers a general discussion of the forms and history of observation of animal homosexuality as well as a reference section that details specific sexual behaviors for a wide range of mammals and birds. Elephants, apparently, have very little heterosexual activity, and in some bird species, said Denneny, 80% to 90% of their sexual activity is homosexual." Commenting on this book, St. Martin's editor Michael Denneny observes, "There's an insanity about sexuality in the country right now. We think it's likely that this book will generate some intellectual controversy."[154]

That shortens it by more than a third. Statements of opinion and unsourced claims are excised (even if they're true and obvious) and some unnecessary bloat is gone (honestly, why we should care what the book editor has to say?) but the integrity of the section's reporting on scientific findings is, I think, preserved. Rivertorch (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"often base their antigay positions on claims that homosexuality doesn't appear in nature" should be there too. Phoenix of9 (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I definitely support Rivertorch's proposed text, it looks like an improvement. But i also agree with PhoenixOf9, it would be great if Rivertorch could use their awesome powers of concision to include the reference to their antigay positions on claims that homosexuality doesn't appear in nature. I wish i had such skills of editorial terseness. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 10:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentence in question is outside the quotation marks. It may be a legitimate paraphrase but, even so, it really should be sourced. If we can do that, then it's easily reinstated; if not, maybe we can replace it with something else. I will be off-wiki for some hours but plan to move the proposed text into article space within 12–14 hours unless consensus shifts or someone else does it in the meantime. (It's awkward: I copied from the page, not the source, for fear of adding footnotes to the talk page, so the citations have to be put back.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, minus the aforementioned sentence. Actually, the Bagemihl quote itself also needs a ref. Anybody have the book or easy library access? Rivertorch (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This isnt a good source [1] ? Phoenix of9 (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I looked at it again, and I guess it works. I have no immediate objection to it going back in but am working on deadline, so feel free. (More to say later but I don't have time.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Blatant Opinion

"This discovery constitutes a major argument against those calling into question the biological legitimacy or naturalness of homosexuality, or those regarding it as a meditated social decision." That is not NPOV. That is a perception, and yet it has managed to stay in this article for months. It is not quoted or sourced. I cannot change it, however, firstly because I will be eaten alive by the watchdogs, and secondly because my account will not let me edit steel-locked articles, despite a great deal of trying. Asperger, he'll know. (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted the sentence, as I agree that it doesn't belong. The point of the article is not to justify homosexuality. For that, see Homophobia. Belasted (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. =D-------Asperger, he'll know. (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

For inclusion into Category:Vice

Noting the extent of its illegality as described under LGBT rights by country or territory, and the objective view of its depravity across a broad spectrum of cultures as exposed by the content of Religion and homosexuality—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

DFTT. garik (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources and studies

Anticipating questions about this edit and hoping to stay offwiki for some hours, two quick notes:

1. catholiceducation.org is not a valid reference to cite in the Health section; it's analogous to citing the New England Journal of Medicine in the religion section.
2. A 1978 study regarding sexual habits of certain subsets of populations seems way out of line for this very general, overview-type article. It might work in an article dealing with historical specifics but it has little if any relevance to either what came before or what is now, so why highlight one little slice of time in that way? Rivertorch (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Re "1" I personally find religious propaganda distasteful and certainly would suggest that proper sources be found for that commonsensical statement. But the statement is nevertheless obviously true and should not be summarily deleted. It is also necessary to underline that it is NOT homosexuality per se that is the cause of the various diseases, but of certain practices that are universal.

Re "2" this is a general overview and historical article. We mention a lot of past cultures, we can certainly devote a bit of space to the evolution of gay culture in modern times. Probably the way this should be handled is to document the initial outburst of activity, the subsequent crash, and the current situation. Haiduc (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Re 1, as written, the statement had no real relevance to this article, so looking for a proper source seemed like a waste of time, and leaving it in unsourced seemed pointless. Re 2, I agree with the general thrust of what you say, but since article length is a big consideration here just lately, I thought it was better to kill the damn thing instead of trying (probably futilely) to put it ultra-concisely into context. (Anybody who proves it isn't futile gets a big, wet. sloppy barnstar.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

First Phase After Merger: Checking that nothing was lost

Can you guys check that no material has been deleted during the merger? After this we can proceed with re-organizations and trimmings. Phoenix of9 (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Link for film (Philadelphia) incorrect and seemingly extraneous sentence/section

I noted whilst reading that the link for the film Philadelphia actually points to the city of Philadelphia. Since this article is semi-protected, perhaps someone could make this edit for me. The correct article is Philadelphia_(film).

Also; the last sentence in the section 'homophobia' is immediately repeated in the following section, regarding the murder of Matthew Shepard. Clearly the duplicity is unnecessary and it could be formatted better. 144.135.85.160 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your requests have been granted. Thanks for the heads up. Belasted (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we need an overview section?

Resolved

 – Thank you! -- Banjeboi 13:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Overview should be in the lead. Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The lede is the overview so anything needed should be merged and the rest vectored off to more appropriate articles. -- Banjeboi 15:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Contact?

Resolved

 – Reworked. -- Banjeboi 13:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"The exact proportion of the population that has had homosexual contact is difficult to estimate reliably"

I think we mean to say no one knows the proportion of humans that are homosexual and researchers have found it difficult to reliably estimate this figure for various reasons. -- Banjeboi 03:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not "are homosexual" but "do homosexual," so to speak. We are including all categories in this sentence.

"Contact" is not mandatory, "relations" will also do very nicely. Haiduc (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Yes, your wording is better. Now i'm going to have "homosexual contact" stuck in my head for the rest of the week. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 04:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, anyone who'se ever heard an Elton John song or seen Ellen Degeneres has had a homosexual contact so that percentage should be quite high. Lol! -- Banjeboi 10:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

New wording propsal

Old: - "The exact proportion of the population that has had homosexual contact is difficult to estimate reliably"

New: - No one knows the proportion of humans that are homosexual or have homosexual exeriences and researchers have found it difficult to reliably estimate this figure for various reasons.

In light of feedback I wonder if the above is more accurate? The studies themselves will have to be looked at separately to more accurately reflect their findings. -- Banjeboi 07:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support as nom. But open to whatever works best. -- Banjeboi 07:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Et tu, Benjiboi? Seriously, "no one knows?!" That is like saying that no one knows how far it is to the Andromeda galaxy, because we do not know the answer to the umpteenth decimal point. We have a fair idea of the numbers that are reported, and we should report that, as well as the uncertainty. Don't be so "accurate" that you end up misinforming. Haiduc (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

How about: - The number of people identifying as homosexual— and the proportion of the population who've had homosexual experiences— are quantities which have been difficult for researchers to estimate reliably. Many studies indicate a range of ... etc etc ... - Is that accurate and concisely established in our sources? ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 19:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Haiduc, this is just to replace the one phrase. My interest is to state that the figure is disputed because measuring it is hard; that researchers face several challenges; and, after a revetting process, according to reputable studies the percentage is widely considered to range from ___ to ___. I think it may make sense to mention the oft quoted %10 figure and even Kinsey's 37% bisexuality figure. How it all comes together is another issue but that is the gist of where I'm currently at. Teledildonix314, I'm open. I did, however, tweak the formatting as it made it harder to read with the color font. -- Banjeboi 20:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, i use weird colors on TalkPages to distinguish between Proposal highlights versus ordinary chitchat. I'd never use mixed colors for fonts in Article Mainspace unless there were some overwhelmingly compelling reason. Also, i will take a long look at the sources for that section (the accessible ones, for me, anyway) and try my fuzzyheaded best to trim that section even further if i can conceive of a more concise wording. Good gracious, now i'm beginning to understand what you meant about "if you love sausages, don't watch them being made". Well, i love sausages. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 21:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What drives me absolutely crazy is that long line of references, which makes it almost impossible to edit the section. Is there no other alternative? Haiduc (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree and yes, I think that is a logical conclusion. However, even when it is cleaned up there will be a lenthy note so much of that will still be there one way or another. -- Banjeboi 21:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lede cleanup

The lede really needs to be short and sweet. Detailed debates have to be saved for the specific sections.

The para below, taken out of the lede, seems more appropriate for the article on orientation, since there is nothing specific to homosexuality there.

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

I have left the mention of fraternal birth order in the lede because it seems to be the focus of attention here, though I do not think it belongs there. It is one of many suppositions making the rounds, and while it should be represented, probably it too should go to demographics. Haiduc (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer eliminating as many parenthesis as possible. I think we try to minimize as part of teh MOS but otherwise generally approve of this effort. -- Banjeboi 15:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Youth

I think Gay and lesbian youth should be moved into "Law, politics, society and sociology" section near Coming out. -- Banjeboi 13:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

These are all health related:

"Gay and lesbian youth bear an increased risk of suicide, substance abuse, school problems, and isolation because of a "hostile and condemning environment, verbal and physical abuse, rejection and isolation from family and peers".[94] Further, LGB youths are more likely to report psychological and physical abuse by parents or caretakers, and more sexual abuse. Suggested reasons for this disparity are that (1) LGBT youths may be specifically targeted on the basis of their perceived sexual orientation or gender non-conforming appearance, and (2) that "risk factors associated with sexual minority status, including discrimination, invisibility, and rejection by family members...may lead to an increase in behaviors that are associated with risk for victimization, such as substance abuse, sex with multiple partners, or running away from home as a teenager."[95]

Crisis centers in larger cities and information sites on the Internet have arisen to help youth and adults.[96] The Trevor Helpline, a suicide prevention helpline for gay youth, was established following the 1998 airing on HBO of the Academy Award winning short film Trevor." Phoenix of9 (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I also moved coming out since coming out is identity development. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It may need to be re-written then, I was going more by logic but your points are well taken. -- Banjeboi 23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

GEOPOLITICAL DISCRIMINATION! OR LACK OF INFORMATION?

"During the 1980s and 1990s, most developed countries enacted laws decriminalizing homosexual behavior and prohibiting discrimination against lesbians and gays in employment, housing, and services. Even so, many countries today—all of them in Africa, Asia, and South America—outlaw homosexuality."

How can you stage this when you have a map with most of South America in Blue, civil unions are legal in Uruguay, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela and most populated states of Argentina and Brazil

please take South America out of this list and make a real statement about the legal situation of homosexuality in the American Continent, where the U.S. is one of the most conservative countries, for example in California.

please, put some light here

thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.191.250.5 (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The sentence said that the countries that outlaw homosexuality are in South America, there is one country there that does outlaw it, so it is technically a true sentence. The sentence doesn't say most or all of the countries in S America outlaw it. Never the less, I removed S. America from the sentence. CTJF83Talk 07:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

citation to add

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18561014 is a reference for:

A 2009 study also suggested a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual people from the maternal line (but not in those related from the paternal one).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.232.173 (talk)

This appears already to be cited to that source. Rivertorch (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Female sexuality

I have the same issue in Bulgarian wikipedia were discoures on homosexuality are far from scientific. However we share something in common. There aren't enough images of female homosexuality in the major issue about homoesexuality. It is like the homosexuality is predominantly male or of male (may be it is but...?! i still think there is a missrepresentation). There is an issue about lesbian in English and Bulgarian wikipedia but I find that lack of female image of homosexuality repressing, silencing female otherness and deminoring female homosexuality. I would like to call for more attention for representing it if not fully, at least to an extend the female homosexuality both in images and as a history (becuase in modern terms you speak of LGB which is fine...but). If you make a simple search, there is not one mentioning of the word lesbian in the history section. Please pay attention to this. It is like female homosexuality come up from nowhere lol :)))))))) Although it seems female homosexual (homoerotic) relations to be more of literary realm than a penetration itself (penetration as depicted, punished, etc.), I still think they need more attention (in historical aspect). Indeed some words can be put there: even if they are "no evidence but much literary production on behalf of female homosexuality" --Aleksd (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the Lesbian article, which is more comprehensive and coherent than this one, only because so few people actually edit it. Can you explain why the information in that article is not usable? --Moni3 (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There are gay and lesbian issues, but in the homosexuality itself issue no lesbian history or images are found, only male? I guess if you haven't understood my previous post you would not understood this either no metter how simple words I use --Aleksd (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well. I do understand. Male homosexuality gets all the attention and edits. It's more offensive than female homosexuality, which is just hot when the chicks aren't fat. That's me being sarcastic. The Homosexuality article is a tar pit. Unless editors who wish to be involved in it can work together, it will remain a disaster. --Moni3 (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not only the battle of discourses on male homosexuality. --Aleksd (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

Under the health header, I want to question the green and light orange boxes that contain some bits of information on how to be safer during sex. I wonder, do these recommendations apply to only homosexual men and women, or is it just general information that could be applied to both heterosexuality and homosexuality. (I realize the citations do target homosexual men and women, however the recommendations in their current forms are not orientation specific).

Currently the Wikipedia article on heterosexuality does not contain these boxes or a "health" header at all. Nor does it mention that

"in contrast to its benefits, sexual behavior can be a disease vector."

The wikilink that "disease vector" points to is general information, and the citation (119) in the next sentence right after my quote is to a Canadian site, and is not orientation specific. I think there needs to be some balancing out. I wouldn't want to see potentially valuable information removed, perhaps it should be shared between the articles. There are numerous sources that recommend heterosexuals use these same recommendations... should the citations require changing. --Vlsi0n (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to make it look less obtrusive, contain it within health, and used nicer colour for background. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles don't need to be consistent to one another - the same information can be presented differently or not at all. It would be nice but each article grows on its own. One of the longstanding LGBT issues has been a disparity of access to healthcare coupled with cultural and societal attitudes that LGBT people are diseased. Each of those boxes is labelled accurately to how medical and health professionals view the topic - without regard to sexuality and sexual identity - Men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women. A generalized version of this could be applied to the safe sex and heterosexuality articles if desired. -- Banjeboi 16:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

But the colours are horrid - lilac looks much nicer, and by placing them either side of the section on health, it puts them both on an equal footing. If you want separate colours for boys and girls, I can understanding not using blue & pink, but why use such revolting tones of colour? Mish (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That was lilac? It came off on my end as grey. We can certainly find different colours but the formatting is fine. We're just presenting two boxes so as long as they are both equally sized and in the same section it's a simple matter of choice which is first, you pick, I'm not bothered. -- Banjeboi 10:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It was lilac, but I can make it more vivid. The reason I moved the boxes was that most of the second box fell outside the health section, having them either side (and stretching a bit) allowed them to 'frame' the section, but I guess much of this will depend on the scaling in the browser. When I have time I'll play with the colours. Mish (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Just checked, at 100% it does fit - I use 75% text size on my browser, and it throws the text boxes out, and sticks the edit tabs in the text. So, forget it, and I can't be bothered with the colours - I'm not reading it; if somebody else is concerned with the aesthetics, they can do it. Mish (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I'm usually keen on finding campy colours but in this case kept coming up with neutrality issues, if you do find something give it a try. I know there's a good lavender around. -- Banjeboi 23:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Destinero

Case No. S147999 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, In re Marriage Cases Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365, APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE PARTIES CHALLENGING THE MARRIAGE EXCLUSION, AND BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, CALIFORNIA CHAPTER IN SUPPORT OF THE PARTIES CHALLENGING THE MARRIAGE EXCLUSION

Please convert this to normal case, and replace where you have inserted this as a source using the decapitalised version. Mish (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Etiology

I'm reverting Jjk's change of this section heading. It's true that "causes" is a simpler word and thus may be clearer for the casual reader, but I don't think it's more accurate. While "etiology" can mean "causes" (specifically in terms of a disease or medical condition, which doesn't work for the topic of this article), it also means "the investigation or attribution of the cause or reason for something, often expressed in terms of historical or mythical explanation", which works pretty well here as a definition. Nothingcauses homosexuality any more than anything causes heterosexuality. The section in question deals quite specifically with investigations and explanations of why some people are homosexual, and "etiology" describes the content of the section well enough. Rivertorch (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with your reversion. Causes can be seen to have negative connotations, where etiology is more neutral. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

How about "origins", to keep it more accessible? Haiduc (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I like that even better: Nice and neutral like etiology, nice and accessible like causes. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Origins of the epidemic. Origins of the Cold War. Origins of World War I. Origins of bipedal hominids. It suggests that homosexuality can be traced back to some definable genesis, but is there any evidence that that is so? "Etiology" makes sense because it indicates investigation or attribution, which is precisely what the section goes on to describe. Rivertorch (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You've a point there. Really, I'm okeh with etiology or with origins or with roots, but not with causes. We may want to provide a discreet link (perhaps a wiktionary link etiology), though it appears Wikt defines ætiology as "The study of causes or origins". —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Origins has a different meaning to etiology. Etiology is fine. Mish (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

'homosexuals', 'heterosexuals' and 'non-heterosexuals'

I have edited these references, as using terms such as these as nouns is deprecated WP:MOS#Identity, [2], [3], [4], [5], 'Gayle' p.4, etc. Mish (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Good work, thanks for that. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Good intentions

I am glad that my good intentions were recognized, but I think there is a problem if we do not put in the sub-headings, since we have a "Main Article" template for the section referring us to "Same-sex relationships" and then the second (of two) paragraphs in the section is discussing not same-sex relationships, but opposite-sex relationships. What is this section supposed to be about?--Bhuck (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your changes to the text strike me as improvements, but I don't think the subheadings are necessary. The section is primarily about same-sex relationships. Rivertorch (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-consensus edits to lead

Phoenix of 9, with this edit you unilaterally made substantial changes to a consensus lead developed through extensive discussion in which you yourself participated. That certainly doesn't mean the new lead is untouchable, but it does make your unilateral changes seem uncoöperative and less than productive. If you have concerns about the present lead language, let's please discuss them here on the talk page and see if consensus develops to make further adjustments. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I was bold. The concerns were in the edit summary. You just reverted w/o addressing any of them. Can you not read? "situationally is covered by "behaviour". Pathological models were non existant b4 19th century. Please do no delete and/or's. Orientation def was incomplete" Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I did revert, because you made a unilateral change against consensus, without first discussing it and building new consensus. Boldness is best tempered by thoughtful consideration: This is a contentious topic, and the lead was developed through very extensive discussion, so just up and changing it without discussion really isn't helpful, and "I was bold" really isn't very responsive or coöperative. The talk page here, and not the edit summary, is the right place to discuss changes. "Can you not read?" isn't a helpful remark. I did read your edit summary, and it seemed uncomfortably close to MPOV. Please raise your concerns here in complete sentences and let's see how the collaborative discussion goes. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand ""situationally is covered by "behaviour". Could you clarify what you mean? Rivertorch (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann,

1) Your refusal to understand is also counter productive and not helpful. Referring to MPOV here seems like a personal attack. This is also counter productive and not helpful. Please see WP:NPA.

2) "Pathological models were non existant b4 19th century." means that your lead is incorrect as it implies that homosexuality was considered a disease until 20th century. This is incorrect. Disease/mental disorder view started in 19th century, not 1000 BC. Do you finally get it?

3) Tendency to potential. A word change. What part do you not comprehend?

4) "Orientation def was incomplete" means that orientation definition was incomplete. Currently the lead is like this: "As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is considered to lie within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum of human sexuality,[1] and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.".

As a sexual orientation, homosexuality does not ONLY refer to an individual’s identity.

5) Situational sexual behaviour is sexual behaviour. People who engage in "situational homosexual behaviour" are still engaging in homosexual behaviour even if they do not consider their orientation to be homosexual.

6) Please do not WP:OWN the article. Do not make unnecessary reverts behind the mask of upholding a consensus. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your accusational, confrontational tone is neither productive nor warranted, and I will not engage with you at that level. Let's try for a civil discussion about the language in the lead.

You're right, of course, that situational homosexual behaviour is a subset of homosexual behaviour in general. Looking back through the discussion by which the present lead was devised, it seems to me the word situational is not redundant as you appear to consider it; placed as it is, it serves to clarify that some people engage in homosexual behaviour even though they do not consider themselves homosexually oriented.

You're also right that homosexuality as an orientation doesn't refer merely to an individual's identity; the present lead language does not make such a claim. It does give context to the term and refers to our main article on sexual orientation, which seems appropriate given that the lead's job is to give a summary overview of the contents of this present article. Sexual orientation does not lend itself to a quick one-liner definition, which is why we refer the reader to the main article on that subject.

I'd like to learn more of your thoughts regarding what you perceive as a problem with the wording regarding pathology. You say pathological models were nonexistent before the 19th century; can you reliably support this? What change, specifically, would you favour for this part of the lead's wording?

Your point #3 does not make sense to me, for the word potential you seem to object to does not appear in the lead. Perhaps you meant to comment on the relative merits of tendency vs. disposition; if so, please refer to ↑the discussion on that very matter↑.—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we discuss this above? --Dhilvert (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann, again, your refusal to understand is also counter productive and not helpful. "Tendency to potential" I changed tendency to potential. Whats your problem with that? You also said:

"I'd like to learn more of your thoughts regarding what you perceive as a problem with the wording regarding pathology. You say pathological models were nonexistent before the 19th century; can you reliably support this? What change, specifically, would you favour for this part of the lead's wording?"

It seems that you havent even read psychology section in this article. Why are you editing the lead if you even havent read the article. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please adopt a less combative, more coöperative tone. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read the article first if you want to improve it. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How 'bout we both go have a nice cuppa tea, keep in mind that we're all interested in improving this article (probably none of us is interested in spoiling it), and talk productively about what adjustments to the lead might be warranted and supported by consensus? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What am I missing here? This was posted up here through ten revisions, then located in place when there appeared to be a consensus. Why was this not discussed beforehand? The way you phrase your point about pathology is unclear - not being considered a pathology before 19th Century means before 19th Century, not 20th Century. Would you prefer it said that it became considered a disease in the 19th Century? OK - but before the 19th Century it was not homosexuality, it was sodomy, it was men having sex with men, not homosexuality, so while homosexual acts occurred before the 19th Century, and forms of culture that today would be called 'gay', homosexuality itself only came into being in the 19th Century, as a pathology, so before the 19th Century, homosexuality as a pathology did not exist - sodomy as a crime did. The tone is unnecessarily aggressive, especially when you could have made any comments you wanted before this point. Mish (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, I would like to return to a peaceful mode of discussion, I think it has worked very well until now. As for the comments above, some feedback.

1. Pathological models predate the year 1000. Avicenna discussed pathics in that light, see The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology By Mark D. Jordan, pp119-120. I seem to remeber something about Aristotle too, comparing pathics with people with other compulsions, like eating dirt, hair tugging, or chewing fingernails, but I am not in my office and have no refs at the moment. (I am using archaic terminology advisedly).
2. The removal of situational from the first sentence foregrounds orientation too much.
3. The repetition of the characteristics in the second sentence is redundant and not good style.
4. Potential in the second para is probably a better choice than tendency, which slightly medicalizes things.
5. The discussion of other rights misses the point and is misleading. What is criminalized are certain behaviors. --Haiduc (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Within context, replacing tendency with potential could easily be read to imply that any (including situational) homosexual behavior is limited to 20% of the population:

The prevalence of homosexuality among humans is difficult to determine accurately; studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit some degree of homosexual potential, though in many earlier cultures homosexual relations were highly prevalent.

— #Rev 11, Phoenix of9

--Dhilvert (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Haiduc, I think my suggestion above gets around this - as it is discussing the creation of a specific pathology which came to be called 'homosexuality' in the late 19th century, not what went on before 1000 AD.

Homosexuality was created as a neurological or psychiatric disorder towards the end of the 19th century, for people who had a preference for sex with members of the same sex; towards the end of the 20th century, homosexuality became regarded as a normal variation of human sexuality that did not require treatment, and was removed from diagnostic and classification systems for psychiatric disorders. Homosexual relations also became decriminalized in most developed countries from the late 1960s onwards (…)

Mish (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we should hew to the position of some that homosexuality is ahistorical, but be as inclusive as possible. I did a quick check on early medicalization discourses and came up with some interesting stuff. Deviance and medicalization By Peter Conrad, Joseph W. Schneider, p176, talks about comments in antiquity as the "earliest medical explanations for deviant homosexual conduct." Also, How to Do the History of Homosexuality By David M. Halperin, N26 p165 is very interesting, as well as pp34, 73, 74. He locates the passage in Aristotle, and discusses Caelius. Since there are two discourses, one asserting medicalization came late (again, in the west, since ubnah has been around for at least a millennium) and another in antiquity, I think we best be inclusive rather than restrictive. --Haiduc (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, except that wasn't homosexuality. It was something else. Homosexuality is a relatively modern concept - unlike same-sex sexual activity. That is why I phrased it the way I did. Being homosexual was pathologised at the end of the 19th century, that holds true irrespective of whether homosexual stuff was pathologised in antiquity - which is not relevant in the lead, and more relevant to an article on the history of homosexuality. What is important for this article is homosexuality now, and we have arrived at the current understanding. The pathologisation in the 19th century which led to the coinage of the term itself is crucial to this. What Aristotle said, whatever he called it in Greek, is not, and to event take that into account in the lead would be undue weight, because homosexuality, as we understand it today, would have been an alien concept prior to the 19th century. Mish (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to say that this: "Homosexuality refers to romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex, situationally or in an enduring disposition" is surprisingly stupid. Whats more surprising is, however, the extent that some members are defending it. I really didnt want to waste this much time on this.

First of all, what is "situational" or "situational sexual behavior"?? Where are the sources? Wiki article, Situational sexual behavior doesnt even have sources. I've never seen a definition of homosexuality which mentioned "situational". I googled "Situational sexual behavior" and not much comes up. It seems to be like an invention of Haiduc, who is the type of person who uses gay orientation in quotes [6]

Wiki article Situational sexual behavior defines it like this:

“ Situational sexual behavior is sexual behavior of a kind that is different from what is usual for that person (or from what that person normally exhibits) due to a social environment that permits, encourages, or compels those acts.

For example, people might not have sex with prostitutes in their home countries, but may do so when they visit other countries, where such activities are legal or ignored by authorities.

Other examples are people in prison, the military, single sex boarding schools, or other sex-segregated communities, where members of those communities might engage in homosexual behaviors but identify as heterosexual otherwise.

Many people change their sexual behaviour depending on the situation. For example, men and women in a university may practice bisexuality, but only in that environment. Experimentation of this sort is more common among adolescents, both male and female. Some colloquialisms for this trend include "heteroflexible", "BUG" (Bisexual Until Graduation), or "LUG" (Lesbian Until Graduation).

”

WTF? What is this supposed to mean? So a str8 person may turn gay/bi in prisons, the military and single sex boarding schools? Is this what we're supposed to understand from that? How do you know they were str8 in the first place? A str8 person who engages in "situational sexual behavior" may not be actually 100% str8, they could be 90% str8. Sexual orientation is a continuum. So that "situational" behaviour would have nothing to do with a "social environment that permits, encourages, or compels those acts."

About pathology, can you provide quotes? I do not trust Haiduc. He seems to have a weird bias that there is no gay orientation or whatever that is. An eg of Haiduc misrepresenting the source can be found here: [[7]] [[8]]

Anyway, about early medicalization we need sources. Eventho Aristotle said whatever, there were many who disagreed and it wasnt the consensus. The sentence in the old version "Since the middle of the 20th century homosexuality has been gradually delisted as a disease and decriminalized in most developed countries." is simply INCORRECT since it implies that homosexuality was criminalized and seen as a disease at all times throughout the history until the middle of the 20th century. And again "developed countries" there is utterly stupid. I've said this many times. Its not just the developed countries. These are the developed countries:

  Countries described as Advanced Economies by the IMF.

By 2000, decriminalization was not mostly limited to them. See [[9]]. Anyway I spent too much time on this. If you are going to change the lead again use reliable sources, not your imagination. Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh about Mish's version, Homosexuality was not "created". It was always there. It was just identified. Kinda like genes were always there altho we didnt know about genetics until recently. But even before the study of genetics, people figured out some stuff about heritability. Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 'romantic' is problematic. As a pathology, 'homosexuality' was created, and its creation can be traced back to 1869, as 'contrary sexual feeling', although the term 'homosexuality' was coined for this towards the end of the 19th century. Before this there were 'sodomites' etc., which was a criminal act, not an illness - although many people wound up in asylums for the criminally insane, alongside child-sex-murderers and cannibals, etc. Sure there were queer people fucking one another and assuming a variety of identities, but they weren't homosexual then - they were something else, such as Mollies. You will not find a single refence to 'homosexuality' or 'homosexual' before the time of Kraft-Ebbing. Mish (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the main underlying disputes seems to be roughly analogous to:

• Although they weren't identified and named until the 20th century, quasars have existed for aeons; they predate modern astronomy.

versus

• Although economic systems with elements of it preceded the life of its namesake, Marxism did not always exist; it cannot have predated Marx.

Which is it? Is homosexuality a modern construct or is it something much older that was studied and named in the 19th century? I'd say the answer, awkwardly enough, is both. I don't think the two views are impossible to reconcile, though. If we're using the adjective homosexual to modify behavior or attraction, for instance, then we should treat it like quasars and acknowledge that it was there before the word for it was coined; there's no anachronism problem. The noun homosexuality and the adjective homosexual used to describe people are something else again; because the definition of homosexuality is so complex and changeable depending on context, we ought to be tread carefully when applying it in certain ways. (For instance, the sentence "Homosexuality was common in both Sparta and Athens" is problematic, whereas "Homosexual behavior was common in both Sparta and Athens" is not.)

Phoenix, you ask, "So a str8 person may turn gay/bi in prisons, the military and single sex boarding schools?" No, but a straight person can engage in homosexual activity. Obviously, there's a continuum and they may not be Kinsey 6's or whatever, but the principle of situational behavior at variance with underlying orientation is well established; it also accounts for gay people entering traditional marriages and having sex with their spouses. They haven't turned straight either, but they are engaging in heterosexual activity.

Also, you repeat your allegation that the sentence about decriminalization "implies that homosexuality was criminalized and seen as a disease at all times throughout the history until the middle of the 20th century". Again, I disagree. Nothing in the wording of the sentence implies anything about "at all times throughout...history"; it doesn't speak to the ancient past at all but simply implies (correctly) that it was against the law and seen as a disease in the period immediately before the time mentioned. I think it requires some fairly creative reading between the lines to infer "at all times" out of the words that are there, but maybe you can explain why you think it implies that. Rivertorch (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, the lede as it stands now is poorly written and is contrary to consensus. If we jumped the gun on "going live" with the new, consensus-based lede, then let's revert to the pre-Rev 1 lede from a couple weeks ago. I don't think we jumped the gun at all, but the tortured language of the current lede is simply unacceptable. It reflects poorly on the entire project. Rivertorch (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Mish, I'm a little puzzled that you renew your characterisation of romantic as "problematic"; your earlier objections to it were discussed and seemed to be addressed by reference to existing, reliably-supported material in the article. Do you have a new objection?

Rivertorch, you and I are not the only ones who don't think we jumped the gun at all with the installation of Rev 10. Please see discussion ↑up there↑ for why reverting to the pre-Rev-1 lead is neither a reasonable nor a productive course of action. For the moment, Rev 10 is restored while we discuss whatever refinements and improvements might be warranted. It's to be hoped there won't be a repeat of yesterday's repeated tendentious reverts with incendiary edit summaries. In the meantime, I find your quasar and Marxism analogies very apt and illustrative. I'm fairly certain the Romans didn't use a word comparable to "infrastructure", but they had streets and roads and suchlike just the same.

Phoenix of9, your continued strident insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong, your use of inflammatory words like "stupid", and your "I really didnt want to waste this much time on this" hystrionics are neither helpful nor constructive. You may very well have some valid points and good suggestions, but your behaviour is making them difficult to see and agree with. Please modify your approach; the object here is coöperation, not combat. You seem to be the only participant in this present discussion taking a combative, derisive, belligerent approach; the rest of us are discussing the issues at hand in a calm, civil, collaborative manner. Your behaviour is growing disruptive, and tolerance of it cannot reasonably be expected to last indefinitely. It would be best, easiest, and nicest for us all and I'm sure everyone you're sharing this project with would be most appreciative if you will please police yourself rather than eventually subjecting yourself to scrutiny under Wikipedia's protocols for dealing with tendentious editors. Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann, please stop adding incorrect information into the lead. Thats more problematic than whatever I'm doing. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is adding "incorrect" information to the lead; what's being done is to revert to the lead supported by consensus. Please keep in mind that consensus does not require unanimity, and you are the only participant here who seems to find it unsuitable. The fact that you are encountering so little acceptance of your views is your signal that you may simply disagree with consensus. When that happens, it's time to think more carefully about your views, rather than restating them more forcefully. It's really unfortunate that you're choosing to leave me no choice but to report you for disruptive, uncoöperative behaviour; I'd much rather work with you, but you've shown yourself quite unwilling to collaborate, and that's just not acceptable here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Rivertorch, about continuum thats what I said. Read what Ive written. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann, I still find it problematic, but you have sources for it - that doesn't make it less problematic for me, just because a few people like sociologist Giddens refer to it this way. Just because Giddens et al. think homosexuality is romantic, it doesn't mean I have to. The Pope says a lot of stuff I find problematic as well - but that won't stop it going into articles either. Mish (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix, I think it is a shame your points didn't get raised while we were discussing the edit, which went on for a few days as I recall. I still think that rather than an edit war, the previous version should be restored, the revised lead placed in a sandbox, and interested editors can thrash it out there - so, even though I agreed to the insertion of the new version, I would prefer we revert to the earlier version and avoid an edit war, and those who want to fight can go off and do so on their own. Mish (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Part of the reason for the current situation is that the changes were discussed in a sandbox. There's no reason that the points cannot be raised now. It would be better if future changes to the lead were made piecemeal, so that small sections could be reverted where necessary. --Dhilvert (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Rivertorch, that is why I tried to word my revision as specifically as possible, to delineate the modern construction. Sodomy is what was legislated against, and in England that began under Henry VIII. What happened to men who had sex with men before that I'm not sure. From Roman accounts, the Celts were rather partial to it, but I don't think the Saxons and Vikings were quite so keen on it. In the Middle East, most of the sanctions seem to have been about the guy who let a man stick his dick up his bum, rather than the person who did the dicking. (I'm not doing sources because I can't be bothered) Mish (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)