Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Positive Experience Editing

Similar debates surround other sexuality articles. I offered some edits and ran into somewhat related disagreements on content. It was suggested I post a draft and that's the method that worked. One editor suggested that what I wrote about one sexual orientation, asexuality, might better fit the general sexual orientation article.

Here's what happened, in short:

1. The problem was partly about content, not entirely unlike the disagreement you're finding here, and that, because of my adding content, I had made the lede (lead) too long.

2. I copied the then-current revision of the article.

3. I took my copy offline.

4. I drafted a fairly bold and massive reorganization of the entire article including a trimmed lede and I preserved content regardless of dispute. I decided that disputes about content would be handled another time, if at all. I didn't do it part by part; I did the whole article in one sweep, so people could see what it would likely look like in the end.

5. I wrote in boldface at the top of the draft a statement that this proposal was only about reorganization and not about content per se.

6. I posted the draft as a draft in an editable format like that of an article in WP. It was not a scanned image. A scanned image basically cannot be edited in WP by most editors.

7. I posted an invitation to edit the draft and, impliedly, to comment on it.

8. No one replied at the time or soon after.

9. The only edits to the draft were by me. Nothing stopped any other editor but no one else chose to edit it.

10. I posted an announcement that I was going to revise the article in accordance with the draft.

11. No reply.

12. I translated, offline, my proposal into a set of steps I could apply to the live article. It was a list of headings to create or revise, words to cut or add, paragraphs to move, and so on, in order of appearance from the beginning of the article to the end. That was intended to preserve any recent content edits by anyone, because as I carried out steps I would see if the premise of an edit was no longer present.

13. I edited the live article consistently with the draft, followed by my editing four more times the same day (Apr. 17, 2010). I preserved other editors' content changes that occurred between when I had copied the article before drafting the reorganization and when I edited the live article. I positioned any such changes in accordance with the new reorganization.

14. I posted a talk-page announcement that I had done so.

15. The response was praise by one editor and a few smaller edits by that editor the same day (Apr. 17).

16. I restored one edit, with an explanation, and left the other edits intact.

17. My one restoration was not reverted or criticized.

18. The article as a whole has had few or no changes since then that appear to be criticisms of the reorganization. (It has had edits motivated by other purposes.) The reorganization has essentially stabilized, so it appears it reflects general, albeit silent, consensus on the reorganization. It's been roughly two months since then.

I think editors seeing what I was actually proposing -- an article draft, not just a plan -- resolved many of the concerns about what I intended to do but hadn't shown yet. Sexuality is a subject about which many people have been seriously burned. Homicide, suicide, incarceration, forced treatment, impoverishment, and AIDS research foot-draggings have occurred widely over sexual orientation; entire national governments have decreed what we consider sexual orientation and what they call deviation or worse a matter for long incarceration and death penalties; I don't know if those events have happened among WP editors but it's likely that, with WP editors being very numerous, some editors know people who have been punished in these ways for these reasons. There was an apparent warning to one editor for his harsh attitude, with a possibility of the editor being banned, but I defended that editor's presence even though we had disagreed strongly because, I pointed out, in this field there is no shortage of people who feel just as strongly. Many people have been lied to about sexuality issues and reasonably fear that editors (such as you and me) will lie about their future plans for the editing of articles. Thus, posting a plan for a draft is not nearly as credible as posting a draft, and posting a draft is preferable to editing live when changes are likely to be controverted and waiting a little is harmless and lets you consider responses.

Most sandboxes, however, may not be the best place, because, as I understand it, they're temporary. See a Wikipedia description of the sandbox and another one. But posting a draft with the talk page makes it permanent and accessible to all editors and the general public and yet does not insert anything into the live articles (the main namespace), so it's a safe place for proposals. You posted a plan. Posting a draft of the article would be even more helpful.

For anyone else who wants to know how, here's how to post a draft with the talk page. Or you can make one in your user space. (Or both, if apropos.)

Few people get involved in online debates about any single issue, in my experience. Yet those few are apparently sufficient to establish consensus in any direction. More can weigh in if necessary, but I suspect the many watch to see if the few resolve it. That's because Wikipedia's system is less about voting and more about reasons. I was the original author of an article in another field and about three months later the article was nominated for deletion. I defended it but I was in the minority, if voting counted, and some of the charges against my work were excessive. I requested details to back some of the charges (e.g., on copyediting supposedly wanted); those simple requests resolved some of them. I made some changes that I thought were reasonable, either because they were good or because not doing so wasn't worth defending, but mostly I defended what was there. The debate was extended, and not by me. We debated some more. The result was a determination that there was no consensus for deletion because there was no evidence that I hadn't done what I was supposed to do, and the article is still up. I sometimes do more edits to that article. It was annoying and time-consuming to defend the article, but the result is a contribution to WP, in my opinion a solid contribution, and most of my edits across all of WP do not get challenged like that.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Page Homosexuality/Sandbox

• I have moved Homosexuality/Sandbox to User:MishMich/Homosexuality, and its talk page with it, for a reason stated in WP:SUB#Disallowed uses. I have put an explaining note in User talk:MishMich#Page Homosexuality/Sandbox.

  Since page Homosexuality/Sandbox was started, page Homosexuality has been edited 12 times, so causing WP:Parallel histories. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"Egalitarian", "age-structured", and "gender-structured" homosexuality: these terms are used but not defined

The terms above are used in a way that takes the reader's understanding for granted. I don't think readers can be presumed to understand these terms, especially in an article whose primary purpose is describing homosexuality. They should either be defined as terms or eliminated in favour of a clear explanation inserted into the text where the terms currently appear. I'd favour the latter approach, as each term is used only once or twice in the entire article. I'd do the editing myself, but I'm not familiar with these terms in this context: are they anthropological? Ross Fraser (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

wikepedia statements this write up (HOMOSEXUALITY) contains affirmations and contradictions and illogical statements. RFeference statment to research, not including or stating the research source itself. Denial of research, or statement of no research made not stated. This article is geared to mislead and seem inclined to propagate ideolog agenda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.36.48 (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and productive

An editor recently deleted the following as unknowable:

The vast majority of gay and lesbian individuals lead happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and productive lives.

I would argue that this is knowable, but I don't have a source, so I don't want to put it back. It's knowable if scientific surveys of self-reporters and observers (such as family and neighbors) or if standard calibrated scientific tests of factors that, outside of sexuality, are accepted as indicators of happiness, health, adjustment, and productivity produce scores that don't vary significantly or consistently between L/G people and heterosexuals. That requires agreeing on much of psychology, e.g., what constitutes happiness, but many do agree, so, if the tests are valid elsewhere, they can be valid here. (Of course, they won't be valid if they include a bias against being L/G, but the field has matured enough to be able to identify such biases and take them out.)

Does anyone remember where the statement came from? I have not gone through the article's revision history. (I wonder if it might be the California amici brief.) If you know, please add a source and, if editorially appropriate, restore the statement.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it comes from the APA policy page: http://www.apa.org/news/press/statements/index.aspx 76.119.237.34 (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done readded with source. CTJF83 chat 21:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit of an odd statement though isn't it? It infers an assumption that a homosexual relationship was any less valid than a heterosexual one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.22.226 (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you just arrive on this planet yesterday, my friend? It's not odd at all when you consider that that very assumption is widely (and wrongly) held by millions of people; in essence, that's ultimately what the defense claimed in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial, which the judge, like the APA, found to be a crock. Textorus (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's a view held by many people, but it's just a strange thing to have to say. It's almost saying "yeah the majority are fine but f**k me you should see the rest of them". If you're going to state it then there should be some context around it - i.e. "as stated during the Proposition 8 case". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.199.32 (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This needs a tiny context, like, "Where it is legal...". I strongly doubt the statement is true for Iran or a number of similar countries. Thankfully, this happened and this, so the statement is probably true for the majority of Earth's population, even though APA probably did not ponder on that, and made a statement from the US-only perspective. 85.204.164.26 (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Post Forward for the Genetics section just added

Basically I just added a section below the psychology section called Genetics. I thought maybe I should put it within the psychology or Etiology section but I think this section is large and important enough to stand on its own. Let me know if you think this post is one sided or unfair because of the conclusion, I believe the science used is accurate. Here is what the post states I will outline it here.

A.) Do scientists believe in the direct sexual selection of physical traits. (Is there a gene that makes a person attracted to blue eyes, are we attracted to specific genes?)
B.) If you agree that the current scientific understanding of human attraction rejects such direct forms of attraction... though the Theory of Evolution used to purport racial/genetic attraction.
C.)There cannot be a specific gene, a 'gay gene', causing attraction to male or female body parts. (If we can't be genetically attracted to blue eyes, we can't be genetically attracted to penes or vulvae. )
D.)If we agree on these then we are forced to claim against direct genetic causes for sexual orientation.

Obviously this is clearly a controversial position, I am aware homosexuals may claim to not be only physically attracted; but nonsexual homosexuality may be a hard sell (simply speaking lots of men hug and kiss; in different cultures). But I believe this post is good science and therefore belongs on the Wikipedia Homosexuality page. If you agree that this argument is good and fair science, please defend it from vandalism or attempts at censoring. I am not saying I expect such a thing but it is a possibility. I believe I have all my refs and citations in order. I am dyslexic so check my grammar and spelling please. I did use spell check though.--Nishauncom (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I am a little surprised the genetics section is still there cool, looks like a keeper then.--Nishauncom (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Nishauncom. The problem is that your additions seem to be entirely or mostly original research and speculation. Some of your arguments are also some of the older ones which traditionally make the rounds but which have been responded to scientifically. Also, your only solid and direct reference is a newspaper article, which claims evolution has reached its peak; I'll let that speak to its lack of credibility. But the overriding factor is the original research, so I'm going to revert your addition until further discussion has been had on this talk page. I am sorry to wipe out stuff you've spent time thinking out, but for now I think its best. Opinions from other editors is welcome! KaySL (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting responce, original research argument seems fair. Not too fair this is more of an original conclusion. But your claim against sources and citations seems dubious. I made two points lack of evolution and lack of direct sexual selection. I provided 2 sources one for each. Please reread post and respond. One can call the conclusion original research not the post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishauncom (talk • contribs) 18:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you're not actually citing anything specifically, just adding the few references at the end of large sections. Upon re-reading the material, I've also noted several pretty odd and questionable assertions as well as the minor issue of tone. The fact is that contentious and questionable material such as this on such a touchy subject should be hammered out before it's added, and consensus should be reached on this talk page first. What do you mean about "lack of evolution", though? I'm interested in this. KaySL (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, KaySL you claimed that, "your only solid and direct reference is a newspaper article," this newspaper article was about the lack of evolution...anymore. While the Jerry Coyne reference was about the "lack of direct sexual selection" of specific traits.

removed Genetics section posted here for discussion

As for genetics there have been few propositions to explain a direct genetic source for homosexuality. Though the 'gay gene' is a common belief in society at large. A popular statement among the LGBT is they feel they have been gay since or before they were born. The problem with this view is mainly an argument of genetics and sexual selection. The mainstream belief among those who study the field of evolution and sexual selection is there are no direct genetic causes of sexual attraction. It was postulated when evolution was in its infancy that sexual attraction and attraction towards different physical traits was a result of naturally occurring biological forces. These forces led humans and animals to recognize and select specific attributes within a prospected partner, this can be referred to as a direct sexual selection. Such a concept could even be considered a sub plot of evolution, as direct sexual selection was figuratively and "...the preservation of favored races," was literally the subtitle of Darwin's most popular book. Some may argue that because Darwin was an advocate of monogenesis he may not have been as racially motivated as some of his contemporaries and critics, it is also possible that such a position was simply because a belief in common origins is 'necessary' for evolution; such 'racial' beliefs are no longer prevalent within proponents of the Theory of Evolution. As a point of fact, we must consider that attraction in humans and animals only occurs indirectly.

As Jerry Coyne argues:

“ Suppose, for example, that members of a species had evolved a visual preference for red color because that preference helped them locate ripe fruits and berries. If a mutant male appeared with a patch of red on his breast, he might be preferred by females simply because of this preexisting preference...females derive neither direct nor indirect benefits from choosing a particular male. ” — Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution is True, p.167

A physical trait, such as blue eyes, is no longer considered a basic argument of physical and then genetic superiority, (and therefore worth reproducing through sexual selection.) Such attraction is considered an indirect measure of 'beauty', meaning the color blue may simply be an attraction to the literal color on the basis of the sky or recognition of water, in humans. So when the blue eye color if found through the process of mutation, though technically a useless trait, it may inadvertently reproduce; because of previously stated attraction. Many have argued that when dealing with humans no form of sexual selection occurs, because of the inner workings of human society, social evolution, realities such as arranged marriages and non-extreme environments or religion prevent any natural selecting; and even canceling out the evolutionary processes in human beings altogether.[1] This implies that we should not look to genetic sources for any of our attractions. The basic consensus is creatures whether human or not have no ability to directly detect the genetic makeup of another individual and formulate a decision of attraction or rejection. As an argument of sexual selection it would then be impossible for a human being or any creature to be attracted to the genetic make up (in this case male or female) of another individual, this would prevent a gene for sexual orientation and therefore prevent genetic homosexuality. This leads to the conclusion that only psychological sources

• McKie, Robin. [2] "Is Human Evolution Finally Over?", TheObserver, London, 3 February, 2002.

(Once again two specific claims 2 specific references. I agree the conclusion is not found anywhere else, which implies OR or POV but the points and claims are in fact available elsewhere. Technically three claims, I also wanted to remind listeners that genetic sexual attraction used to be a direct part of the Theory of Evolution,therefore I referenced the subtitle of Darwins book.) --Nishauncom (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll step back for a while and let others offer their own views on this. I think you'll find though that the material as it stands is unsuitable for inclusion in the article, for the reasons I stated in my previous post, which to be fair you didn't really address. KaySL (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The removal of the material is the correct action. The editor wanting it there does not seem to appreciate Wikipedia policies in at least two major areas, original research and referencing. I recommend that he has a good look at a lot of other good articles to see how it's done. And I will add that it's not the job of other editors to turn controversial new material into something good. That has to be the job of the proposer. HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"not the job of other editors" why do you say that? I thought that was the point of Wikipedia and the discussion page. Quick question... are we asking for

• more references and quotes stating unequivocally that the basic theory of evolution does not believe in the attraction to specific genes?
• more scientists who came to specific conclusion that this belief would apply also to homosexuals preventing a 'gay gene'?
• specific changes to the wording type fixing tone

The basic problem with your POV claim is there is only one argument/ question/ claim presented. (Does the scientific community believe in attraction to specific genes.) Therefore from an argument perspective that is the main thing that needs to be proven / cited / referenced. It may be harder for me to find others who have analyzed these facts and come to the conclusion that a 'gay gene' cannot exist, I assume that is what you mean by OR I checked the page and that is the only rule I seem to be breaking, in my post I seem to be analyzing the fact I presented then I come to a conclusion.

• so then I must find others who have analyzed this info instead of using the analysis presented.

Remember no one help me, I guess I have to do this myself for some reason, huh?--Nishauncom (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have looked at evidence and drawn your own conclusion, something we are all entitled to do, but not on Wikipedia. Here we write about what others have written or been quoted as saying in reliable sources. You also need to look at how other editors, in this article and on other topics, use references. HiLo48 (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Input requested about homosexuality on the paraphilia page

Some editors have decided to include the following text about including homosexuality in the DSM:

"It was coded as 000-x63 until its removal in 1973 due to intense pressure from the homoseual activists" with these as sources:

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/2535.html

http://www.inqueery.com/html/science_and_homosexuality.html

Although there is, of course, informative value in noting the political angles, I believe that the above has terrible NPOV problems, as I said on the talkpage: [3]. I thought because the issue is well-covered here, that the editors here might help produce more NPOV text.

— James Cantor (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

James Cantor, I would have preferred if you stayed engaged in the discussion there (or at least commented on the compromise I offered[4]). Frequently rushing to other forums that might better support your advocacy instead of engaging in meaningful conversation gives the appearance of forum shopping. I would also like to discourage the selection of NPOV terms like "shenanigans"[5]. Such hyperbole might be great for spurring a gang into action, but it isn't productive for Wikipedia. BitterGrey (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Sissyphobia"

Does anyone here think that "sissyphobia" is worth mentioning in this article? The book that proposed it does not seem to be particularly notable, so I've proposed that article for deletion, but maybe something can be said here about this. Note that this "phobia" doesn't have anything to do with homophobia, although it's linked from there, because this supposed "phobia" is exhibited by gay men that don't like effeminate partners, I gather. Maybe something could be said in the social construct section here or perhaps in Queer theory, not necessarily using this neologism? I confess, I haven't read the latter article. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The article describes it as if a matter of taste or preference, not an irrational fear, making "sissyphobia" a misnomer as well as a neologism. That article seems like a good AFD candidate, and there doesn't seem to be much reason to propagate the misnomer on Wikipedia. I'm still waiting for those into making up new sex-related words to give the illusion of having discovered something different to propose "neologismism" and "neoportmanteauillia". BitterGrey (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination is grossly premature

It really is. This article should be quick-failed. I'm astonished that Destinero nominated it. --Moni3 (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop be astonished and start to be constructive and write concrete points to be improved. --Destinero (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I already have. There are unsourced sections in this article, large chunks of copied information serving as quoted material (I haven't even checked for copyright violations in the prose), completely unnecessary and distracting lists of multiple references, a lack of coherence about the points the sources make, a section consisting only of bullet points, the very odd and confusing Lesbian narratives and awareness of their sexual orientation section topped off with the completely bizarre caption in the image "Lesbian girls", print sources that need to be cited to the page number, unreliable sources that need to be replaced, and on and on. It is very clearly an article that dozens or hundreds of editors have made small edits to without considering the continuity of information in the entire article.

There's simply no way around it: the article must be fundamentally, radically, and critically rewritten by someone or a group of someones who start with Human sexuality textbooks for an outline and move to more specific sources to flesh out the details in the article. Most of the newspaper articles should be replaced. It will take a massive amount of work. It should be done by people proficient in English.

The article clearly does not come near GA standards. Destinero, if you want the article to be GA, then work on it with intent. Don't just remove improvement tags and dead link templates to nominate it. By nominating this article when it is premature, not only do you put unnecessary burdens on the GA nomination process, but it does no service to the article itself. Become familiar with GA or FA criteria. Read the details involved in the sourcing and writing of a GA or FA article for a topic is complex as this one. Nominate the article when it exceeds the GA standards. Do not nominate it with the hope that a nomination will spark a flurry of interest and editing, hoping for improvement. --Moni3 (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Edits to History / Middle East

Hi everyone. I am a graduate student working on the Wikimedia Public Policy Initiative and I am working on expanding the History section for the Middle East in particular. I noticed that it is lacking in citations and could be expanded to be more thorough in general. I have a a draft/outline in my Sandbox that I am developing. As my focus is specifically the Middle East, I intend on splitting the current section "Middle East, South & Central Asia" into two parts, as my sources do not address Central and South Asia in particular.

I am also new to Wikipedia, so any comments would be more than welcome, here or on my talk page.

ParisianTaupe (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As I look more at the issue of homosexuality in the Middle East from a historical perspective, I think that some sort of conversation and context is lacking in terms of using current categories of identity and retroactively attempting to apply them to historical accounts. I think that it's a valid scholarly debate to say that "homosexuality" has always existed, that is, relations between same-sex partners are nothing novel. But our ideas about sexuality in general have changed greatly in the last few centuries. You can be "homosexual" without engaging in sex, whereas some might argue that in the ancient world you were defined by what type of behavior you engaged in (sodomites committed sodomy, etc). These terms carry a lot of weight, but it also seems that these terms are more loaded and political today than they were historically.

I am wondering where the appropriate place to publish material surrounding this academic discourse might be on Wikipedia. Initially I was thinking that it would fit appropriately in the history section. But perhaps a different article might be in order? I don't feel that this topic is covered sufficiently elsewhere (please correct me if I am wrong!). There is a lot of scholarship about this, especially as it relates to the Middle East. How might one go about framing a new topic for this (if, indeed, one might be warranted).

I know that emotions can run high when confronting such things as identity, but I think reflections on such things are important.

ParisianTaupe (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"Homosexual behavior in animals is also widely encountered" sais the article... how can that be when the same article admits only 1500 species do have homosexual behavior in almost 3.000.000 to 30.000.000 species? is 0,00008% "widely"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.132.29.238 (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an important topic that probably warrants its own page, given the complexity of the arguments and information ParisianTaupe wishes to convey. We talked about where his own page might fit within the larger subject on Wikipedia and about the challenges of fitting his contribution into the existing framework. I suggested that it might be easier to focus on the ways in which homosexuality has been viewed over time since it's somewhat difficult to define terms in order to do the research from the contemporary perspective. Ismee (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Ismee

(Semi)Protected Page

I wanted to add a link to exit poll under the Demographics section, but couldn't because I'm a noob and this article is protected. Thanks. 98.154.177.118 (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)some guy

Why would you want a link to exit poll? HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Rules

This article violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View Policy, probably the most important rule. It does not even meet Wikipedia's requirements or rules, neither does it reflect a global view on the subject in most sections, outdated, not one single negative thing about it, and some other issues. We strongly disagree with the article! And request an immediate edit with fair representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XxDestinyxX (talk • contribs)

Anyone is able to edit Wikipedia. I'm sure you can understand that this article gets a lot of vandalism, so it is partially protected from new and unregistered users. Once you get a few edits under your belt, you are able to participate as anyone else does. The first step in doing that is obtaining reliable sources. Wikipedia mirrors information provided in reliable sources per this policy. Inserting information that is not covered in a source is considered original research and is forbidden.

So what parts of the article do you disagree with? Please provide specific passages and the source material that refutes it. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

And who is "we"? Drmies (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"...not one single negative thing about it..."? Well, do you feel the need to add a negative perspective to the articles of heterosexuality, sex, birth, life, gravity, earth, space etc?--DVD-junkie | talk | 19:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

New link for Homosexuality page

hi could someone link to this wikipedia page at the bottom of the homosexuality page. it helped me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.247.38 (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83 chat 04:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Negative aspects

Can someone please tell me why zero negative aspects of homosexual activty are cited in the article? There are a myriad of negative effects of homosexual activity (i.e. diseases, etc.) that are completely ignored. Is there a reason why this article is pretending that homosexuality is completely normal and healthy? ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)ou

Well, if there were "a myriad of negative effects" of homosexuality undoubtably health care organizations would let us know. The same health care officials who state "that homosexuality is completely normal and healthy". Disease, for example, is a risk, not of homosexual activity, but of unprotected sex which can affect anyone, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

You might like to add a paragraph on negative aspects to the article of gravity, though. If there weren't gravity some people wouldn't fall on their heads – which might adversesely affect their reasoning.--DVD-junkie | talk | 05:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't have any negative aspects I want to add to the gravity article right now; it's this article that is in desperate need of revamping. There are several sexually transmitted diseases that have a far high prevalence in unprotected homosexual relations than heterosexual; and any claims that homosexuality is healthy is blatantly untrue. In fact, the New York Blade News, a gay newspaper, stated that "Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases. . . . Scientists believe that the increased number of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practices by a growing number of gay men who believe HIV is no longer a life-threatening illness." [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=125862] Another example of negative aspects is the high prevalence of mental health problems. "Among the sample as a whole, there was a distressingly high prevalence of life events and behaviors related to mental health problems. Thirty-seven percent had been physically abused and 32 percent had been raped or sexually attacked. Nineteen percent had been involved in incestuous relationships while growing up. Almost one-third used tobacco on a daily basis and about 30 percent drank alcohol more than once a week; 6 percent drank daily. One in five smoked marijuana more than once a month. Twenty-one percent of the sample had thoughts about suicide sometimes or often and 18 percent had actually tried to kill themselves. . . . More than half had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed." [6] There are also a myriad of other credible studies and reports done signifying numerous negative effects of homosexuality. [7] ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

DVD-junkie's comment about gravity is irrelevant to this discussion, but the issues surrounding negative or positive effects of homosexuality should be placed in the appropriate context. First, this article is a mess and it should be rewritten. This is old news to anyone who frequents this talk page; I post this view frequently. World Net Daily is not a reliable source per the WP:RS policy. There are negative aspects associated with any kind of behavior. Epidemiologists, psychiatrists, and licensed psychologists write about them as they address all kinds of groups of people. The article should reflect the body of research associated with behavior and homosexuality. It should not support a positive or negative view of that behavior or weight one side of research over another. Currently, the article is a jumble of sections that are randomly placed, have little coherence or continuity, and reflect the dozens of editors who have added to the article instead of a solid review academic literature written about homosexuality. So, Christos, your point is a good one, but rather a small part of the very large mess this article is in. You should know that WND and taxtyrrany.ca sources are unacceptable for this article and little else on Wikipedia, however. --Moni3 (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

ΙΧΘΥΣ - The risk situation you describe is very much that of advanced western nations (I'm guessing USA in your case), simply because in those countries HIV has been largely restricted to the gay community. But in much of Africa it is a huge disease of the heterosexual community, because that's where the disease is. The risk is one of unprotected sex, not homosexuality. This is a global community. Your perspective is not global. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused as to how the New York Blade News is not a reliable source? New York Blade News, a gay newspaper, stated that "Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases. . . . Scientists believe that the increased number of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practices by a growing number of gay men who believe HIV is no longer a life-threatening illness." Now although this statement may not apply to everywhere globally, it still should be a valid criticism of the homosexual lifestyle and its health effects. ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No. If anything it's a valid criticism of certain risky sexual practices, which may be more common among some homosexual men in some countries, but which are certainly not restricted to homosexual men. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle and it is not a sexual practice; it is a sexual preference. Now, it may be the case that certain risky sexual practices are disproportionally common among, say, gay men. In which case, and given good reliable sources (ideally scholarly papers from good journals), we could make a good case for putting that in the article (although it might be better suited to the articles on those practices themselves). But that kind of information would not be the same as a criticism (or a negative aspect) of homosexuality as such. Unless you believe that homosexuality brings with it an innate bias towards risky sexual behaviour (and good luck finding any reliable citations for that), then this would be a criticism of the cultural practices of some homosexuals. Consider this analogy: obesity is disproportionately common in democratic countries; this is not, however, a criticism of democracy. garik (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Garik, it is evident that ΙΧΘΥΣ is interested in misusing Wikipedia to promulgate his or her Christianist POV, and it is also evident that your own good intent accords with Wikipedia policy. Nevertheless, perhaps unintentionally, you've made a substantial error. Homosexuality is not a "sexual preference", it is a sexual orientation. The "sexual preference" terminology, in context of an article or discussion such as this present one, is favoured by those who espouse the scientifically-untenable POV that everyone is inherently heterosexual and homosexuality is a lifestyle or behavioural choice made by broken, damaged, insufficiently-prayerful heterosexual persons. In reality, one's sexual preference is nothing more or less than what specific things one likes to do in bed (or wherever). Please mind the difference and use the valid term, thanks. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold/annoying here and ask you why you're dredging up this ancient routine yet again? As anyone who's had an eye on this article's talk page for a while will know, all this has been said and disputed to death many times before. You've got your run-of-the-mill POV-pushing editor who's obviously ignoring the sections of the article and the relevant internal links which deal with the health effects he claims to be concerned about, you've also got the tiresome evasion, equivocation, and general lack of answering the counter-points made to him, and as ever people acting in good faith but ultimately wasting their time by humouring the complainant. If you want to improve the article, just do it; its failings where they do exist are self-evident and known to us all. There's my two cents' worth, and I apologise for having to be so blunt to the point of rudeness.

Addendum: Having taken a look at ΙΧΘΥΣ' recent edits, I'm going to have to call bad faith here. It's one thing to be ideologically opposed to the subject you're editing, but he's clearly showing incredible bias in his edits, even loudly proclaiming the conspiracist belief that Wikipedia is run by a bunch of lefist liberals. Please just drop the bias and strive for some neutrality. And preferably a grip on the realities of Wikipedia. You're wasting everyone's time with this drivel, and it's frankly not funny. KaySL ^talk 23:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

KaySL, I don't need a lecture from you, please. It's funny that you call someone who doesn't agree with your POV/opinion someone who's "clearly showing incredible bias in his edits" - yet all I'm trying to do is strive for neutrality, where, clearly (in this article) it is much needed. I really don't care if you agree with me or not. The fact is that this article needs much improvement - if there is anyone showing bias here it's you. If I was being biased towards your ideological position I really don't think you'd be "bold/annoying". Now, I don't care if you are going to "call bad faith" on my edits - that's simply false. I came to this article, offered sources to back up my ideas (albeit they were deemed not reliable, which still confuses me) and you call me a "run-of-the-mill POV-pushing editor" when, in actuality, I'm trying to bring this article to neutrality, when it clearly has a slant in it. So I will continue to search for sources and bring change to this article. ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

On the not reliable sources designation: neither World Net Daily or the New York Blade News are reliable for what is being potentially cited: trends of behavior that may be risky for contracting sexually transmitted diseases. That places the citations in the realm of WP:MEDRS: sources should be from psychiatric, psychological, sociological, or public health journals. World Net Daily and the Blade are polemic publications. They report on issues they both have political stakes in. They may be reliable for some issues, such as what WND policy is or what the Blade covers, but not these issues.

And just a general reminder that comments on the talk page should be about the content of the article, not the editors. --Moni3 (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

ΙΧΘΥΣ, if you want to discuss my own beliefs, you can feel free to do so on my talk page. My comments were made in the context of your original post due to your own beliefs clearly being the driving force behind your complaint. I don't have time for petty WikiLawyering; anyone can bring their bias to a talk page, use it partially as a forum while cloaking the intent with legitimate complaints. This is where I was arguing from, not from a distaste as to your views, but because your editing history suggests a pattern of POV editing. I'm aware I risk being accused of making ad hominem attacks, however this is a risk of calling a spade a spade sometimes. This is why I stick to anti-vandalism on articles where I may be seen to have a conflict of interest in editing. But enough about me.

So to summarise: Please do improve the article, but remember that neutrality can be a subjective thing to some, and that the article has and links to a perfectly adequate amount of information regarding the health risks of homosexual intercourse. Please be careful you don't stray into the realm of WP:SYN. Or to maybe break some ice here, WP:ORIGINAL SYN. KaySL ^talk 02:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Gender Fluidity

Statement as "the female subjects (both gay and straight women) became sexually aroused when they viewed heterosexual as well as lesbian erotic films. Among the male subjects, however, the straight men were turned on only by erotic films with women, the gay ones by those with men" is untrue. Female participants only as a whole were on average more or less equally aroused, but particular participants were all over the scale. At the same time, there were men equally aroused by both types of porn and even two gay men in that very small study group who were more aroused by lesbian porn. Here's a link to that study (participants responses on page 4): http://www.indiana.edu/~sexlab/files/pubs/chiversetal2004.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.16.109.226 (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Homosexuality/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I will review this article. -- Cirt (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Any criticism missing in the article, but for sure exist in real world. Think, that GA cannot be reached at all in this kind of thema/article.--DeeMusil (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The article for Lesbian is a GA. There is a way to write this article with GA or FA quality in mind. Doing so would be an extensive job in time and effort, however. It does not appear to be a priority among the editors who watch and edit this article to do this for Homosexuality. --Moni3 (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Following this notice at Cirt's talk page, I shall take over this review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Fixed three and unlinked ubiquity as there is no Wikipedia article on that. Perhaps a link to Wiktionary instead?[8] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: 1 repaired and 13 tagged. Some of these have been dead since before the article was delisted.[9] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There are a number of stray sentences which need to be consolidated into paragraphs.

   The third paragraph of Lesbian narratives and awareness of their sexual orientation is rather dense and could be broken up.

   Otherwise well written.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Thirteen dead links have been tagged, no Internet Archive substitutes found for these links.

   Admittedly, many of these examples are inherently problematic because of applying the modern category of "homosexuality" to a time where none-such forms of identity existed. needs attribution.

   There are a number of outstanding citation needed tags and I added some more.

   Available sources check out.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I belive that this is broad and focussed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Fine

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All appear to check out, tagged, licensed and captioned

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for the above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

   OK, there have been no attempts to address these concerns, but there has been a certain maount of edit-warring so that is a belated quick fail. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jaideraf, 3 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add {{Link FA|pt}}

Jaideraf (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Heterosexism and homophobia: Intolerable Demagoguery

It is perhaps inevitable that homosexuals and their hetero advocates feel impelled if not downright "honor bound" to trumpet such turgid POV manifestos. Nonetheless it is intolerable and offensive to the thinking mind that this pathetic section should be presented as undisputed and indeed indisputable objective truth. This section is self-evidently strident sermonization, engendered by the forced triumphalism that the exhibitionistic mind mistakes for the force of honest conviction. There are forums where such chest-thumping by the "pro-gay" is acceptable and one suspects, fiercely demanded. In an encyclopedia not exclusively sponsored by the the myriad homosexual advocacy groups, only objective informationItalic text may appaear. I THUS FEEL COMPELLED TO REMOVE THIS BLABBER. Soz101 (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You feel compelled, jolly good. Unfortunately for your diatribe; homophobia is a well documented phenomena and something relevant to record in this article (although, perhaps the section could be toned down, I will look into that). Please provide policy based reasons why the section is a problem and not a long rant of WP:IDONTLIKEIT :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot recall ever having read anything turgid on Wikipedia. That said, the article obviously needs work and Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. It is waiting for someone who can take it on, turgid prose and all. Or would it be more entertaining to complain a lot and make everyone do it for you, so that you may complain yet again at the end result? This song is tired. --Moni3 (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Soz101, I couldn't agree more. But unfortunately, the homosexual agenda has a tight grasp on Wikipedia. Any effort to promote neutrality on any LGBT-related articles will be swiftly put to an end. That's just the way things are unfortunately. Scare tactics and untruthful lies perpetrated by the liberal agenda on Wikipedia are relentless, unending, and pathetic attempts to change the truth. The good thing, though, is that anybody in their right mind can see through the disgusting and flagrant bias on this page and many like it. ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As Moni3 said above, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Go for your life. Just follow the rules about reliable sources, etc. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Fletch1989, 26 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

In the United Kingdom employment discrimination has been expanded and it is now illegal to discriminate against any employee because he or she is homosexual. This was made possible by the Equality Act 2010. The Act furthers right to LGBT individuals and not only makes it illegal to directly discriminate against them but also indirectly and associative discrimination. It is seen as one of the most advanced pieces of legislation in western Europe. Fletch1989 (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done for the moment. Can you be a little more specific about the exact piece of content you want added and also provide a reliable source to back it up. That does seem like interesting content to add, but it needs a source and a proposed wording to fit. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Lifespan/Paul Cameron

As you can see from this diff, I have reverted an addition by Urod (talk · contribs) in which it was (ungrammatically) asserted that homosexuals live twenty to thirty years less than the general population. Support for this assertion was two "studies" by Paul Cameron, whose grossly biased propaganda has been roundly denounced by numerous legitimate scientists, analysts, and scientific research bodies as methodologically flawed, ideologically rather than scientifically based, distorted and selective with respect to facts, and devoid of veracity. See for example here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Cameron's "Family Research Institute" is a SPLC designated hate group, see here. It may be legitimate to include assertions in this article related to lifespan, but they will need to be robustly supported by reliable sources, and Cameron doesn't count as such. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• • one of your sources is in itself a hate group.

SLPC. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/100325 Overseer19XX (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Er…no, sorry, J. Matt Barber and his bigotry brigade aren't a reliable source. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

He may be a bigot, that is not my point. I am stating your source is itself bigoted. Overseer19XX (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Just because one whackadoodle wingnut says it, doesn't make it so. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

is one of the most notorious incidents in the U.S.

REALLY? LOL. seriously, this is the most panderng thing i have read. women get raped and killed daily, mass murder occurs on those who are innocent. beltway sniper, son of sam, unibomber, 9/11, Connecticut home invasion murders, those are notorious. what we have here is just one more murder, out of 10's of thousands world wide every year. people die on a daily basis over money, as little as $20 in most occasions. people are killed for their faith, daily, worldwide. homosexuals were hung by noose in iran, with footage of the hanging, and someone has the audacity to say on their own that this is "is one of the most notorious incidents in the U.S." sorry, no. it has no more significance, or notability, then any others. please remove this independent authors thoughts. Overseer19XX (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is pretty bad. Instead of writing "LOL" on the talk page, why don't you crack open some books and rewrite it? --Moni3 (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

cannot yet. dont have the edits necessary. i would propose changing the aforementioned to, "is one such example" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overseer19XX (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have altered the text in question to remove the hyperbole and align with reality. However, your opinion that the murder in question "has no more significance or notability than any other" is not supportable. Please have a care not to fall afoul of WP:UGH. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:UGH???? LOL. I've been around this place a lot, never saw that particular guideline. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment left at GA2 nomination, closed months ago

This article tends to be subjective, since it's missing (scholarly) arguments to oppose homosexuality. More views from other perspectives should be added. Though there are some mentions, no specific opinions are presented with their relevant references. Also, distinction between homophobia and this criticism should be visible. Otherwise, this article would not seem to be neutral. Both sides should be clear from reading this. Whether it is religious view or (an)other scientific view, the major ones should be involved to convey the full picture. I was looking for this polarized interpretation but did not find it here. However, they exist on other sites, easy to find. Moreover, there seem to be some excuses for not including these variations - but then this article is incomplete and could mislead in certain aspects. Though I am not wiki expert and maybe I am writing to a wrong place without userId, dear administrator, please, place this to the correct place so that this can be acted on. Thank you, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.246.57 (talk • contribs)

Yes, well, you'll notice we also include no (scholarly) arguments to oppose any particular hair color, nor do we include any (scholarly) arguments to oppose this or that or some other eye color. We do have articles on sexism and bigotry and—yes!—homophobia; perhaps the (scholarly) arguments you have in mind — er, may we see them, please? — would serve well as exemplars in those articles. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You can change color of your hair. You can, not that easy as hair, change color of your eyes (seemingly via contact lens). However, you can't change your sex. So, you're trying to show us via your comparison something that is completely different in its kind. You can't compare hair colour to homosexuality (behaviour). A better example would be comparing culture movements.

The homosexuality article on wikipedia presents an unipolar view on the subject. But, there are other opinions for this topic. It should present these views as well, referencing to other articles, where a more comprehensive elaboration can be given. There should, at least, be mentioned other points of view. According to wikipedia, 2.2 billion people are christian. 21-23 % of the population is islamic. Both of these groups in most cases understand homosexuality as sin, or wrong desire, or even demonic activity. This needs explanation and also needs to appear in this article. For example, there should be some excerpt from Christianity and homosexuality as well as Islam and homosexuality. Include at least these (excerpts + "main article" or "see also"). Though you mention Islam and homosexuality, but, honestly, it's poor.

For example, what I googled out, there's a christian article stating that:

Three main studies are cited by “gay rights” activists in support of their argument2Hamer's X-chromosome research,3 LeVay's study of the hypothalamus,4 and Bailey and Pillard's study of identical twins who were homosexuals.5
In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, “the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results”.6 There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person's genes. (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html). But, there are many articles that don't support homosexual movement. Article Homosexuality should at least mention some points.

People looking for this kind of article are usually looking for as much comprehensive answers as possible. This article should serve as a "parent" to other ones, like those I have mentioned. For example, this article: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/ is more bilateral than this one on wikipedia. One would think s/he might find here something relevant for this topic, eg. "What is the impact on children risen by homosexual parents" or something like that. I was looking for this answer, for example. Either the world lacks this kind of research or it is missing in your article...

I miss also some more elaboration on connection between HIV and homosexuality, eg. http://sti.bmj.com/content/83/5/397.short.

Without the other views, this article is one-sided. It is presenting the gay rights and freedom, that is OK. And, on the other hand, it should show that there are also different public opinions based on this or that... I believe you understand what I mean. - Where are cons and pros? Or, do we have only pros? Wikipedia is full of articles that provide bilateral standpoints. However, this depends on your interest - if your intent is to propagate homosexuality or to inform about it. Those are two distinct approaches. I don't propagate this or that view, but I would like to see other opinions than homosexual one. Do you see what I mean? --213.151.217.147 (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a single one of those articles would meet the standards of reliable sources. However, I'm sure you could use it in one of those other Wiki-encyclopedias that publish bigotry based on no science at all. BTW, just to randomly pull out one of your junk articles, California courts have found that there is NO scientific evidence (and when I mean no, I mean none, nada, nichts, zip, zero) that show homosexuality has any effect on children. That's a right wing meme that has no place in an encylopedic article. Except to show how bigotry works. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Come on. You were really fast that you read all the articles. There's only ONE that would not meet the standards of reliable sources. You neglected wikipedia articles I mentioned and also scholar article on http://sti.bmj.com/content/83/5/397.short. Moreover, you sound abusive. I see more people commented this article to have a hidden agenda. It seems it's right. This way you can't prove it's not. 213.151.217.149 (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a limit to what sensible editors can and should do. Responding to the bigotry and lack of logic on display in that long post of yours is beyond that limit. If you regard this response as abuse, I don't apologise. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it amusing that the bigotry of the IP editor is so clear. But to make his/her point, he resorts to a personal attack of being "abused." Otherwise, it's got not much to offer. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeating the word "bigotry" does not make you smart. If you think everything else than homosexuality is bigotry, I will leave you in that illusion. Guys, I don't know why you appeared here. I did not talk to you. If you need to attack, pick up some forum. I think you are shocked by the christian article. Okay, jump over it and don't be that afraid of it. Rather, don't look at it. It's okay. I was pointing to something different. Some understood, others felt it personally. "California courts" have found that there is no scientific evidence... BUT, again and again, there are OTHER evidences. Read, eg. http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/6908.html or http://sex.sagepub.com/content/8/2/153.abstract. These articles are something that is missing in your unipolar (lobbying) approach.... I don't have userid because I don't usually do this and don't plan to do it anyway, since this kind of articles will be prevalently subjective anyway. 213.151.217.145 (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A fucking strawman argument. Outstanding. Another unreliable source. And of course, you ignore the vast number of sources that really trample your assumptions. So, you should review WP:NPA, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:VERIFY and WP:DICK. Enjoy, and have a nice day. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I do have to admit though, he's got me thinking about these "prevalently subjective" articles. I'll share with you when I've figured out what on earth it means. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Rigid homosexual that does not receive any other view than faith in sodomy will never put any criticism here. Leave them playing and thinking they ate all the truth and don't bother with their own religion. They have chosen to believe it's correct. They will present their view and impose it over mankind. This is nothing new, history surely tells us so. Some people always show up and some men will declare they are in fact women and some women will pretend they are men. Similarly, some black people will think they are white and horrible singers will think they sing like a bird. If these guys would at least read the articles you pointed out - http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/6908.html is supporting their view. And yes, wiki this article is subjective and contains many unreliable sources supporting their blind understanding anyway. 195.212.29.188 (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is awful. No amount of attempted witty repartee or sweeping generalizations about gay people in general will change that. Admit the article is terrible and fix it. Use excellent sources. Websites addressing the sociology of homosexuality, or homosexuality in scientific terms hosted at religious sites are not excellent by any stretch of the definition. And surely there is a better way to address anon IPs who are obviously conservative Christians mostly ignorant of Wikipedia policies (which are employed in this article haphazardly, to say the least). --Moni3 (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC) (a "rigid homosexual" with no faith in sodomy)

Excellent point; there's no better way to improve an article than to bitch and moan on its talk page that nobody's working to improve the article…right? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, touche and zing, right? Bullshit.

If there's someone working to rewrite this article, who is it and where is this effort? Otherwise, what is the point of your comment? To get me to shut up about this on this talk page? Someday your hopes and dreams will come to fruition. In the meantime, while this article is still awful, people will come to this talk page to voice their opposition to this article because it's poorly written with marginal sources, and of course even if it were expertly written with excellent sources it would still attract similar questions and comments. From this entire thread, it looks like the response from this article's watchers would be to mock and attempt to humiliate new editors. It just avoids having to fix the problems inherent in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

A rewrite would be wonderful. I'll see how much I can help in my next holiday break. But no amount of rewriting will prevent the ignorant bigots from attacking homosexuality on these pages. And here I emphasise that there are two forms of ignorance. There is that which comes from innocence and lack of exposure to a set of knowledge. It can be cured. Then there is the far worse form, fuelled by an irrational love of one narrow source for all knowledge, usually a church and/or a single book, which leads to people choosing ignorance as a path for life. Such a position is the antithesis of the goals of a project like Wikipedia. People on that path have little to offer here. Being mocked here is probably the least of their problems. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely know what you're talking about. Bigots and people who are truly ignorant about homosexuality will come to the article. Quite possibly, people who have had numerous homosexual experiences are the ones making the most noise about homosexuality here and elsewhere. But as the article stands now, the discussions about the quality of the article accomplish nothing. Anon IP makes a comment that seems ignorant or bigoted, but could be based truly in having no knowledge of what experts say about homosexuality. The article does very little to remedy this. This article's watchers don't do much to improve the article so they cannot defend it. Instead, they attack the Anon IP. No one really gets educated about homosexuality, which is an interesting result in light of the fact that this is an encyclopedia designed to inform.

Fixing the article, however, will improve this situation. Fewer people will complain about the article because it will be less confusing. Those who will comment, however, either have a point about improving something that needs to be clarified, or they haven't read the improved article at all and are just going to complain because it's Wednesday. Improving the article will also help its watchers respond to these comments dispassionately and engage talk page commentators to achieve an actionable edit or shut down the ridiculous ones with as little noise as possible. If you absolutely know that the sources are the best you could find and the article was written as neutrally as possible, you just don't need to say much except "there's the source, go read it". If they're determined to be disruptive, that's their deal and Wikipedia has ways of handling them. --Moni3 (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

My point, Moni3, is that if the state of this article bothers you so very very much, you ought to pick up a goddamn mop and bucket and set to work instead of bitching about how nobody's picking up a goddamn mop and bucket and setting to work. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? Not to sound so existential, but why me? Why should I do this? I've already written the Lesbian article, Harvey Milk, and Stonewall riots, giving me an interesting perspective in what happens to editors, articles, and talk pages when one person takes on a rewrite.

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. One person should not be tasked with the responsibility of defining homosexuality to the English-speaking planet with access to the Internet. If your reasoning is that I should take this article on merely because I complain about it, how does that give me the insight and expertise to do this by myself?

In my experience, I've observed that one person writing an article does not, in fact, show how it is done for others to see that it is easy enough if you are dedicated to achieve it. Instead, it makes talk page watchers lazier, for some reason. Possibly because so much work is put into acquiring and summarizing the best sources that article talk page watchers, instead of feeling compelled to ignore the problems of poorly written article and attack the editors and passers-by who complain about it, disengage entirely and leave the entirety of the work of maintaining the article to the lone editor who wrote it. It's rather like participating in a group project at school when no one else in your group shows up. See this three-week clusterfuck on the Lesbian talk page about a single sentence in the lead. There are 585 watchers for that article. Note the same three or four editors in that discussion.

Despite all this, my purpose in commenting in this thread is not simply to berate you or anyone else who hasn't worked on rewriting the article, but to refocus the energy in this discussion. Of course people will complain about the tone and comprehensiveness of this article because it's so bad. But you and other editors are completely missing the point in blaming these complaints on bigotry and ignorance. It's not that simple. The article itself promotes ignorance and it should be improved. Sure, I understand that knuckle-rapping in my comments doesn't really foster the kind of enthusiasm and leadership to motivate others, but I've tried the other approach. I've offered in the past to oversee a collaborative effort to rewrite it and did not get a response that would have been manageable or favorable. So what's really the priority of these talk page watchers? What else am I led to believe than editors would rather argue with each other than do real work to improve it? Seriously, I'm asking for some insight here. --Moni3 (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor Amendments Made

I have made some minor changes to the wordings of some sentences in order to reduce any bias within the article. These changes are not designed to encourage any prejudice for or against homosexuality.

That was POV rubbish, and has been reverted. Your claim that "... many gay and lesbian people attempt to function well..." is taking a non-biased perspective is nonsense. You clearly disapprove of homosexuality and cannot even write about it coherently. Please don't change the article in that way again without gaining some consensus for your views here first. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the positioning of my post in the 'talk section,' I am new to this and still learning how it all works. The reason for my changes is this article almost seems to read as an advertisement in favour of homosexuality - rather than simply detailing what the condition is and its effects. You describe my contributions as 'POV Rubbish' but I fail to see where I have said anything which opposes those who fall within this group... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwesternhog (talk • contribs) 01:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you also describe heterosexuality as a "condition", as if it needed to be cured? HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have you bothered to read the cited sources corresponding to the original text that you made "minor" amendments to? You actually changed/deleted the meaning of the sources, which indicates that you're introducing your own biases in place of NPOV representation. AV3000 (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(another edict conflict)Jwesternhog, if you're going to edit Wikipedia, I'd suggest that you read up on WP:NPOV. You may believe that homosexuality is an illness, as opposed the vast majority of educated, trained, and knowledgeable health care professionals, but the reliable sources do not support your fringe opinion. Your comments could be classified as homophobic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Innate Bisexuality

Unless somebody can come up with any scientific evidence for this one then I don't see why it's in here. Freud's views on homosexuality can go in the section on historical views, but if he didn't do peer reviewed scientific research on it, it has no place in the modern scientific views on etiology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.57.33 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Roman Emperors?

In the subsection History: Europe it is asserted that "all the [Roman] emperors with the exception of Claudius took male lovers". The passage has no citation, which we would expect it to have if there existed some reliable source that supported this sweeping assertion. Perhaps this is because no such reliable source exists? There were dozens of Roman emperors over hundreds of years, and I can think of several off of the top of my head who were never known to have had homosexual relationships. In fact, the article goes on to contradict itself by mentioning a couple of sentences later that the emperors Theodosius and Justinian decreed that homosexuals be punished with death.

Basically, I think that the sentence should be removed, or at least reworked with a more specific (and honest) statement and citation of reliable sources.Volkodlak (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the logic of your arguments against the claim you object to, but I totally agree that the claim should be cited. HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's quite simple - the assertion that all of the Roman emperors (except Claudius)took male lovers is factually wrong.Volkodlak (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The claim is a garbled version of Edward Gibbon's original statement pertaining to the first fifteen emperors: "Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct." Source: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 1, ch. II, footnote 31. With the exception of Augustus, this "incorrectness" included sex with other males. It would be difficult to classify these emperors as homosexual in the modern sense, though. Tiberius is a good example. He basically doinked anything that couldn't escape fast enough, regardless of sex or age, including infants; Suetonius is quite graphic in his account. Tiberius could probably best be classified as "all of the above". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I came across the Gibbon quote in the wikipedia article on Hadrian, where it seems somewhat incongruously inserted into the text, but only have an abridgement of "Decline and Fall" so couldn't examine it in context. I still think that the passage is misleading - a claim by Gibbon that must, I imagine, draw heavily on Suetonius, is turned into a sweeping assertion. The lack of a citation is a big problem. Someone with a knowledge of the period reads the claim, and it immediately raises suspicion (all the emperors?). If there were a citation, then they could look up the relevant quote in Gibbon, do some research, read the pertinent passages in the "Twelve Caesars" and decide for themselves whether the charges against Julius Caesar were politically motivated or based upon an actual love affair with Nicomedes, etc. They would have access to the context, which is all-important. In my humble opinion, the text should read something like this:

"According to Gibbon, of the first fifteen emperors, all except Claudius took male lovers at one point or another (citation). The Hellenophile emperor Hadrian is renowned..."Volkodlak (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be going beyond the source. Gibbons said that their "taste in love" wasn't "entirely correct". While in most cases, Gibbons did have same-sex relations in mind (based on the accounts of Roman historians, including Suetonius), he certainly did not think this true of Augustus, whose rumored accusation of sleeping with Julius Ceasar by Marc Anthony was dismissed as political slander even by Suetonius. Augustus' "incorrectness" was of the heterosexual variety. He routinely commited adultery, and even "as an elderly man he is said to have still harboured a passion for deflowering girls, who were collected for him from every quarter, even by his wife".

The only emperor who Roman historians SPECIFICALLY state actually PREFERRED males to females was Galba. Suetonius writes that "in sexual matters he was more inclined to males, and then none but the hard bodied and those past their prime". The others appear to have been what we would now call bisexual, or "pansexual" in the case of Tiberius.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"That would be going beyond the source." - Yes, I agree; even as I suggested the sentence above the Augustus thing bothered me a bit. I was trying to condense the information as concisely as possible to avoid a wordy rewrite. I'm really just looking for a starting point here. I myself don't have a great expertise in the sexuality of the Roman emperors, but as a student of history, and with an especial interest in the period, the sweeping generalization bothered me. If the above suggestion goes beyond the source, the claim as it currently stands isn't even sourced, as well as being misleading and confusing. Perhaps the sentence in question should just be eliminated, or, since the rest of the paragraph focuses on the contrast between emperors such as Hadrian and later Christian emperors regarding attitudes toward homosexuality, should be replaced with a statement such as:

"Roman emperors over the years displayed contrasting attitudes toward homosexuality. The Hellenophile emperor Hadrian..."

Any suggestions?Volkodlak (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The word "Synonym"

Under "Etymology", the first sub-category is "Synonyms". The text then proceeds to list words which are most definitely not synonyms - homoerotic, metrosexual, etc. The phrase you're after is "Related Terms". MycroftRH (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Homosexual behavior in animals

The first sentence of the sub-category should be deleted; "Homosexual behavior in animals ... pair bonding, and parenting." There has been no citation for the longest time. It is therefore unreliable. The last sentence of the sub-category should also be deleted; "the animal kingdom ... been willing to accept." This link has been also been dead for the longest time.

This being said, the whole "Homosexual behavior in animals" sub-category should be removed and re-posted in the Animal sexual behaviour category sice it is a suitable one for the subject matter (unless we want to post a "Homosexual behavior in humans" sub-category there??).Эдуард Шерешевский (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I accept your point about the missing and dead citations, but let's stop being silly about this. The reason it's there is as a counter to those who want to argue that homosexuality is unnatural. An article like this is unavoidably controversial. To remove part of the story as you suggest is to change the POV of the article, something we must be really careful about. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:DEADLINK, article text should not be removed when a URL no longer works. In any case, I've fixed/supplied the two citations mentioned here. Rostz (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about the links.Эдуард Шерешевский (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

I can understand that this article is controversial, but, we should not put up "counters" because of it. I think that an article should be written without elements that act as "counters" since these are the factors that influence people's decisions (or persuades them). If people argue that homosexuality is unnatural we should not add counters like "Homosexual behavior in animals" to counter their thoughts (for some it is right, for others, it is wrong(just like a lot of other things in the world)).

This being said, if the "Homosexual behavior in animals" sub-category has been written to counter peoples believes, this article does not have a neutral POV. It should be deleted since we wouldn't want "counters" in every article on Wikipedia (to influence people), right? I also believe that the "Homosexual behavior in animals" sub-category has a much better place in the Animal sexual behaviour article. Эдуард Шерешевский (talk)

Again, you have to be really careful when considering anything that would change the balance of the article. The article does mention those, from many backgrounds, who claim or have claimed that homosexuality is unnatural. To remove text showing that it is natural outside humankind is removing relevant information. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you very much. Now I understand the "balance of the article" ideology. Just one thing what does "...those, from many backgrounds.." have to do with anything?Эдуард Шерешевский (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

Something else has come to my attention. To start off with, 6 out of 7 of the so-called reliable references for the sub-category [behavior in animals] are passage and excerpt from a biologist named Bruce Bagemihl. This biologist is also homosexual and he is also a gay rights activist. This does not sound to me like this article is reliably-supported and certainly does not represent a Neutral Point Of View. Check out my wall for a current discussion about this matter. Эдуард/Edward 20:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It is offensive to dismiss someone's words because you don't like what he does in his private life. That's sounds like pure bigotry. Discuss the words, not the writer. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

We should stay on topic and discuss the NPOV instead of inventing things and calling me a bigot. I believe that I have a valid point. Both sources in the intro paragraph claiming that homosexuality is widely encountered in the animal kingdom. These sources are A: A book written by Bruce Bagemihl and B: a magazine LGBT-interest magazine called The Advocate. *WP:NEWSORG states; When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others. When using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the author, and not to assert it as fact. The writer is a critical aspect in the identification of reliable sources. If an article is only based on books that he has written and news statements he has given, the English Wikipedia policy is being ignored. Эдуард/Edward 21:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be better to avoid using material from just one source, whether the writer is gay, Scottish or red headed. If anyone's relevant POV was on display, it was yours. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with your false accusation and your last statement. This is a relevant topic for many and an important one. This article should only represent reliable sources to prevent a POV from being in an article. What are the normal procedures in addressing a situation like this one, where the sources are actually just one? Эдуард/Edward 22:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( Disagreement over whether cited sources support that homosexual behaviour is widely or is sometimes observed in animals; dispute over whether author cited are RS given that he is gay. ):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Homosexuality and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

One possible solution to this impasse maybe to state that homosexual behavior has been observed without putting a qualifier on it. Content should remain in article with appropriate flag regarding lack of a reliable reference, and removed with consensus if appropriate time has passed without it having a reliable reference. Questions regarding the validity of the references belong in WP:RSN and a new discussion should be started there post haste.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. It does seem like the best option. Just to clarify, this is not a dispute because the author is gay. This problem links to the fact that "widely" is not the best term to be used here and that every citation linked back to the same author during that time period. Эдуард/Edward 03:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree that this is the best option. It is an option, and might be one way to put a stop to this present debate, which is an important step on the path to consensus, but the larger goal is the betterment of the article. I have added some more refs, by authors other than the one you consider unreliable, supporting the presence of the word "widely"; please go carefully read them. Bear in mind that removing the qualifier altogether does not make the statement neutral; "n has been observed" connotes and implies that the observation is an uncommon one. "Widely" does not mean "universally" or anything close to it, and the sources seem to support the notion that homosexual behaviour has indeed been widely observed in the animal kingom, i.e., it has been observed in a great diversity of species. Not just in primates, for example, nor even just in mammals. Whether the refs you object to are RS or not is a separate matter; we've now got a wider range of refs to support the assertion, and I believe they support it strongly enough that "widely" is accurate and correct. Let the consensus-building proceed! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Poorly written, constructed, and sourced articles are more likely to attract complaints and confusion about how to resolve them. The best option is to rewrite the entire article. Removing this one section, or flagging it with a cleanup template, is a short-term solution that does not improve Wikipedia. --Moni3 (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to disagree with your first sentence as a general principle, but the obverse is not necessarily true: debate over wording does not necessarily indicate poor writing, construction, or support. I'm not sure your comment applies to this what we're discussing; can you elaborate? How specifically do you reckon this section is poorly written, constructed, and/or supported, please?

I'm finding it challenging to think of a reason why you would suggest a whole-article rewrite. Surely it's got deficiencies and problems and needs work—the status of most Wikipedia articles is "unfinished"!—but in its present form it's nowhere near the lower end of the article quality continuüm. It's got 204(!) references, an extensive bibliography, and an onrunning metadiscussion that can't be called stagnant or circular. So whence the push for a complete teardown? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, which is primarily writing large articles, 90% of content disputes are/can be solved by an article overhaul. The number of citations here does not necessarily indicate the quality of the article is high. Instead, more important factors are the quality of sources, how they are used (scientific sources to address scientific issues; religious sources to address religious ones, the more authoritative the better, etc.), the cohesion of the article: the fact that the article solidly summarizes the main points made by sources and does not read as if 300 editors have built the article over 7 years by fishing for a source to prove a personal point--which it does now, and various style issues being resolved would vastly improve this article. Any sentence that has 11 freaking citations is just outer limits unnecessary. The Lesbian narratives and awareness of their sexual orientation section is chock full of "lolwut", starting with that heading.

Homosexuality will not be uncontroversial in my lifetime, but it's very possible to write the article so soundly that complaints about it decrease significantly. Of course there is room in this article for homosexual behavior among animals. There are excellent sources that address this. But until the talk page visitors shift their attitudes from "(you) fix this sentence/paragraph/section" to "let's fix this entire article", it's not going to get done and instead we'll continue to argue about issues borne of bad writing and shaky sourcing. It's so common on this talk page that I don't think I'm out of line in saying that the folks who continue to argue here would rather argue than work to rewrite the article.

I've suggested for perhaps a year now that this article should be rewritten. I won't do it, though. I wrote the Lesbian article, the Stonewall riots, Harvey Milk, Save Our Children, and several others. I won't do this one. I would use the same sources and this information would be filtered through me and this is not the way a collaborative encyclopedia should be written. It would further take me 6 months to do and at least three trips to various administrative noticeboards and I'm pretty Wikipedia'd out to do this. I offered to oversee it and give tips and stuff, maybe write a section, but not the entire thing. --Moni3 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Moni3, Thank you! Эдуард/Edward 23:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to allow animal references here, perhaps we should make the reference neutral? Perhaps: "Homosexual behavior has been rarely observed" seeing as how it has been observed in up to 1500 species, out of how many millions? Overseer19XX (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. "Rarely" is certainly not neutral, it is your own POV. Your claim that homosexual behaviour has been observed in a tiny numeric minority of species may be technically true but it is without veracity; it is akin to saying we don't know that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow because we've only observed that phenomenon for a tiny proportion of the lifespan of Earth and Sol. Or, closer to the topic at hand, your position is like saying we can't know for sure that all Earth animals are oxygen-breathers equipped to live in 3-dimensional space with gravity that pulls us down, because we've only observed a numerical minority of species. Fact is, scientists—real ones, not the armchair variety—frequently, soundly, and with solid validity extrapolate to the animal kingdom as a whole from observations of a representative sample. That's what we've got in this case, so no, "rarely" would not be accurate. Nor is there a basis for altering the present assertion (which says "widely"); that's what five [[WP:RS|reliable] sources support. Remember, the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia isn't what we know (or think we understand, or believe, or seem to recall our preacher having told us on Sunday morning radio), it is what we can prove. I see you are a new Wikipedia editor. Welcome here. Please take a few minutes to read and understand how we do things here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well homosexual means one sex, bisexual means two sex. so if a majority did that we would have low birth numbers in those species. thou you can mention many examples, none of those pertain to this. the five sources will take me a bit, but when i have time, i will check them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overseer19XX (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Your premise as stated (sorta) in your second sentence is, again, theoretically true but practically irrelevant and not apposite to this discussion; nobody is claiming that a majority of any species is homosexual, so a refutation of that claim would be fatuous. I am having some difficulty parsing the rest of your comment; perhaps you'd be so kind as to restate yourself. Also, please remember to sign your comments on talk pages. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a loss of focus with the original issue here, which is still a problem in the sub-article concerning homosexuality in animals, whether or not the article as a whole would benefit from an overhaul, which I do believe it would, as it sounds biased in some ways (for instance I skim read the article on my way to the animal section and saw the foot-noted statement "homosexuality is a normal and positive variation in human sexual orientation" no less than four times through the entire article, and at a skim read. Once this premise is established it should not be oft repeated as it removes the appearance of neutral POV, and takes on a tone of an argument instead of fact-based research. Anyway, as to the animal kingdom section, to re-state and re-observe, as someone new to the "debate," I read the article and was interested in the sources, as multiple seemed to be cited. Yet, when I went to all the links, there is ultimately only one source for the entire article, the alleged observations of one man, Bruce Bagemihl , as the citations here on Wikipedia in that article lead only to his work or articles discussing his work or reviewing it. No other scientist's observations are cited in this article, which make it of questionable veracity. I've seen claims in the discussion page that there is excellent research confirming the work of Bruce Bagemihl. Then let's see it, by citing in this article and removing citations to reviews of this man's work, or articles in periodicals based on it. We should have citations to his original work, and the original work of other scientists whose findings corroborate those of Bruce Bagemihl. When "most" people (at least in my limited experience) read a Wikipedia article, they see multiple citations as a sign of multiple corroborative sources, and take this at face value without researching them, particularly when there are no flag headings at the top of the page or the sub-article mentioning a need for more sources. In short, even if all the assertions were 100% accurate, this sub-article is misleading because only one source is directly and indirectly cited multiple times, giving the impression of it having a neutral POV and being well-sourced, which is not the case at this point in time.

It is also interesting to note that while the sub-article has been heavily defended here by some, even though it is based on the cited work of one man, at least one of said persons scrubbed an addition to the page (read two discussion topics down concerning lifespan) because it was based on the work of one man....so why not have some consistency here and delete all assertions that have only one cited source, or leave both; but the one-sided handling has been noted. To quote from below: "Nope. Just because one whackadoodle wingnut says it, doesn't make it so." and that the statement in question might be true but must be "robustly supported by reliable sources." Yet, the Animal Sexuality sub-article stands with one ultimate source, and who determines who is and who is not a "whackadoodle wingnut?" There is definite questionability here concerning Neutral Point of View, as we let fly an article claiming homosexuality is widely observed in the animal kingdom, based on one source who is gay, while dismissing an argument concerning shortened lifespan for active homosexuals by another man who is not gay, and dismissed as an unreliable source. It certainly appears to be bias, considering the defense tactics used on the one hand, and personal dismissive slander jargon used on the other. - Black Fox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.57.167.125 (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's rather easy to understand if one takes a step back and thinks carefully. We're writing an encyclopædia here, which means we base our assertions on science and fact. Belief, opinion, preference, and religious dogma do not pass muster as support for assertions, except in articles about beliefs and religious dogma. RS requires that sources be reliable, so on matters of this nature we hew to the published work of scientists and researchers -- real ones with sound credentials, not religionists masquerading as academics. Moreover, we strive to avoid logical fallacy, which is why a complaint that this is "an article claiming homosexuality is widely observed in the animal kingdom (…) while dismissing an argument concerning shortened lifespan for active homosexuals" has difficulty getting traction. The one has nothing at all to do with the other; only one with an anti-gay agenda, usually based on an interpretation of one religion or another, seriously tries to cut together bits and snippets of what they perceive to be reality like this in an effort to demonstrate that homosexuality is abnormal, unnatural, unhealthy, a "lifestyle choice", etc. When one's opinion doesn't match the supported consensus, it's understandable that one would think he perceives bias. If one is not able to grasp and accept that this project is based not on what we know, or think we know, or believe, or prefer, or feel, or are told in Church on Sunday but on what we can prove, perhaps one's time is better spent preaching to his own choir at Conservapedia. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Changes due to repeal of don't ask don't tell?

<--Begin request--> United States (see Don't ask, don't tell) technically permits gay and lesbian people to serve, but only in secrecy and celibacy.

doesn't this need to be change in accordance of the repeal of don't ask don' tell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugottoknowme (talk • contribs) 19:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe in an article about homosexuality in the USA, but not in this global article. HiLo48 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It is important to note that the policy has been repealed at the political level in Washington but the policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell is still in full force and effect in the Department of Defense military branches, pending the on-going review of the Joint Chiefs concerning the proper and safe implementation of a repeal. Hence, while the Armed Forces branches have begun sensitivity training at all levels, each of these training modules ends with a re-stressing of the fact that the former policy of Don't Ask Don't tell is still in full effect. - Black Fox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.57.167.125 (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Curing Homosexuality?

Okay this'll likely start a flame, but why's there nothing about people being cured\freed\turning their back on homosexuality? There's stuff about coming out of the closet, not precisely converting to homosexuality I realise, but why not the reverse? And no I'm not saying everyone's straight and that some are just confused but it's an area that's missing. 203.25.1.208 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Read the article. Homosexuality isn't a disease, so it cannot be cured. It is an evolved, behavioral attraction, no different than someone who prefers blondes, sheep, or anything else. If you didn't want to flamed, then why would you post something so ignorant as to be beyond belief. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL, Orangemarlin, did you really have to bring beastiality into this? Unlike homosexuality, beastiality isn't considered normal at all. But I can understand how the IP's question can seem like ignorance and be upsetting; it's clear the IP was aware of this as well. But I don't think he or she was trying to upset anyone. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing here about "curing" homosexuality for the exact same reason there's nothing on the heterosexuality page about curing heterosexuality. Seriously. Science is your friend! Dawn Bard (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, theres no such thing as "Converting" to homosexuality. As was said about the "curing" by Dawn bard, its for the same reason that no one's converted into heterosexuality. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That said, if we assume good faith, the original poster may just be talking about including some mention of conversion therapy in the article. And it wouldn't be so odd to do so—in the context of historical medicalisation of homosexuality, along with the medical evidence that it's ineffective, possibly harmful, and misguided in the first place. The main reason against doing so, I think, is not so much that it's misguided, as that it's just not really notable enough for this article. It's more of a History of homosexuality topic. garik (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT - I was writing this while garik posted) I should have pointed out above that Wikipedia does address "curing" homosexuality in articles like Conversion therapy, Ex-gay movement, Ex-ex-gay, National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, and many others. But it's obviously a controversial subject, and having a whole section on gay "cures" in this article would place undue weight on a fringe idea that reliable scientific sources all agree is total crap. Dawn Bard (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not an ignorant question by any stretch and the topic of conversion or curing should be addressed as reliable sources address it. There is a movement that seeks to convert or quell the desires of people who do not wish to have homosexual attraction. The APA and most professional medical and psychiatric organizations do not recognize this as a valid therapy and for the most part, consider this approach unhealthy for the person who wishes to be different. This should be stated in this article, both that there are groups out there trying to convert gays and that it's considered similar to quackery and strongly based in religion. There are some agencies, such as the government of Hong Kong, that believe the conversion is a valid option for some gays. Hong Kong has a conversion therapist on its payroll. --Moni3 (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Moni3. It's part of the history of homosexuality and should be mentioned in this article, even if briefly, if it isn't already. And if not that, at least a few links to the above mentioned articles dealing with the topic in the See also section. Flyer22 (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I do see that the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is mentioned in the lead, but the mention is not specifically addressing conversion/curing. Flyer22 (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit requested

Two things. In the second paragraph of the lede, could someone change "voluntarily-chosen behavior" to "voluntarily chosen behavior", or better yet, just "voluntary behavorior". Second, in the third paragraph there are eleven citations for one fact. While it's certainly good to have that many, it seems like overkill. Could they perhaps all be grouped into one citation, as explained here? 68.54.4.162 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Went ahead and changed "voluntarily-chosen" to the more straightforward and less clunky "voluntary". Did not group citations, as it negatively affects reference readability.  Chickenmonkey  07:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

_{marking as answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)}

I don't know why we have that at all there. It wasn't mentioned by any sources cited nearby, and saying "chosen, sinful, or dysfunctional" seemed to imply that if people did choose to be homosexual, then that would make the behaviour immoral, sinful, or dysfunctional. The origins of homosexuality, however, are irrelevant to whether or not it's healthy or moral, and mentioning choice seems correspondingly irrelevant here. garik (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how "choice" is irrelevant in this case, considering that it's one of the biggest things associated with homosexuality (that homosexuality is a choice). As Scheinwerfermann stated in his edit summary, "...it is central to religionist dogma on the matter."[10] So to mention religion and these ex-gay groups in the lead but not "choice" seems a bit odd to me. I didn't get the same impression you did by seeing "choice" there. It's not exactly trivial. Maybe the mention should be worded in a different way, but it's definitely relevant. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Garik, anti-gay discrimination is still supported by some political and religious movements in the US. These groups typically reject the medical and scientific reality that homosexuality is normal biology and not a "voluntarily chosen behavior", illness or defect. They happen to be very vocal right now with elections coming up and marriage discrimination suffering some big defeats. Last month a federal bankruptcy court ruled the "only between between one man and one woman" section of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and marriage discrimination becomes illegal in New York at the end of this month. Wikipedia should be fun this election season :) ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22, when I said it was irrelevant, I didn't mean (and I thought I was being clear on this—apologies if not) that it's irrelevant to this article, or to discussion of ex-gay organizations. My point was that it's logically irrelevant to questions of whether or not homosexual behaviour is wrong or dysfunctional; the context in the article seemed to be implying otherwise. To put it more clearly: homosexuality could be entirely biologically determined, and that wouldn't make homosexual behaviour right. Conversely, it could be a straight-out choice, and in no way immoral. Indeed, I'm sure many anti-gay organisations would be delighted to find a straightforward genetic cause for homosexuality: they'd get to make analogies with all sorts of diseases, and start talking about screening, and early intervention and so on. (I assume, incidentally, we're in agreement that sexuality in general is a complex phenomenon that most likely involves genetic, environmental, and other elements in its formation—like most aspects of human psychology and behaviour).

I agree, however, that these anti-gay groups do have a strange fixation on homosexuality being a choice and do seem to think that's relevant to questions of gay rights, which is worth mentioning. The simplistic idea that the average person might genuinely choose their sexuality wholesale is so patently absurd that it's clearly worth mentioning somewhere that large numbers of people appear to believe just that.

Since you seem very keen on having it mentioned in the introduction, I've made a stab at putting it back in. I think one of the reasons it struck me as out of place in the introduction is that we don't contradict it there. All we say is that mainstream science views it as a normal and positive variation in human sexual orientation. But that in no way excludes it from being a choice. garik (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I wouldn't say I'm "very keen" on having it in. I just felt it was/is pretty relevant to mention at that part of the article. Thanks for taking a stab at putting it back in. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Ex-gay movement

I would like to notify editors on this related page that there are number of discussions (most recently this one) ongoing at Talk:Ex-gay movement which may be of interest to editors of this article. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 08:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Azzy777, 15 August 2011

Azzy777 (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC) The false claim that there is no scientific evidence to suggest homosexuals are more promiscuos is also not referenced. There is abundant peer reviewed evidence.

A 2004 article by Michael Foust states:

“ A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city's homosexual male population. According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area's homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found.

As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland -- known as Chicago's "gay center" -- have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said.

The three-year study on the sexual habits of Chicago's citizens will appear in the upcoming book, "The Sexual Organization of The City" (University of Chicago Press), due out this spring.[76]

”  

In September of 2006, the Agape Press reported the following regarding homosexuality and promiscuity:

“ A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300. Unprotected homosexual sex is also a concern among health professionals. A survey in Ireland by the Gay Men's Health Project found that almost half of homosexuals said they were having unprotected sex....

The fact that many homosexuals appear to live their lives in sexual overdrive does not seem to concern leaders in the movement. In an editorial from the same issue (August 15) in which the survey results were published, The Advocate said: "[Homosexuals] have been proud leaders in the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s, and we have rejected attempts by conservatives to demonize that part of who we are."[77]

”  

In November of 2007 the news organization One News Now reported the following regarding Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth remarks about the spead of AIDS via male homosexual promiscuity and a conference on AIDS featuring Pastor Rick Warren and Senator Hillary Clinton:

“ Pro-family activist Peter LaBarbera says he shares Pastor Warren's desire to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS but wonders what solutions a politician who is an ardent supporter of the homosexual agenda has to offer in combating the disease. "He says that he's a co-belligerent with people who he disagrees with on other issues," notes LaBarbera, "[so] I guess the question would be: does he disagree strongly with Hillary Clinton's approach to homosexuality and even the AIDS crisis?" Although he admits he is skeptical of what solutions a defender of the homosexual lifestyle like Clinton has to offer churches for fighting the HIV/AIDS crisis, the activist is calling on Warren and Clinton to use the upcoming summit to tackle the problem of homosexual promiscuity, which often results in HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

"We have homosexual bath houses operating in major cities across this nation," LaBarbera notes. "These are places where men go for anonymous sexual liaisons with other men. They're bringing the HIV virus back to innocent women, because some of these men do not identify as 'gay' and they're even married. So what about that aspect of the AIDS crisis?"[78]

”  

Another study involving male homosexuality examined the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexual men and was published in the Journal of Sex Research in 1997.[79] This study of male homosexuality found that 2.7 percent of these men claimed to have had sex with one partner only. [80]

The David P. McWhirter, M.D., and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., Ph.D. study reported in their 1984 work The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop stated that in regards to relationships involving male homosexuality that "all couples with a relationship lasting more than 5 years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships."[81]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You will need to find reliable sources to support your proposal; the dogmatic religionists like Michael Foust and Peter LaBarbara and right-wing advocacy sites like OneNewsNow you're presently using to support your assertion don't qualify. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Characterisation as a "choice" -- sources?

Does anyone have a source for this? It's been bugging me for a little while. There are plenty of sources for homosexuality not being a choice, but I don't see any that explicitly support the claim that some religious sects and ex-gay organizations say that it is. And I haven't managed to find any reliable ones of my own either. I don't doubt that some organisations do characterise it that way, but we need a source for it. Anyone? garik (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's one, here's another, and another and another Those are all explicit statements. Implicit statements in which the phrase "lifestyle choice" is not used but is unambiguously implied by other phrasing include this one and many others like it. Then, of course, there's this. And this. And this. And this (see 3rd paragraph). And here's another, and another, and this one (which appears to be just one individual and not a politically active group, though I could be wrong about that), and here's a really good 3rd-party source that ought to do nicely if we were to pick just one to support the statement in question. I believe we've got enough in just this group of links to expand the existing statement if we wish. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This one is a reasonably good choice, I think. I also found a few about.com pages but, for some reason, I've always been wary of about.com as a reliable source. This is probably unfair of me; having read the Wikipedia article about the site, I'm more convinced that it's likely to be reliable. In any case, I've added the Religious Tolerance page as a general third-party overview. garik (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Stragesman, 30 September 2011

Change, "while others assert that only the sexual act is a sin.[who?]," to something in the way of, "The Catholic Church states that only the sexual act itself is a sin......." and add the below link as a citation

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm (number 2357)

Thank you for your time

strages (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Treatment of religious POVs in introduction

I have just reverted relatively recent edits to the introduction that removed a neutral, factual statement about religious interpretation of homosexuality and replaced it with a denigrating bit intended to paint religious POV as ignorant and disproven "...in spite". I do not think it is appropriate to include editorial meant to discolor a valid, relevant, and important part of understanding the external world's conception of sexual orientation.

I was disappointed to see that while this was changed to the bad version "unilaterally" initially, a user who'd reverted from the bad version was undone because the changes were "made unilaterally without consensus". An obvious attempt to keep the neutral form, which apparently bothers some people because it suggests that some resistance to popular theories about homosexuality exists, of the article offline.

I was further disappointed to see the characterization of NARTH as an "ex-gay organization". NARTH does not address homosexuality from a dogmatic perspective and its only crime is offering an opinion divergent from that of the APA regarding homosexuality. NARTH is not an association of formerly homosexual individuals but an association of professional therapists that share scholarly findings on the treatment of homosexuality. Surely we are allowed to mention them as a professional organization despite their disagreement with popular and/or APA-accepted theory. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 07:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That would explain why NARTH's board members are all Christian and Mormons. Because they're not addressing homosexuality from a dogmatic perspective. Certainly its listing of theological tracts and its frequent coordination with religious ex-gay ministries is no indication of anything. Ogress _smash! 08:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not find it suspicious that groups interested in directing people to reparative therapy defer to NARTH, which is practically the only nationally significant organization that recognizes treatment of homosexuality as a valid thing. There are not many other practical options.

Shall we judge every organization's work and procedures as dogmatic because its board members are religious? I would guess that there are many, many companies and organizations where a predominance of board members hold the same general religious beliefs (Christian, Muslim, etc.), and I would reckon it's not even that likely to have overrepresentation of more specific denominations. Shall I consider the work of all of these organizations dogmatically biased? NARTH at least purports to be a clinical organization and does not overtly participate in blatant "ministration" or other ecclesiastical activity. You can't insinuate successfully that because its board members are Christian it qualifies as an "ex-gay group" instead of a professional association. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 11:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but NARTH's credibility as a "professional or clinical organization" is practically zip. I wouldn't consider them a reliable source for information about themselves, never mind anything else, because of their track record for spreading disinformation. And yes, it certainly qualifies as an ex-gay group. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have an actual basis for considering NARTH an "ex-gay group"? Is their primary goal to facilitate relationships between treated homosexuals and/or to evangelize the benefits of that path? From the content on their site it certainly doesn't appear that way to me; they purport, and their site seems to align, that they are a professional organization for therapists interesting in discussing the treatment of homosexuality. This is a professional organization like the APA, not a support group like Alcoholics Anonymous. You have to have credentials to participate, it's not open to laypeople.

Do things not count as professional organizations because they diverge from bigger professional organizations and their constituencies? The APA has given their opinion on the scientific material attached to homosexuality, is NARTH not allowed to have a differ? Shall we never mention it because it doesn't match a pleasant world view, according to you or I? That's not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about.

Also, none of this addresses the gross editorialization of the snippet on religion. Surely none here are silly enough to defend that as NPOV. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 11:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

To characterize NARTH as "a professional organization like the APA" is delusional. Independent third-party reliable sources characterize it as anything but. Sorry, WP is based on what independent third-party reliable sources have to say, not on what utterly unreliable bogus organizations like NARTH have to say. They're professional liars of the highest magnitude. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Dominus Vobisdu, NARTH is part of Ex-gay movement, they are connected with Focus on the Family, and other religius and Ex-gay groups.--В и к и T 12:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody here can offer any better than guilt by association. What does NARTH substantively, actively do? I'm talking about NARTH, not people that cite, reference, work for, or like NARTH. As far as I can tell they actually operate as a professional organization. I really don't see how this is disputable.

Furthermore, please stop reverting my entire edit if your only contention is that NARTH is not a "real" professional organization. Modify only the relevant part -- there is another facet here which you are all ignoring, and you're trying to submarine it in by using the NARTH thing (which is equally senseless). cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 12:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want your changes to be reverted which are not related to NARTH then make these changes whilst not changing the wording on NARTH. Modify only the relevant parts. edit: I should clarify that if these changes are themselves reverted, then they should also be discussed (perhaps in a separate topic). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill protest.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill protest.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sex and gender

As I understand it, the reason this article begins "Homosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender" is that someone whose sex is female could be in a homosexual relationship with someone whose sex was male, provided they shared the same gender. I realise that this distinction is not straightforward to many people (and, as a linguist, I'm aware that the term is used in a different sense in linguistics). There may, indeed, be a better way of making the distinction clear in this article—although I'm not entirely sure I see how, without linking to the articles, as is already done here. However, before any change is made, it should be discussed here. garik (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I am having difficulty imagining a better way to cover this important point than the present way which has both sex and gender mentioned and linked. I don't think this part of the article is problematic; the trouble seems to arise only amongst readers who can't or won't be bothered to click the links and replace their guesses and assumptions with knowledge. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I thinks its fine as is. Sex and gender are two distinct subject matters in genetics (sex) and psychology/sociology (gender). Readers having trouble understanding can click the link to the main articles. Otherwise, you may specify "homosexuality usually refers to attraction to ones own biological sex, but can also refer to attraction to those who share the same gender identity" or something to that effect. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason we include (and link) "sex" and "gender" is because, like Bookkeeperoftheoccult said, one covers biological sex and the other covers psychology/sociology. Male=sex. Man=gender. And seeing as the term homosexuality is applied to non-human animals as well, but "gender" applying to them is less accepted, it makes even more sense to include "sex." The World Health Organization source "What do we mean by 'sex' and 'gender'?" is pretty clear on how "sex" and "gender" are distinguished, though it's also strict because it only talks about humans, ignores gender identity (which Garik was talking about)...and ignores the fact that, as the Gender article states, ...the meaning of gender has expanded to include "sex" or even to replace the latter word. Think about it. How many times have we heard/seen people use these words interchangeably? All of this is why I find these edits[11][12] by the user contesting the word confusing. Gender hasn't only meant "grammatical categories" for a long time now.

The current wording of "between members of the same sex or gender" is fine and should not be changed to something more complicated. Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I will make my original point one last time. A male having sex with a female is NOT engaging in lesbian sexual activity REGARDLESS of his internal gender orientation. The word homosexual relates to persons of the same sex. It has absolutely nothing to do with their internal mental orientation. That is a separate and different concept entirely. The wording "between members of the same sex or gender" is entirely inappropriate and is both historically incorrect and misleading. The definition should be simplified by correcting it to state exactly what the word means - relationships between persons of the same sex - males with males and females with females as you view them by physical characteristics alone. Wikipedia is here to explain things, not confuse them. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 21:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

But this doesn't confuse anything. You keep talking as if somewhere there's a stone tablet on which the definitions of words were carved by God, and on which the word "homosexual" is defined as "romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex, regardless of gender". But there's no such tablet, that's not how language works, and I'm pretty sure that's not how most relevant researchers understand the term "homosexual". Now, I'm sure that many people understand the term to exclude couples where each member is of a different sex, regardless of their gender; you're clearly one of them. That's fine. You can use words however you want in all sorts of spheres of life. But Wikipedia is not one of those spheres. Here you have to find consensus. And, as I understand it, the consensus is that a person with an X and Y chromosome could certainly be called a lesbian. So if you want to change the article, you're going to have to provide reliable up-to-date sources to support your claim to the contrary. garik (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The word is homoSEXUALITY. It is about the sex of the participants. That's what the word means. The word gender means something else. It is obvious. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 23:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Svanslyck, there is nothing inappropriate about having both "sex" and "gender" in the lead. My above statement on the matter is clear about how the two terms are distinguished and are even used interchangeably. If you cannot understand that, I don't know what else to tell you. But WP:Consensus and reliable sources are against you on this one. Sexual orientation and sexuality are about more than just physical attraction. As the American Psychological Association states, "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions." That shows gender is included. People are not only sexually attracted to the physical, but the mental/sociological. Since you are so caught up on physical, let me be clear (if I wasn't already) that "gender" can encompass the physical as well -- how men and women dress, act, etc. That is part of what sexually attracts people. Flyer22 (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the form of the word, Svansklych: I think you're falling into a trap known as the etymological fallacy. It's an easy one to fall into. I'll try to make the fallacy clearer by taking the word midwife as an example. Now, the form of the word midwife seems to imply that a midwife is necessarily a woman (to people unaware of the older broader, meaning of the second morpheme, it might even seem that she must be a married woman). This, however, is obviously misleading. Both men and woman can and do work as midwives, and the word is standardly used to refer to people of both sexes. Anyone protesting that the word is midWIFE, and that the Wikipedia article on the topic should refer only to women who deliver babies, would be mistaken. You are similarly mistaken about homosexuality. The fact that it contains the morpheme sex is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the term can properly be used to refer to a relationship between two people of the same gender, but different sexes, just as the etymology of midwife is irrelevant to the question of whether a man can work as one. In other words, the meaning of a word is very often not the sum of the meaning of its morphemes. To understand what a word means, one has to pay attention to how it is used. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, we should pay particular attention to how it is used by relevant professionals; the APA is one such body of relevant professionals (in fact, it's one of the most influential and relevant). garik (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC) slightly amended by garik (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

kcylsnavS, you've made your point "one last time" and now you are repeating yourself. Unless you can come up with substantial, reliable sources to support your point of view—which so far you have not—it is probably time for you to realise consensus is not going your way, and let it drop. Please, thank you, and you're welcome. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C15:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There is an extremely serious problem with using "homosexuality" in this way. That reason is the following passage:

“ Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is biologically determined, not chosen, cannot really be changed, that prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people causes psychological harm,[3] and that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects." ”

This set of propositions is ONLY true of homosexuality when it refers to sex. Homosexuality being contingent on a social variable like gender would imply, given this passage, that the current research states one's sexual orientation can haphazardly cause people to stop being attracted to other people merely by virtue of the other people changing genders, or merely by virtue of a person pretending to be a particular gender. If this has been studied and is true, it needs to be sourced. The passage above cites a reference that ONLY endorses that homosexuality is biologically determined when it refers to attraction to the same sex, not the same gender. I will leave that up for now, but if no one gets a source explictly stating this, or no one removes the above passage, I'll put up the following new definition tomorrow: "Homosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex". As a sidenote, another very serious problem is that this definition implies homosexuality can be a choice, since it refers to behavior. For this reason I propose splitting the definition between "homosexuality as an orientation" which is not a choice and "homosexuality as behavior". They are two different definitions, much like the word "pen" has more than one definition and the two have little to do with each other. 198.151.130.156 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC) DDiaz.

Not only is the above passage not in the article, due to the collaboration of editors in the #Religion POV in intro (RFC) section below, what you are stating makes no sense to me. Seriously, if you are kcylsnavS, just sign in already.

No. Using "gender" does not imply that people can "stop being attracted to other people merely by virtue of the other people changing genders," no more than it does in the Heterosexuality article. First of all, people don't often change their gender. Second of all, "sex" and "gender" can (and often do) mean the same thing, as I showed above. But when they are distinguished, it is because one is referring to biological sex and the other is referring to the social roles/behaviors/styles that go along with that. A woman who is sexually attracted to men is not only sexually to men based on his biological sex, but typically also because he "behaves like a man." If the man were to suddenly start dressing/"acting like a woman," then, yes, she may stop being sexually attracted to him. But that is not what we are implying by using both "sex" and "gender"; we are using both, per everything stated above. Sexual orientation has to do with both. Read over what was stated again. You are wrong when you say "The passage above cites a reference that ONLY endorses that homosexuality is biologically determined when it refers to attraction to the same sex, not the same gender." As I already stated, the APA says:"Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions." That shows gender is included. People are not only sexually attracted to the physical, but the mental/sociological.

That is pretty damn explicit. Just because it does not use the word "gender" in those lines means nothing; it uses gender categories ("men" and "women") and is clearly not only talking about biological sex. At one point in the source, it even says, "Sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and gender, including biological sex." Other sources in this Wikipedia article definitely use "gender" when referring to sexual orientation. So all of that means you are wrong. Plain and simple. Change the lead without consensus, after this was already settled two months ago, and you will be reverted.

My side note? "Behavior" does not imply that homosexual sexual orientation is a choice. We are talking about homosexuality. Emphasis on "ality." That means we are not only talking about the sexual orientation, but the behavior as well. For example, there are many men who have sex with men who do not identify as homosexual. Despite whatever their sexual orientation/identity may be, their behavior is indeed homosexual. Sexual orientation is not a choice, no (to most people anyway), but sexual behavior is. This is also why homosexual individuals can engage in heterosexual behavior. The APA source I just cited again also clearly states "behavior." We use "behavior" in the other main sexual orientation articles, too. I suggest you read up more on these topics, and stop trying to alter text to suit your personal definitions. Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem remains, as I had previously enumerated, that homosexuality denoting a preference towards a particular socially constructed group entails that homosexuality is socially constructed. E.g. that homosexuality is not biologically determined. This is not the common thesis of sociologists, psychologists, or philosophers of love, and they are the experts on this subject. If anyone has a source that explicitly states that homosexuality refers to an orientation romantically towards the socially constructed concept of "men" and the socially constructed concept of "women" when referring to an individual who is either a man or a woman respectively, then please cite that source. The APA source certainly does not suggest that, and is clearly using "men and women, or both sexes" to denote biological sex, not gender. 198.151.130.137 (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC) DDiaz

I'm not going through all this again. I'll just say you are wrong, WP:Consensus is against you, and refer to my above posts. All violating consensus is going to get you is reverted and blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The above does not dispute anything I've stated. 'Homosexuality' has two distinct definitions, one referring to orientation, and one referring to behavior. Just as 'pen' has two distinct definitions, as a writing utensil and as a container for farm animals. However, this is not clear from the initial sentence. On your explicit reasoning what would be appropriate is "homosexuality is either the sexual attraction or orientation towards members of the same sex, in which case it is commonly understood to be biologically determined, or sexual behavior involving members of the same sex or gender". Again, that you don't see that distinction as incredibly important is baffling given that you have already agreed that behavior and orientation are not the same thing, and orientation is not a choice while behavior is. I do not intend to make any edits (I haven't yet) until all discussion on the matter is settled and an agreement is reached, but if my novel criticism is simply unaddressed after a significant amount of time, I will make the appropriate edits.198.151.130.154 (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC) DDiaz

The above disputes your arguments sufficiently. Your arguments for why the lead should not simply say "sex or gender" makes no sense. At all. The same way your having stated that including "behavior" implies that a homosexual sexual orientation is a choice, but it appears that you let that go after I explained why you were wrong about that. Yes, I know the distinction between sex and gender, and I also know that they usually largely overlap, and that there is often no distinction. Things you don't seem to understand. This is why your saying "gender" should be omitted is nonsensical to me. It shouldn't be omitted for the same reason that you say homosexuality is about orientation and behavior. I have made it very clear that sexual orientation is about sexual attraction to one's behavior almost as much as it is to one's sex. Gender is not just about behavior anyway. And there is the matter of transgender people who have not undergone hormones and/or sex reassignment surgery to alter their appearance, which Garik stressed above. Or simply the topic of transgender people. Chaz Bono who has not yet undergone sex reassignment surgery, for example, identifies as a man, despite his biological sex being female. Despite that his chromosomal makeup will always identify him as female. Therefore, if we want to be technical with the terms "sex" and "gender," his partner is also sexually attracted to his gender. No matter what others think, they are classified as a heterosexual couple. To only go by "sex," as you want us to, is to say that homosexuality is all about sexual attraction to one's biological sex. Transgender people show us that this is not true. Researchers show us that this is not true. The only way "sex" means what it does in Bono's case when it comes to your definition is if you mean Bono's legal status as male or Bono's mind possibly being male. On the flipside of that, only using "sex" implies that Bono is homosexual. While many people still view him as female and as a lesbian, he does not view himself that way, and is not legally female. So bottomline: Sexual orientation is clearly not only about one's biological sex. People may be classified as a homosexual couple if one is a biological male and the other is not but does identify as male, and some people are sexually attracted to people who do not identify as male/man or female/woman but as a third gender or by some other term. That you do not see this and keep arguing that homosexuality is all about "attraction to the biological sex" is baffling to me.

An agreement was reached. In order to bypass previous consensus, you need to form new consensus. Read WP:Consensus. Further, we've already tackled the "biologically-determined" aspects of the lead, per the #Religion POV in intro (RFC) section below. Sexual orientation is not only biologically-determined, and researchers are not in agreement that it always is. You cannot proceed to change consensus wording just because you think you are right. You need to convince other editors to go along with you. You have not done that so far, or provided anything other than your own opinion for why you are right. This is why I said altering the lead to your preferred wording will only get you reverted...and blocked if you continue to violate consensus through editing.

Also, you might as well sign in as kcylsnavS. You haven't denied that you are him, and have pretty much admitted to being him. I will now reply to Noformation below. Flyer22 (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

My gender studies are rather shallow (covered gender issues and homosexuality in ethics courses up to the 3000 level) but with what I do know regarding the distinction made in academia I am inclined to agree with the IP that gender is a separate issue from homosexuality. I haven't read the source but if I've read this thread correctly, the source does not omit gender. If this is the case (and I'll check it later for myself) then I think we might be running into what could be the first test of "V" instead of "V not T," in the sense that this might be verifiable but not correct. I'll do some more research and see if I can find a better source, one that preferably makes the distinction, so that we can talk about adjusting the lede accordingly. N^oformation ^Talk 00:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Noformation, the IP is wrong, per everything stated above by myself and others. So I am tempted to ignore the IP from here on out, whether he is signed in as kcylsnavS or not. I covered the distinction you speak of as well. Yes, gender is a separate issue from homosexuality. So is biological sex, so is behavior and romance when talking about those things in their own rights. But these things have to do with homosexuality, as in they overlap, just as they have to do with other sexual orientations. I also pointed to the Gender article which also tackles the distinction between "sex" and "gender" with reliable sources. Its lead says:

Depending on the context, the discriminating characteristics vary from sex to social role to gender identity. Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word "gender" to refer to anything but grammatical categories. However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, like feminist literature, and in documents written by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), but in most contexts, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has expanded to include "sex" or even to replace the latter word.

The IP is wrong because not only can "sex" and "gender" mean the same thing, researchers have designated "gender" as a part of sexual orientation as well. That is clear from the APA source I have cited. It talks about gender categories, behaviors (which are also a part of gender), identities (which no doubt includes gender identity; see the topic of transgender people I just mentioned above to the IP; the APA even says "also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions"), romantic attraction and sexual attraction. The source not using the exact word "gender" is irrelevant when the source is clearly describing gender aspects. Not just that source, but other sources in the article. And, as I just mentioned to the IP above, when one is sexually attracted to a transgender person who has taken on "the look" of the gender they perceive themselves to be, but has not undergone hormones or sex reassignment surgery to alter their appearance, it is obviously not that person's biological sex that the individual is attracted to. In the case of two men, where one is biologically male and the other is not, gender attraction is without a doubt playing a role there. So to stress once more, sexual orientation is not just about an attraction to one's biological sex. Why the IP is not understanding this is beyond me. Why he is focused on the "gender" use in this article, but not the Heterosexuality article and related sexual orientation articles is beyond me as well, and rather suspicious. Flyer22 (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Several things should be addressed here:

1. I am not ky-whatever his/her name is. If you like you can check my IP against his/hers. I am uninterested in his/her intentions and am only interested in clarifying something very important, that is that the current wording of the article implies that homosexuality (as a sexual orientation) is socially constructed, which, while it is a common thesis of many fundamentalist christians and pseudo-scientists, is not the general consensus of most biological psychologists and sociologists.

2. As to consensus, this is explicitly why I have never edited the article, ever. I have put up some propositions about serious things that need editing with some arguments in favor of those propositions. Several people have raised objections to these of the form "these propositions are not true". However, such claims are irrelevant without source material. Absolutely no scholarly source I know of cites homosexuality as anything other than biologically determined, by virtue of prenatal hormones or genetic components. If you would like to cite a scholarly source which confirms some sociological statistically significant phenomenon causing people to be gay, then your thesis can hold water. As it stands now our current definition is uncited (since the APA directly contradicts it by only stating homosexuals are attracted to "men, women, or both sexes" utilizing 'men' and 'women' as sexes, not genders).

3. There does not seem to be an active topic on sex and gender on the heterosexuality discussion page. So now that you mention it, I will be starting one now. 198.151.130.132 (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC) DDiaz

Check your IP? Have you ever heard of a proxy? We can't check your IP against a user's unless it involves two registered users anyway, per the identity policy issues mentioned in WP:User check.

I've got nothing else too significant to say to you. My arguments hold up. Yours do not. I cite instances and sources. You do not. You cite the APA and then twist it to suit you. You can't say that "the APA directly contradicts it by only stating homosexuals are attracted to 'men, women, or both sexes' utilizing 'men' and 'women' as sexes, not genders" as an argument. That is your interpretation. All it shows to me is that the terms "sex" and "gender" are used interchangeably, as I just made abundantly clear above. What is not interpretation is that they are using gender categories -- men and women -- instead of the sex categories male and female. What is not interpretation is that they are not only speaking in terms of only being sexually attracted to one's sex. They have a long definition of sexual orientation in which they are also discussing things that have to do with gender and gender identity. And that you completely blew over the transgender topic shows that you are wrong. The transgender topic shows that you are wrong regardless. Using "gender" does not imply "that homosexuality (as a sexual orientation) is socially constructed." Using "gender" says that sexual orientation (in this case, homosexuality) is also about gender, which it is. The transgender topic puts the finality on that, really. Saying that our stance on "these propositions" is irrelevant without source material is simply false. We have source material. Plenty in the article. And you are missing the whole point of WP:Consensus. WP:Consensus is not irrelevant, and it is formed without source material all the time. Just because you haven't changed anything in the article yet doesn't mean you respect consensus. The fact that you are saying that if you don't get your way, you are going to violate consensus shows that you don't respect consensus. And per the "Religion POV in intro (RFC)" section below, which you obviously haven't taken the time to read through, you are wrong that "absolutely no scholarly cites homosexuality as anything other than biologically determined." The APA and other sources in this article make it quite clear that sexual orientation is not only biologically-determined. More so that researchers do not know what causes sexual orientation, but that they generally believe it to be a combination of "biology and environment." That part of the lead is sourced. We even have a section on it in this article (See Fluidity of orientation), which is discussed in great detail in the Sexual orientation article. What does the APA have to say about what makes a person's sexual orientation? Well, the following: "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

I went over what researchers generally believe causes sexual orientation explicitly below. And you know what? I provided sources, along with my extensive knowledge on the subject. You will not find any peer-reviewed sources saying that the scientific community generally believes sexual orientation to only be biological. And if you want to debate that, then I suggest you take it to that section below, where I have already debated the hell out of it, and provide WP:Reliable sources to back you up. As I mentioned, you are going by your personal opinion with nothing to back it up. I have backed up my arguments. Tenfold. You can take your campaign to each and every sexual orientation article, but you are wrong and will not be getting your way on this matter. "Gender" isn't just used at the Heterosexuality article either; it's used in the lead of the Sexual orientation article, as well as the related sexual orientation articles. And that is due to everything I stated above on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

European Union

The "[citation needed]" added to the Legality section on 9.1.1.2 European Union should be replaced with a proper reference to article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. If would do it myself if the page wasn't lockeed. G913 (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Motion for "Criticism of Homosexual Relationships" Section

As far as I can tell none of this article addresses opposition to homosexuality aside from the "politics" and "religion" sections in very brief mention. I do not think there is enough criticism of the behavior to warrant an entire page, like the "opposition to the legalization of abortion" and anti-same-sex marriage pages. However, a more significant blurb should probably be outlined, presumably summarizing argumentation done by contemporary writers (I'd be willing to contribute some of that, in the form of some work from Finnis and Beckwith, should this edit be approved of). 198.151.130.143 (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC) DDiaz

Hi DDiaz, I'd suspect a little further clarity on what you are suggesting may be helpful so the community can weigh in on it. Personally, I'm not sure what more can be put in. Each "mini section" has a link to a full article. Remember, this article isn't about those topics as a whole. It simply touches upon them and points the reader to the full article on that subset topic. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

So, what I'm thinking of here are the ethical arguments against homosexuality raised by Christians, Muslims, secular homophobes, the KKK, etc. Right now it seems like the article just has a sprinkled pastiche of these views here and there, as if they are not a major cultural or intellectual phenomenon. The articles on Gay Marriage, Abortion, Adultery, etc do not run in the same ilk. We might say this is due to the legal factors surrounding those issues, but there are individual articles strictly devoted to ethical opinions on each of these things, whereas we don't see this for the actual homosexuality stuff. I'm not thinking a full fledged article like conservapedia would have would be a good idea, because I don't think there is a sufficient amount of content or facts to put in it. However a stub would be useful, which we could link to in this article. Some resources which contain arguments against homosexuality from an ethical standpoint include Finnis' "The Good of Marriage and the Morality of Sexual Relations", Robert George's "Public Reason and Political Conflict: Abortion and Homosexual Acts" and Bradshaw's Reply to Corvino's essay "Why Shouldn't Tommy and Jimmy Have Sex?", both of which are published in the volume "Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality". 198.151.130.137 (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC) DDiaz

I'm not seeing sections "opposition to" Darwinism or Heterosexuality. Even if some people believe the sun goes round the earth, would that warrant a mention in Heliocentrism? Homosexuality is an article about that phenomenon, not whether people believe it exists, of who disagree with it existing. - MishMich - Talk - 02:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

For a great example of how much criticism of the subject should be in an article, even one on something or someone frequently condemned by some in society, see Noam Chomsky. HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky? Secs. "Heterosexism and homophobia" and "Violence against gay and lesbian people" are arguments in contra quite sufficient, without adding paragraphs of homophobic nonsense just to show "the other side" of the story. Shame for even suggesting such a thing, IP - and actually citing the KKK as an example of a fair-minded oppositional view! Djathinkimacowboy 08:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Colors need to be changed, said the interior decorator

The map's colors are wrong. Light colors usually indicate freedom, while darker colors indicate lack or loss of same. I would suggest for the map a range of colors starting with White for the most liberated countries, i.e. those that have legalised gay marriage, and going to Black for the most anti-gay ones, i.e. those who punish homosexuality with death. -The Gnome (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Religion POV in intro (RFC)

Compacted back-discussion

As in the section above, NARTH is not fully recognized as a professional group because it holds unpopular opinions. Additionally, attempts are made to grossly editorialize around discussion of religion. See above discussion. Posting as an RfC to break the block of standard editors here. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 12:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

not sure what you are asking, but i do think that religious points of view are important, relevant and acceptable on this topic. i know nothing about narth, so i can't say yea or nay on that specific one. Soosim (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A quick read of the talk issues and I agree with Soosim. Religious viewpoints are important here, especially because of their controversial nature. They should be presented in ways that do not disparage those who hold them. Additionally, the group "NARTH", whether "fully recognized" or not, I do not know, but it seems the perspective they have does have some validity to it. Inclusion of this perspective, or any other unpopular perspective (particularly ones that—in this case—gays and lesbians—find objectionable) should not be dismissed just because they don't like the conclusions. Senator2029 | talk 18:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And what this RFC is about? I really can't figure out from the intro. If the question is should the religious POV be included in the lead section of the article (because there is already section "Religion" in the article), than the answer is probably Yes. If the question is should NARTH be included in the lead section, and presented as a "professional" organization, than the answer is No. There is already section "Sexual orientation change efforts", where NARTH is mentioned. Organization founded in 1992. without any international reputation can't be included in the lead section of the Homosexuality article.--В и к и T 18:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• In this RfC, there should be "... a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template ...", from WP:RFC, and it is also suggested that the editor keep the "statement or question simple and succinct, so that the RfC attracts a clear and actionable response." To me, it's not clear if supporting in the RfC would mean supporting the inclusion or the exclusion of a reference to NARTH in the WP:LEDE, and whether it should be considered a professional association, or not. Or is this RfC intended to be just a threaded discussion without the usual support/oppose statements, but opened up to a wider audience. — Becksguy (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• If the issue here is whether NARTH should be mentioned or cited in the lede then that is simple: no. It's not an international scientific institution, it's a small group of people gathered together to promote their opinion. However the lede is poor in the construction of the end of the second paragraph, where it moves about the subject in an unnatural way (forgive the pun). The use of 'in spite of' is a POV laden phrase, whole religions are misdescribed as 'sects', scare quotes appear, and 'mainstream scientific understanding' is introduced in a way so as to bludgeon its opponents, also a form of POV writing.

“ It is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Prejudice against homosexual and bisexual people, by contrast, has been shown to have such effects.[3] In spite of this, some religious sects and "ex-gay" organizations hold the view that homosexual activity is a sinful or dysfunctional behavior. Contrary to mainstream scientific understanding, some of these sects and organizations characterize it as a "choice".[4] ”

I suggest the following rewrite:

“ It is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Some religions and theological interpretation holds that homosexual orientation or activity is sinful or dysfunctional, and there exist "ex-gay" organizations which seek to bring homosexual people back to heterosexual orientation and behaviour. Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm.[3] Mainstream scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is fixed by adulthood although some maintain that homosexuality is a free choice.[4] ”

Just a quick draft but I do think the lede could do with a bit of NPOV attention. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with your rewrite suggestion.--В и к и T 13:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"Bringing them back to heterosexuality" presupposes that they were heterosexual in the first place.--DVD-junkie | talk | 14:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that part must be reworded.--В и к и T 15:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

How about this, in which I've reworked the "back to…" language, added two apposite links, and moved the crucial "Mainstream scientific understanding…" text closer to the top:

“ It is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Mainstream scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is fixed by adulthood, although some maintain that homosexuality is a free choice.[4] Some religious and theological perspectives hold that homosexual orientation or activity is sinful or dysfunctional, and there exist "ex-gay" and conversion therapy organizations which seek to change homosexuals into heterosexuals or at least to cease homosexual behaviour. Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm.[3] ”

—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not just end the sentence at "disfunctional", and drop all mention of ex-gay groups altogether. This is the lead of a top level article, and ex-gay groups are probably too fringe to warrant mention here. As the ex-gay movement is practically entirely religiously motivated, the first half of the sentence already covers them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Okeh, how 'bout this:

“ Mainstream scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is fixed by adulthood, is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people, however, has been shown to cause psychological harm.[4] Some religious and theological perspectives hold that homosexual orientation or activity is sinful or dysfunctional, and some contend that homosexuality is a free choice.[4] ”

—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• I for one feel that the current wording of the part of the paragraph in question is fairly good, but Scheinwerfermann's rewrite is also a good alternative. However I feel that certain parts of the rewrite should be rephrased/changed, and that it would be better written as follows:

"Scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, is biologically determined, cannot be changed, and that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people, however, has been shown to cause such psychological harm.[4] Some religious and theological perspectives hold the view that homosexual orientation or activity is sinful or dysfunctional, and some contend, incorrectly, that homosexuality is a free choice.[4]"

The parts which I have altered are in green, and here are my reasons for any alterations:

1. "Mainstream" may be redundant - Scientific understanding is the mainstream scientific understanding.

2. Fixed by adulthood is a bit unclear, it should be clearly stated that scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, and that scientific studies are increasingly showing a biological cause for sexual orientation. I've also added in "and that homosexuality" to make clear what we're talking about in relation to "is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects".

3. Minor change just to link this phrase to the previous one.

4. Should be made clear that it is their opinion/view.

5. Minor change to make it uniform with the first sentence.

Also the part the red should perhaps be rephrased to maybe "religious sects" or to another phrase, but I'm not too sure how it should be rephrased.

--Scientiom (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

How about "some religious denominations"? That would encompass sects and the catholic church.--DVD-junkie | talk | 12:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I also wonder though if we should generalize it to just "some people, groups, or organizations", because that's what it is isn't it? But that also brings me to question of whether that needs to be there at all (the last sentence) - this is, after all, a medical/mental health topic primarily, not about the views of certain groups, organizations, or people who have no expertise at all in the topic. --Scientiom (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

We need to convey the facts accurately, but we need to do so with tight, flowing text that doesn't trip the reader or hit him/her over the head. We also should try to avoid setting ourselves up for squabbles and edit wars based on the perception of POV bias, such as is caused by words like "incorrectly". Let's try some copyediting:

“ Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is biologically determined, not chosen, cannot really be changed, that prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people causes psychological harm,[3] and that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Nevertheless, some religious and theological perspectives consider homosexual orientation or activity to be sinful or dysfunctional, and some contend that homosexuality is a voluntarily chosen lifestyle.[4]" ”

—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, fairly good rewrite - I'd chop off the "really" from "cannot really be changed" - it doesn't seem very professional with the "really" and may confuse the reader. The rest is well written, but I still have objections to the last sentence - is opinion like that really warranted on an article which really a mental health / science topic? And if it need be there, does it have to be in the lead? --Scientiom (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's a pretty good rewrite, and also question whether the last sentence should be in the lead at all for the same reason you gave. As far as mainstream mental health and science go, it represents a fringe position, and it has no scientific basis. The objections of Jehovah's Witnesses to blood transfusions is not mentioned in the lead of Blood Transfusion, but are briefly summarized in the body of the article. The same should be done with religious views, all the more so because there is already an article on the topic. Two, in fact: Religion and homosexuality and LGBT matters and religion. Since this is a top level article, religious views should be summarized briefly in the body of the article, with links to the above-mentioned articles. I see no need to mention them in the lead at all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I inserted really because "ex-gay" and "conversion therapy" advocates play shell games with the definition of "change"—counting as "changed" a homosexual who has been shamed and browbeaten into an opposite-sex marriage or into putative celibacy, for example. If we object to the word choice per se because "really" is frequently used as a colloquial emphatic, perhaps we could change it to "actually", but I do feel something needs to be there to connote a refutation of religious dogmatics babbling about how "change is possible". As to the last sentence, I hold no strong position on whether it should be included; I can see both sides of that debate. If we want to deal with the religious perspectives later on in the article, that's certainly fine by me. So, how 'bout:

“ Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is biologically determined, not chosen, cannot truly be changed, that prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people causes psychological harm,[3] and that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. ”

—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, except that the "truly" is distracting. I see no need for a qualifier here. It actually weakens the statement. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree to keep specific mention of NARTH out of the lead. But I do believe that something about ex-gay groups should be mentioned in the lead for the reasons that Scheinwerfermann has stated in the past and above in this section. I'm unsure, however, about saying "Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is biologically determined," because, as the lead of the Biology and sexual orientation article (which is backed up by sources) says, "No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment." Researchers are not in agreement that sexual orientation is simply a biological matter and that's it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Really, I prefer the previous lead. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this is wiki-ignorance on my part, but as well-written as Scheinwerfermann's suggestions are, I have a question about "some contend that homosexuality is a free choice." Specifically, the word "some." Every time I see that on a wiki article, someone has added the "who?" template. Also, although I'm sure there are individuals who contend it's a free choice on non-religious grounds, the primary force behind that line of thinking is religious. Religious objection to homosexuality is mainstream enough that I think it belongs in the lede; conversion concepts and organizations, on the other hand, are NOT mainstream enough to warrant mention in the lede, I think. Mreleganza (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

H'm. Which proposal are you looking at? The latest proposed text does not include "some contend that homosexuality is a free choice", but even if it did (or even if that text does wind up in the lede), it's supported by reference to a reliable source, thus answering the "Who?" question before it is asked. I don't see the issue you see. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been a bit WP:BOLD and have altered the section in question: [13]. --Scientiom (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Good move. That was long overdue. Thanks! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I reverted, partly per what I stated above -- "Researchers are not in agreement that sexual orientation is simply a biological matter and that's it." Further, the Sexual orientation article mentions how sexual orientation is not always stable over time. For some people, and I don't mean people were closeted and later came out, their sexual orientation has changed. That very section is also in this article. The proposal that Scientiom added is not only somewhat inaccurate, it is a run-on sentence that sounds like it has something to prove. I suggest going with Scheinwerfermann's second proposal:

“ Mainstream scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is fixed by adulthood, is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people, however, has been shown to cause psychological harm.[4] Some religious and theological perspectives hold that homosexual orientation or activity is sinful or dysfunctional, and some contend that homosexuality is a free choice.[4] ”

The "fixed by adulthood" part, which I don't see much of a problem with, except that it should say "typically fixed by adulthood," can be changed to "typically set by adulthood," "generally unchangeable" (just that without the "by adulthood" part) or "generally stable." Something like that. Scientiom's other minor suggestions for changing Scheinwerfermann's proposal are easy enough to implement. We also have agreement that what religious secs think of homosexuality should be mentioned in the lead. I'll note right now that going by WP:LEAD, it should be. That's another reason I was for ex-gay groups being mentioned in the lead. People trying to "reform" gay and lesbian individuals has been a big part of homosexuality for many years now and has a section dedicated to it in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with part of your response - sexual orientation is a fixed trait, most likely an innate one, not just one "fixed by adulthood" or "generally stable", it is an unchangeable trait - the section which has some suggestions contrary to that is not supported by studies which have been peer reviewed and approved by any globally significant mental health organization. Additionally, an increasing number of studies are showing that sexual orientation is biologically determined. The changes I made reflect the general understanding increasingly of the medical and mental health professions. Lastly, I do not feel that any unprofessional opinions unrelated to the medical aspects of the topic are warranted in the lead - perhaps in the body, but not in the lead - in what is primarily a mental health topic --Scientiom (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Scientiom, I am not disputing that sexual orientation is a fixed trait. I am disputing simply calling it a biological trait, and that it is a fixed trait for everyone. I am not only doing so because of my personal opinion that it is not as simple as "You were born heterosexual or homosexual, etc." (which I know has no bearing on this discussion), but because researchers are not in agreement that "it is biologically determined and that is it." As though they believe biology is the only cause/explanation for sexual orientation. They are not even in agreement that sexual orientation is always partly biologically-determined. But do they generally believe that sexual orientation is due to a combination of things? Yes. The Sexual orientation and Biology and sexual orientation articles, as well as this one, state the same thing about that. And I have studied the topic extensively enough to know this information without referring to those sections. "Fixed by adulthood" is generally researchers' way of saying that sexual orientation is not likely to be changed past that point. Really, a lot of them believe that sexual orientation develops in early childhood and/or adolescence and is not likely to be changed after that. But as I pointed out by directing you and others to the Fluidity of sexuality section, even that -- no change -- is not the case for everyone. The American Psychiatric Association has stated "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime." Additionally, a report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states: "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time." These are not just "suggestions"; these are statements of certainty/authority. The American Psychological Association touches on the "early childhood/adolescence" factor, when they say, "According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence." And, finally, their take on what causes sexual orientation is the following:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientist to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

I'm certain that if studies definitively showed that sexual orientation was biologically-based/only biologically-based and can never be changed, then these sources would not be reporting otherwise. The lead of the Biology and sexual orientation article would not say "No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment." So, really, to attribute sexual orientation to biology and/or only to biology is a suggestion thus far. I can list a variety of sources where researchers say something along the lines of "We don't definitively know what causes sexual orientation, but we believe biology plays a part" and/or "research suggests that it does." The key word is "part." The wording you implemented makes it sound as though sexual orientation is only determined by biology. It also sounds like a checklist of someone refuting every argument made against homosexuality. Hence, my belief that it sounds like it has something to prove. Now you can continue to assert that "Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is biologically-determined" and "cannot truly be changed," but that is not what the authoritative sources on sexual orientation have to say about this, except for when saying that sexual orientation is fixed for most people and that sexual orientation change efforts, in their opinion, do not work.

As for the other part, religious beliefs about homosexuality belong in the lead. Homosexuality is not simply a medical topic. Nor is it "primarily a mental health topic," and many gays and lesbians would take offense to it being categorized as such; some hate the words "homosexual/homosexuality" because they feel they are "excessively clinical," given homosexuality's status in the past, as noted by the Gay article. Homosexuality is also a cultural topic, and most others above agreed that religious beliefs belong in the lead (while disputing specific mention of NARTH being there). There is no valid reason to exclude religious beliefs from the lead, since they have always been a big part of the discussion of homosexuality. WP:LEAD is clear about what should go in the lead -- things that adequately summarize a topic. Including religious beliefs does that. I feel the same about mentioning efforts to change a gay or lesbian sexual orientation, which I personally feel is garbage talk, but that is more so up for debate.

In summary, I cannot agree with the version you implemented, no matter if we were to debate this for months. So instead of debating it, why not go for Scheinwerfermann's second proposal? You only had minor issues with it. So why not just tweak them in a way that we can both agree on? Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the debated piece to this:[14]

“ Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment. Although some religious sects and "ex-gay" organizations hold the view that homosexual activity is a sinful or dysfunctional behavior, researchers contend that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a normal variation of human sexual orientation. Though not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. ”

It's accurate, adequate and non-preachy. I'm not sure why we were saying that sexual orientation is not a mental disorder. No one says that it is, except those claiming such about homosexuality. Then again, the same can be said of "choice." But at least the belief about "choice" has been applied to bisexuality and asexuality, and a minority of people have even said the same about heterosexuality. Anyway, the current version gets across the point that sexual orientation is not a choice and that homosexuality is not a mental disorder just fine. I wonder if the " like heterosexuality" part should be "like heterosexuality and bisexuality" for anyone who may conclude that we're saying bisexuality isn't just as normal. But then where would that leave asexuality, which the sources don't even mention? Hopefully, people don't read too much into the line and see it for the example that it is. Though leaving out "like heterosexuality" occurred to me, the sentence is much stronger and flows better with that in it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is an improvement over the existing lead, especially considering that consensus here is to remove mention of "ex-gay" organizations from the lead as it is too fringe. Also using words like "contend" is a a bit odd, perhaps change that to "research indicates". I agree with you that we don't need to say "is not a mental disorder", perhaps it should be changed to a quote from the APA on the topic, if I remember right, stating that it is "a normal and positive variant of human sexuality" --Scientiom (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is not an improvement. It's concise, true to the sources and non-preachy. And the version you reverted to also has the wording "ex-gay" organizations in it.[15] But I'll work with you on something we can both agree on. It sounds like we're almost there. From what I read, consensus actually was/is not for removing "ex-gay" organizations from the lead. It was/is for removing specific mention of NARTH from the lead. And any in case, all you had to do was remove the "ex-gay" organizations part. However, I can agree to leave that bit out, even though I feel that it should be in the lead...per WP:LEAD. There's nothing wrong with the word "contend." How is it odd? It's saying that researchers firmly believe this. Saying "Research indicates that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a normal variation of human sexual orientation." makes it sound as though there is doubt that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation. That's what words like "suggests" and "indicates" do. Researchers use those words when reporting what determines sexual orientation, for example, because they aren't exactly sure. They just know that they believe both biology and environment have something to do with it. Anyway, maybe you'd be okay with substituting a word for "contend." How about this:

“ Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment. Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior, researchers state that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality. Though not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. ”

I left out the ex-gay part. But religion should stay, per what I stated above; it also leads in nicely to what scientists/most mental health professionals say in contrast to those beliefs. And of course you see how I changed "contend" to "state," and used the quote you attribute to the APA instead of "a normal variation of human sexual orientation" (although that wording also worked, but I digress). I don't know if you mean the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association, and I don't know where that exact quote is, but it works just as well. It's sourced either way, since the sources do say that homosexuality is normal and healthy. My wording was just a bit different. Flyer22 (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, instead of "researchers state" how about "research and studies show"? That's more accurate. --Scientiom (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. In fact, I prefer it and had thought about using something similar. Either is accurate, but I understand your point about "research and studies show" being more accurate...since these statements are based on research and not just opinion.

So do we have our new text now? Flyer22 (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

One final wording change proposal for clarity (and adding Scientiom's proposed change into this as well):

“ Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment. Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior, research and studies show that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality. Though homosexuality is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. ”

That prevents any possibly ambiguity as to whether the "Though..." sentence is referring to "prejudice and discrimination" in both parts of it by clarifying that the "Though..." section refers to homosexuality, while the ending is referring to prejudice and discrimination. More wordy, but less chance of misinterpretation. Thoughts? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, RobertMfromLI. I didn't even think of ambiguity, because it seems so natural to me that people would know we're still talking about homosexuality. I mean, how is prejudice and discrimination not in itself a source of negative psychological effects? Unless we're talking about the people committing prejudice and discrimination instead of the ones receiving it. But, hmm, even the perpetrators could be considered "a source of negative psychological effects," since they are the ones causing it and may be having psychological problems themselves.

Anyway, people have been known to misinterpret even the simplest of sentences or sentences that are believed to be clear/simple, so I don't mind your slight alteration. It's no biggie. One more thing, though, the "has" in the last sentence should be "have." Obviously, I didn't catch that before. Flyer22 (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a few more suggestions and then I believe we can implement these changes: Firstly, perhaps "but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment" should be removed as understanding on what determines sexual orientation is rapidly shifting with an increasing amount of studies pointing to an exclusively biological cause - so it may be best to simply leave that out for the time being. Secondly, perhaps "Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior" should be shortened to simply "Although some religous sects view homosexual activity negatively". Lastly, is "like heterosexuality" really necessary here? We're ignoring bisexuality and asexuality then, and perhaps adding to the incorrect belief that there are only two sexual orientations by only comparing one with one other. Thoughts on my suggestions? --Scientiom (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My random spewings:

• On point #1 ("but rather..."), if suitable sources are available, perhaps someone could rework it?
• On point #2 ("Although..."), while there are people against using such terms, that is the exact way the ref characterizes it, so I'm not sure if a change in wording not supported in the source is a viable option.
• On point #3 ("like heterosexuality..."), I think this too requires looking at the source to see what's supportable.

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Scientiom, I prefer the wording prior to your suggestions, and I really don't see a need to keep picking at the proposal. I've gone over why the wording "but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment" should be included instead of simply saying "it is biological." Not only have I not seen these studies "pointing to an exclusively biological cause" for sexual orientation, all of the studies I have seen point to both biology and environment or biology being part of the cause (PART). Never have I seen any reliable/authoritative sources saying that sexual orientation is only biological, especially given the people whose sexual orientation (not just sexual identity) changes over time or later in life (no matter how few those people are). This is backed by the reliable/authoritative sources in the article, one that is both reliable and authoritative that is used in the proposal. So I am not seeing a problem there. It seems you now want to keep any mention of what causes sexual orientation out of the lead, but if we are going to say that sexual orientation is not a choice, then we should mention what researchers believe to be the cause(s). And research thus far suggests "biology and environment" are the causes. If there is ever a day where it says "only biology," and it is clear that most researchers believe that (enough for whichever APA to also make that claim), though I doubt that will happen, then we can alter the lead to that. I also object to your second most recent proposal. The lead should be WP:Neutral. "Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior" is a neutral description of what religious sects believe it to be, unless one were to say the word "Although" is not neutral since it is leading into opposition. But oh well. The line also better summarizes the beliefs of these religious sects. Just saying "Although some religious sects view homosexual activity negatively" does not tell us what they find negative about it, and so to then report that "research and studies show that homosexuality... ...is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality" seems irrelevant. Why report the latter if the former is not clear what the latter is responding to?

As for "like heterosexuality," see what I stated above. I said: "I wonder if the "like heterosexuality" part should be "like heterosexuality and bisexuality" for anyone who may conclude that we're saying bisexuality isn't just as normal. But then where would that leave asexuality, which the sources don't even mention? Hopefully, people don't read too much into the line and see it for the example that it is. Though leaving out "like heterosexuality" occurred to me, the sentence is much stronger and flows better with that in it." I stand by that. To me, it makes the sentence stronger, showing that researchers view homosexuality in the same way they view opposite-sex relationships when it comes to weighing a normal sexual direction. The line feels empty to me without it. And, yes, Robert, that is backed up by the source. Not the exact wording, but saying that homosexuality has been deemed as normal as the other sexual orientations is. Further, as we know, bisexuality is a combination of heterosexuality and homosexuality. I doubt that people will think we're saying that heterosexuality and homosexuality are normal, but bisexuality is not. Unless some people think we're saying a person should only be sexuality attracted to one sex. Not two. But these misinterpretations that we are worried about are few and far between, I believe. Should we really be this worried about misinterpretations? A lot of written things have the possibility of being misinterpreted. And asexuality? Well, most researchers aren't clear on whether they consider it to be a normal sexual orientation or not. But all that said, if "like heterosexuality" bothers you guys, I can agree to remove that. I had thought about just wording it as "like other sexual orientations," but some people define sexual orientation differently. Just see Talk:Sexual orientation, and how a few people (or rather the same person with different screen names) have tried to get zoosexuality listed as a sexual orientation. I don't want people thinking we're including every type of sexuality.

Robert, what issue do you have with "but rather..."? Or are you talking about the whole line? As said above, it flows fine to me. More than fine, and is backed up by the sources. The way you went over the points, it seemed that you were only addressing the words.

Just to sum up, I can agree to leave out "like heterosexuality." But I don't agree with leaving out what most scientists/mental health professionals believe to be the causes of sexual orientation...if we are going to mention that sexual orientation is not a choice; and we should mention something about that or that a homosexual orientation is not a choice, since so many people believe that it is. Is homosexual behavior a choice? Yes. A homosexual (sexual) orientation is not. Nor can I agree to leave out why these religious sects find homosexuality to be negative. Like I said above, just saying "they view it negatively" tells us nothing, and doesn't flow well with reporting the opposition to it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm willing to give way on #2 and #3, but I'm still concerned about #1 - it is unclear what we mean when we say "environment" - and it may seem like it's giving credibility to discredited junk science theories which assert that sexual abuse causes a homosexual (sexual) orientation, for example. Perhaps we should simply say "and is naturally determined" instead? It's shorter, gets to the point, and covers biology and environment in the sense we're trying to convey. --Scientiom (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22. Re: "but rather..."

My comment was in regards to Scientom's comment: "..."but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment" should be removed as understanding on what determines sexual orientation is rapidly shifting with an increasing amount of studies pointing to an exclusively biological cause..." (italics to show that was the "but rather" I was indicating).

I've got no problem with the current wording, as it's supported by the sources. Scientom brings up a good point though that such perspectives are changing (which is what I was responding to), and I was trying to say I've also got no problems with the line being changed to reflect that, as long as we had reliable sources to indicate such. Inotherwords: happy either way, as long as if we pick Scientom's proposal, we've got the sources to back it (which from the efforts so far, I probably didn't need to say). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm for removing the "like heterosexuality" - it's implied without it - at least in this day and age. It also leaves an implication that bisexuality fits someplace in that sentence. That makes the changes we are all discussing look like this:

“ Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment. Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior, research and studies show that homosexuality is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality. Though homosexuality is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. ”

If people think removing "like heterosexuality" in any way changes the meaning in a way not supported by the sources, the I suspect we've got more work to do. Otherwise, I'm up for this proposal and second it. Thoughts? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry, Scientom's comments on "but rather... biology and environment" are still under discussion I think. I believe it is probably supportable that many researchers are leaning more towards biology and genetics - but with environment playing some possible role (which I think is in line with what Scientom is trying to point out). But we need cites. I'm looking and will check back here to see if anyone beats me to finding some. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Scientom, the wording "Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment." is more accurate, more descriptive and sounds a lot better than "Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but is naturally determined." What does "naturally-determined" mean? It could mean biological or environmental, considering that researchers consider the role that environment plays in sexual orientation to be just as natural. So why not just list "biology and environment," like the sources say? I don't see this "giving credibility to discredited junk science theories which assert that sexual abuse causes a homosexual (sexual) orientation." And even if someone were to interpret it that way, that has not stopped scientists from saying "biology and environment"/"nature and nurture." Again, this what I mean about being too worried about misinterpretation. If someone misinterprets this, neglecting to read up on what we are saying, that is not our problem. We are not reporting anything different than what researchers say every time they use these words, than what the Sexual orientation article or the Biology and sexual orientation article say. I understand about wanting to be especially careful with this article, since there is so much misinformation out there about homosexuality, but I feel that we are being needlessly picky now. If a reader does not take the time to see what we mean by what we have summarized in the lead, that is their problem. We should not be bending over backwards to make sure absolutely nothing is misinterpreted. Because someone somewhere out there is going to see things how they want to see them anyway.

Robert, as for looking for cites that say researchers are leaning more toward a biological cause for sexual orientation, I believe they are looking more into biological causes, yes. But that doesn't mean they are giving environmental causes little attention. And like I said, thus far...they have concluded that both biology and environment play a role. And, really, we should go by authoritative sources when it comes to defining sexual orientation. Not what one or two single studies suggest. We should report what is scientific consensus on the matter. And given what I stated above about people's sexual orientation changing over time or later in life, I doubt that scientific consensus will ever reach the conclusion that sexual orientation is only biological. Sexual orientation being a combination of biology and environment has been reported as early as 1995, and before that of course. See this 1995 article, which states: Research into the biological basis of sexual orientation "presents a clear double message. Yes, genetics plays a part. No, it is not all genetics," Dora B. Goldstein, professor emeritus of molecular pharmacology, told the audience that attended the first in a series of public lectures sponsored by the Medical Center's Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual Community on March 9. "This shouldn't be too surprising because that is what all kinds of behavioral studies indicate. Genes determine everything. The environment affects everything. Then there is this big area where the two interact," she added.

That is pretty much what researchers have continued to say since 1995. The more recent sources beside the "complex interplay of biology and environment" line show that. I would have gone for a "nature and nurture" wording, but I don't like the implication of "nurture." Too many people view "nurture" as "having been raised that way." And we certainly don't need anyone thinking that people were made gay because that's how they were raised. That is a misinterpretation to be concerned about, and is another reason why I prefer "biology and environment." Sure, while some can take "environment" to mean "this person is gay because of where he or she lived" or something similar to that, that is not exactly accurate with regard to how researchers use the term when determining sexual orientation, and the addition of "complex interplay of biology and environment" takes care of what we mean -- that summing up what causes sexual orientation is not so simple and often involves a mix of the two.

At least it's clear that we are all okay with leaving out "like heterosexuality." Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agreed to leaving out "like heterosexuality", but I still feel it may be better for the first phrase in question to be shortened to "and is naturally determined" or perhaps "and is a naturally determined trait", as it does entirely cover what we're trying to say. --Scientiom (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22: As I said, happy either way, presuming cites support it. So, the "genetic/environment" issue is one we can always revisit if new studies require such.

Scientom: I think shortening the wording seems nice - but I do not think it accurately portrays the source by creating too much ambiguity. In actuality it may misrepresent the source by not being definitive of what the sources consider the naturally determining factors. "complex interplay..." seems to more properly suit the sources, even though I agree (as Flyer22 pointed out) that it leaves room for misinterpretation. Sadly, I suspect we have to leave that room, because defining what the sources meant becomes synthesis on our part, even if we are correct (ie: we can't do that unless we can find a cite that actually does such a definition). Alas, sometimes properly defining something in an article in the way we know (or think) the sources meant it isn't always possible because it's not what the sources said. I think, sans other sources to use, we've gotta leave that one the way it is. :-( Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Before I respond to Scientom's latest reply, I want to mention that another reason I doubt scientific consensus will ever be "Sexual orientation is all biological" is due to the twin studies. Twin studies, researching "identical" twins, have shown that even with people who share pretty much the same exact biology, one twin may turn out to be heterosexual...while the other may not. So researchers often ponder the following: If sexual orientation is all biological, then why wouldn't both twins be heterosexual? This is of course discussed in the Sexual orientation article, as well as the Biology and sexual orientation article.

Moving on: Scientom, I gotta say, I can't budge on the "complex interplay of biology and environment" wording, per what I and Robert stated above. The suggestion of "and is naturally determined" or "and is a naturally determined trait" is just too ambiguous and leaves more room for misinterpretation. I have no doubt that some people will take "naturally-determined" to only mean "biological," for example. Instead of taking that risk -- of having people misinterpret what we mean by "naturally-determined" -- it's best to just state what we mean. And what we mean is "biological and environmental." And when we include the words "complex interplay," it helps significantly because it shows that what determines sexual orientation isn't as simple as "Oh, it's biological and/or environmental." Because, really, it's actually often a complicated interaction between the two, most researchers believe. That is the best summary we can give of what scientists/researchers believe to be the causes of sexual orientation. And "environment" includes what researchers believe to be the role of hormones during embryonic/fetal development; a lot of them have concluded that this also has something to do with what determines one's sexual orientation. Yes, someone may misinterpret the word "environment," but the lead is for summarizing. It is the reader's job to then explore what we mean by the lead, by reading through the aforementioned parts of the article. Like I said, "If a reader does not take the time to see what we mean by what we have summarized in the lead, that is their problem. We should not be bending over backwards to make sure absolutely nothing is misinterpreted. Because someone somewhere out there is going to see things how they want to see them anyway." Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Religion POV in intro (RFC): Continued

Question: Are we inferring (or using) the term "biology" to include genetics? And by "we", I mean the sources we've taken those terms from? If not (ie: the sources aren't discussing genetics and research in that area - instead limiting to more simple biology), then perhaps that's the area where recent research (and changes to this section) can come into play? If not, then for lack of being able to think up anything that better portrays it, I'm all for "complex... biological and environmental..." as the wording. Otherwise (if supported by current cites or new ones), I'd propose "complex... biological, genetic and evironmental..." as new wording. Thoughts? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL, Robert, it's a little late for a section break. But, yes, the sources are including "genetics" in what they mean by "biology." They even use the word "genetics" as well. And in any regard, genetics include biology, and biology encompasses genetics. In what instance are you thinking this is not the case? In the example I mentioned above -- about hormones during embryonic/fetal development being considered to partly (or sometimes) determine sexual orientation? If so, that is covered by "environment." But I wouldn't describe hormonal influences during embryonic/fetal development as "genetic" anyway. I'd simply call it "hormonal," like the sources do. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, lack of coffee clarity. What I was trying to say, for lack of ambiguity for those who (unlike us) understand biology encompasses genetics, was that if the article citation uses both terms, then for clarity, perhaps we can as well. I'm not strongly for such. I'm split. I don't like redundancy... but I also don't like (on more complex subjects) not being specific where needed so the average reader understands what's being written. I've met a lot of people who think biology and genetics are unrelated fields. Sans lessons on such, I simply figured including both terms (if supportable by the cites - instead of the cite only mentioning biology) would solve that "issue" (or "non-issue"). Or maybe I just need another cup of joe... Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As a person with average scientific knowledge I would clarify by using both. Good luck with the coffe situation.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

LoL, thanks! I'm on my way out for a 7-11 break in a few minutes. ;-) Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we are here - this is with "genetics" added, which is most definitely still awaiting feedback from more of you (ie: I've inserted it, but it's not yet a given and discussion is still ongoing):

“ Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of genetics, biology and environment. Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior, research and studies show that homosexuality is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality. Though homosexuality is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. ”

Thoughts on how we are doing? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Using both works. I like it, its gotta good beat. I can dance to it. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not hard-pressed against it either, Robert, although I do find using both "biology" and "genetics" to be redundant. It's like we're implying that we mean two different things, and I cannot fathom what two different things we mean in this case. If we had to choose one of the two, however, I'd go with "biology," because the sexual orientation debate usually asks "Is sexual orientation biological" as opposed to "Does sexual orientation involve genetics?" And because we have an article titled Biology and sexual orientation, not Genetics and sexual orientation, although, yes, of course the former is also about the latter. And the sources are using the words interchangeably, from what I have observed, not as two different things.

Anyway, let's go ahead and implement this new wording. We've debated an alternate text for that part of the lead long enough. I feel the need to mention that the "Homosexuality is one of the three main categories..." line should stay, as that leads into introducing the other sexual orientations. What we've been focused on is the text following that. Flyer22 (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

One more thing about the proposal: We could also simply use the wording taken from the Biology and sexual orientation article -- "a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." Yes, "hormonal" is somewhat redundant to "environmental," since researchers consider hormonal factors to be a part of "environmental influences," but I figured it was worth a thought. Not many people think "hormones" when they think "environmental," after all, making it less redundant. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well? Three of us have stated that we are okay with the proposal. Should I go ahead and implement one of these consensus versions? Or should we be clear on which wording we like the best for the biology part first? We have "a complex interplay of biology and environment," "a complex interplay of genetics, biology and environment"...and "a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" (or "complex interplay" if we substitute it for "combination"). Flyer22 (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Oooh! Oooh! Can I? I keep being told I need more mainspace edits... it's hard to point to talk pages to show I actually contribute to content creation and/or changes. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL, of course I don't mind. Which wording are you going to choose? I'd prefer the first or the last one, per what I stated about the redundancy of including "genetics" and "biology," but I'm okay with leaving it up to you. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this one?

“ Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of genetics, biology and environment. Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior, research and studies show that homosexuality is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality. Though homosexuality is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. ”

I agree on what you say about adding "genetics..." - except for the layman who may not realize the overlap... I can either remove it (and we can consider adding it back later), or I can leave it in (and we can consider removing it later). Suggestions? -Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I stand by leaving out "genetics." And, really, linking "biology," which of course details genetics, should be sufficient. It's not our fault if someone somehow doesn't understand that biology encompasses genetics and/or doesn't click on the link. But like I said, I'm okay with leaving that decision up to you. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Done

• Inserted new text.
• Removed "genetics" as redundant (as a separate edit, so it can easily be undone if warranted
• Left in "Homosexuality is one of the three main categories[...]" sentence until discussion on that point finalizes

Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this link for environment, added by Scientiom, is "more appropriate." In addition to hormones in the womb affecting the fetus, researchers also mean "social interaction" with regard to the environment affecting sexual orientation. Environment (biophysical) is more about natural environment and built environment. I understand that Scientiom is worried about people thinking that someone is "made gay" by say, child sexual abuse, but researchers do believe that human interaction over the years can help form one's sexual orientation. Above, I already went over how they contend that sexual orientation is often formed in early childhood and/or adolescence and that sexual orientation can form and/or change across a person's lifetime. And, of course, I am not including "child sexual abuse" into that equation. It doesn't seem that we can accurately link any article to represent what we mean by "environment." Linking to Social environment doesn't cover "hormones during embryonic/fetal development," and linking Environment (biophysical) doesn't cover "social interaction" (at least not clearly). And I certainly don't believe that we should link both. Therefore, I feel that we should leave "environment" unlinked and let readers refer to the sources, article and related articles for what we mean by "environment."

On a side note: Even though I and some researchers don't use it this way with regard to sexual orientation, "hormones" could be considered covered by "biology" -- as in the woman's biology affecting the fetus. Which means we could just let "environment" refer to social interaction instead. But, yeah, I prefer leaving it unlinked. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I might have been the one to originally link that word. I've got no problems with the link being removed. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I gather you mean either link? I removed the link Scientiom added in place of yours.

If there is a strong need to stress what we mean by "environment," we could add "both hormonal and social influences" in parentheses right after the "biology and environment" part. But that could be a bad move, since some people may take "hormonal" to mean "puberty" instead of "embryonic/fetal development," and "social influences" without detail can imply just what Scientiom fears "environment" can imply. While "environment" without detail can imply the same thing to people, it's better and more accurate in wording than "social influences," and it is what the sources say. So, again, I prefer to leave "environment" unlinked and let the readers refer to the sources, article and related articles for what we mean by the word. Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Documenting update here for when this discussion is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

" Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behaviour,[4] research and studies show that homosexuality is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality." Studies are not capable of identifying what is moral or "positive" such a thing as this is not possible and as it is worded here it seems to say that research has found homosexuality unsinful which would be even less possible as a divine diety defines what is sinful and cannot be determined by any natural means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.2.225 (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I've replaced "sinful" with "unnatural". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've edited it a bit further. That wording's bothered me for a while. Homosexuality is no more "positive" (or negative) than heterosexuality. garik (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the new changes (and I do feel that replacing "sinful" was a good choice due to what is stated above, how it flowed with the rest of the sentence), but I want to point out to the IP that studies identify what is positive all the time. What has positive and negative effects, what is viewed as positive, that type of thing. This is why we mention in the lead that prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people have been shown to cause psychological harm. As for "moral," yes, you have a point there. But, again, studies would be going on what people consider to be moral. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Position of "History" section

Every article and every subject has its own peculiarities, and therefore it is not wise to fix rules applicable to all. Nevertheless it seems to me a normal order to have the "history" section at the beginning, as it supplies an introductory information about what has been the "evolution" of the subject till now. In the present instance, I think that it would be useful to have it in this position. I may be wrong, though, in which case would appreciate to hear the diverging opinions.--Auró (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Auró. How is this more neutral wording? In my opinion, it disrupts the flow of that paragraph, making it seem as though that part of the paragraph should be separated into its own. We just got through working out the wording of that paragraph in October/November, at #Religion POV in intro (RFC) and again at #NPOV. I went ahead and used the word "While," since you removed "Although." Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Flyer22. Neutral wording was meant for the change from "religious sects" to "religious organizations". For the rest, it seems me ok as you have done.--Auró (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that's what you meant upon looking at your edit again today. I originally didn't see the "sects" change. I thought you objected to "Although." Thanks for explaining. I might add "Although" back later, but "While" obviously works just as well. Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Auró, do you mind if the Etymology section comes first and the History section comes after that? In most Wikipedia articles about terms, how the term came into existence (the Etymology section) usually comes first. Of course, this topic is about more than a term, but still. Flyer22 (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I was myself doubting about the best position for Etymology, and at the end was not much convinced. If you have it clear, go ahead.--Auró (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I made the change. I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other; I just feel that it makes more sense for an Etymology/Definitions section to come first. We don't really need the Synonyms and Kinsey scale headings, though. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Kinsey scale is clearly misplaced, but it is an important topic, and I am still not familiar enough with this page/subject as to propose some better treatment. Maybe later on.--Auró (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that the two sections be removed. Only the headings, which are unnecessary. Flyer22 (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the heading of synonyms can be removed, as for the Kinsey scale, maybe it would be better placed under “Sexuality and gender identity", maintaining the heading.--Auró (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, although it would be best to place the Kinsey scale section there without the heading. The heading is not needed unless that section is going to be expanded. Right now, it's just a sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes you are right, at present it does not need a heading. I have placed it under "Sexuality and gender identity/Same-sex romance and relationships" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auró (talk • contribs) 23:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

And I removed the Synonyms heading, tweaking left-behind text a bit. Flyer22 (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)