Talk:Homosexuality and morality

Untitled

A small minority believes that children are capable of consenting to homosexual acts with older men, but all major pro-homosexual groups have rejected that view.

I attempted to remove this POV line but it seems to have been reverted. This is a very serous allegation against the gay rights movement and, in my opinion, there is no proof to back it up. AFAIK there are no gay rights organisations that support paedophilia. In fact, there have been several scientific studies that discount any link between homosexuality and paedophiliia. What is really being discussed are paedophile-rights groups seeking to align themselves with the more popular gay rights movement.

Content here has repeatedly been added alluding to the links between gay rights and paedophilia throughout wikipedia. This issue now appears to have mentions already on several other page. There have already been attempts to describe homosexual morality in terms of other, unrelated sexual perversions and there seems an intent on emphasising this link throughout the wikipedia.

I have no issue with this topic being discussed, but I take objection to the wikipedia being used to bring this up whenever and wherever possible giving it an emphasis the facts do not support. This issue is already much discussed in this article, so what purpose, other than as a POV attempt to discredit the gay rights movement, does this serve?

Similar things have already been done: for example, reparative therapy now has mentions in several other gay-related articles throughout the wikipedia. Taken in isolation, these are not necesarily POV, but given widespread coverage it actually comprises a larger bias throughout the wiki. --Axon Sun Aug 3 11:49:02 BST 2003

Your above paragraph borders on slander, for example, the claim that "there have already been attempts to describe homosexual morality in terms of other, unrelated sexual perversions" is complete bullshit, and you know it because I already told you so above. These alleged "attempts to describe homosexual morality" were links in parentheses referring to controversies surrounding the moral question and definition of consent.

Your own POV clearly shows through in your repeated attempts to whitewash this article from any connection to and mention of pedophilia. Since this connection is made by those who criticize homosexuality on moral grounds, it would be a gross violation of NPOV not to say so. Similarly, it is a fact that there are many groups and individuals who openly advocate gay rights and the "right" to have sex with children, primarily boys, as even a cursory look around sites like http://www.boylinks.net will reveal. It is also a fact that the gay rights movement has some common history with these groups. That does not mean that homosexuality and pedophilia are related, and nowhere was it implied that this is the case.

However, for a moral discussion of homosexuality it is important to distinguish between the existing points of view, including minority views. Doing so helps your cause, not hurts it, since in the sentence you are trying to remove it is clearly stated that no mainstream gay rights group holds this position.—Eloquence 11:06, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)

First of all, I dismiss the claim that I have been "white-washing this article". Like everyone else here, I strive for NPOV and I've maintained other paragraphs on this page relating to the links between the gay rights movement and paedophilia. Yet, despite my attempts to discuss the issue with you and others you still seem to be wading in yourself despite the conflict you know will arise. As you can see from the above talk, my favored tactic is to appeal to people's reason rather than wade in and revert myself.

However, my ability to make this article NPOV, is hampered by those who would seek to emphasise their own personal crusades wherever and whenever they possibly can. As I mentioned, this issue already has much more discussion on this page than it merits. You've already had a forum to mention this issue on this page, and many others. Its inclusion here is fallacious, POV and does not really help the article.

Previous versions of the particular sub-section have related the discussion to zoophlia and other sexual perversions, including at one point, I seem to recall, a mention of rape. I have to admit, I don't know whether Eloquence in particular added these links, but their inclusion has sometimes been defended. I apologise if you didn't add these mentions, although I don't believe I did attribute these to you in my talk above.

Finally, please lets keep this civil. --Axon Sun Aug 3 12:26:56 BST 2003

Your past actions of removing large blocks of text without seeking discussion, and of engaging in edit wars instead of striving for compromise, are not very helpful and exposes you to the criticism that you are trying to establish a particular point of view within this article. Your assertion that I "wade in" is hardly useful either -- obviously I will continue to edit the page itself, and I have always explained my actions here. Instead of insisting on removing text before that has been properly discussed, you should try to find consensus first if you do not wish to alienate others. Within Wikipedia, removing text is a lot more controversial than adding it.

Your assertion that including a discussion of the links that have been claimed between pedophilia and homosexuality as a moral argument against the latter would be off-topic here is incorrect and not supported by any logical argument but merely by rhetoric. No discussion of the morality of homosexuality would be complete without mentioning these highly emotional arguments -- homosexuals try to seduce/"recruit" children, are predominantly perverts etc. However wrong or incorrect, NPOV dictates that these views must be mentioned alongside their exact opposite.

I added links to zoophilia, age of consent and pedophilia in the context of the discussion of the meaning of consent, as an attempt to better distinguish the many views on homosexuality within a sexual belief spectrum. I can accept the argument that these links were somewhat off-topic, but you appear to exhibit an almost Pavlovian response whenever someone even mentions words with negative connotations within the general context of homosexuality. The claim that I tried to "describe homosexual morality in terms of other, unrelated sexual perversions" is complete nonsense. Please do not make similar false claims again.

I can acknowledge that given the particular emotionality of issues like pedophilia, that discussion should not be interspersed among more abstract moral arguments. I have therefore created a new section specifically devoted to moral arguments that are based on linking homosexuality to such highly emotionalized behaviors. As always, I am willing to cooperate to improve that section, but I cannot tolerate irrational removal of large parts of text.—Eloquence 01:03, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

I think the arguments you have been pushing on this and other pages have demonstrated your own bias on this matter. I've tried my best to normalise what you have written and remove some of the more biased sections of this piece. Whenever I have tried to discuss this matter you've shown yourself to be rude, uncomprimising and, as the above demonstrates, personally insulting - most trollish behaviour. You speak of pavlovian, yet you have knee-jerk reaction to ANY edits of this page that makes it very difficult for others to work on it. If you don't want to share this article I suggest you copy-and-paste it onto your own web-site and edit it to your hearts content there.

As you yourself now seem to admit (didn't you deny this?) you've attempted to describe homosexuality in terms of other sexual acts that have little or nothing to do with the subject matter. What has zoophilia to do with homosexuality? What has rape to do with sodomy? Unfortunately, whether you like it or not, this is an extremely touchy subject for many parties so yes, you will have to be very careful what you say on this page. Its called NPOV.

I have no objection to discussing gay opponents views in a neutral tone, I'm even quite happy to: mentioning their view does more to hurt their agenda, than it does to hurt the gay rights movement. What I object to is your continued POV attempts to create so non-existant link between the gay rights movement and paeodophiles. You claim you mention both views, but you mention research (which you then mention has been dismissed!) and the gloss over other, more recent and definitive research that demonstrates, for example, that paedophillia may actually be lower in homosexual groups than in heterosexual groups. You ignorance shows through in your concentration on gay males: ignoring lesbians almost completely.

I suggest you calm down and learn not to take this personally.

-- Axon

You're a funny person, Axon -- you lie, distort and slander and finally ask me to "calm down and learn not to take this personally"? You continue to speak of bias, yet you fail to name that bias. Where is the bias in my additions, and what kind of bias is it? Am I for or against gay rights? What is my position on same-sex marriage? What is my view on gays adopting children? I challenge you to correctly name my positions -- if there is so much bias here, that should not be too difficult, right?

"Whenever I have tried to discuss this matter you've shown yourself to be rude, uncomprimising and, as the above demonstrates, personally insulting - most trollish behaviour." This is hardly true. In spite of your bullheaded attempts at "normalizing", I have repeatedly made quite clear that I am willing to seek compromises. I have tried to explain to you calmly why the alleged link between the gay rights movement and pedophilia advocates is relevant to an article about the morality of homosexuality. We have reached some compromises in the past, which is good, but I am not willing to sacrifice NPOV to protect your personal feelings. For the most part, you have not added much to this article -- you have continually tried to remove information from it which you did not like.

"You've attempted to describe homosexuality in terms of other sexual acts that have little or nothing to do with the subject matter." You expect me to cooperate with you while you continue to spread lies? This is the sentence in question:

"However, people who consider homosexuality morally acceptable by this argument differ as to what other acts qualify as consensual (cf. age of consent, pedophilia, zoophilia)."

Nowhere does it "describe homosexuality in terms of other sexual acts". It explains that the moral problem of consent is viewed differently among people who accept homosexuality, which is quite obvious from the link to age of consent. I have pointed this out repeatedly to you, but now Hanlon's Razor just does not cut it anymore -- not only are you trying to rewrite gay history, you are also trying to rewrite this article's history.

"What I object to is your continued POV attempts to create so non-existant link between the gay rights movement and paeodophiles." This link has existed in the past as anyone familiar with gay rights history knows. If you wanted examples of gay media publications containing pedophile views, or of pedophilia advocates active within the gay rights movement, you would just have had to say so -- you never did, because you don't want these examples. You prefer not to deal with that particular aspect of the history of the homosexual movement, so you unilaterally remove all additions to that effect without comment. I have never stated, nor implied, that this link exists today.

"'You claim you mention both views, but you mention research (which you then mention has been dismissed!)" I have never said or "mentioned" such a thing. ".. and the gloss over other, more recent and definitive research that demonstrates, for example, that paedophillia may actually be lower in homosexual groups than in heterosexual groups." Then cite that research, please -- I'd be very interested in reading about it. What you did instead was remove explicit references to researchers who found the opposite, and add a vague reference to non-cited "recent research". If you want direct cites from Bernard, Lautmann or Brongersma I will gladly provide them.

Here's the deal: 1) If you think that a particular addition is POV, say so on the discussion page and ask for sources and attribution for that particular addition. 2) If you think that a particular view is underrepresented, add that view to the article instead of removing the other view. 3) Before accusing others, get your facts straight.—Eloquence 11:26, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

---

At the same time, pedophiles saw in the sexual revolution their best chance to get society to acknowledge pedophilia as normal and to accept what they believed to be consensual sexual relationships between adults and children. Even if this data is invalidated by new research, so-called "boy lovers" were at least more visible and better organized than heterosexual pedophilia advocates.

Among a public that was struggling to understand the fast changes of sexual norms and values, the distinction between homosexuals who sought consensual relationships with other men, and homosexual pedophiles who wanted to legalize sex with children was sometimes lost. To make the situation more confusing, "boy lovers" initially used umbrella organizations like the International Gay and Lesbian Association to publicize their views on the ability of children to consent to sexual relationships. They believed that the successful gay rights movement could be used to piggyback their own views.

For a time, this piggyback effect manifested through advertisements clearly targeted at "boy lovers", or even articles defending pedophilia in some gay media outlets. As awareness of child sexual abuse increased drastically in the 1980s, at times bordering on mass hysteria, gay rights groups quickly distanced themselves from pedophilia advocates. Since then, they have repeatedly stated that they find child sexual abuse abhorrent and immoral, and relationships between the two camps are non-existent.

How much of this is true, how much evidence is there for this? How could this be made more NPOV?

---

Most attempts to change sexual orientation failed (with the exception of extreme procedures such as lobotomies or implanted electrodes),...

What were these "exceptions"? Who was carrying them out? Either would be regarded as highly unethical by modern Western standards.

In addition, lobotomies would tend to destroy all sexuality, rather than to make someone change their orientation.

"Implanted electrodes" implies some kind of mind control technology, of the sort featured more in science-fiction movies than in reality. Unless, of course, you know different. In which case, I'd appreciate a cite.

The experiments with electrodes were largely carried out by Robert G. Heath of Tulane University. You can find a summary of his research, which included direct stimulation of the septal region of the brain (the so-called "pleasure center"), here; some of the papers are available on my website. Yes, neural electrodes are very much a mind control technology, just like drugs and brainwashing techniques. The US government invested heavily in the exploration of these technologies as part of the so-called MKULTRA program.

As for lobotomies, you are correct that they would rather destroy sexuality than change sexual orientation -- however, to the researchers doing the experiments, these effects are largely the same. If the homosexual no longer reacts positively to images of homosexual acts, well, then he has obviously been "cured" of his homosexuality. As for the occurance of such lobotomies, a simple Google search will help you.—Eloquence 11:36, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

Section on moral attacks

EuroTom commented out the section on likening homosexuality to deviant sexual and social behavior. Maybe there should be a separate article homosexuality and sexual deviance, and that particular issue summarized in the main article, as it indeed dominates it right now. On the other hand, one could argue that these particular attacks have dominated the discourse itself for a long time, and the length afforded to them is appropriate (given that they no longer dominate the discourse in countries where homosexuality is tolerated, including most western nations, they are discussed in the final section of the article). Personally, I can live with both solutions, but commenting out sections is not a good approach as it only hides the perceived problem.--Eloquence* 02:14, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

POV material on Paedophillia

I see the section entitled "Moral attacks based on linking homosexuality to other behaviors" is still very POV. I would like to suggest this article be marked as being under debate untill all such POV issues can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

I describe my objections below:

Historically, homosexuality has often been linked in the public mind to other sexual behaviors, such as pedophilia, and even to serial murders.

The starting sentence is extremely controversial: what evidence is there to suggest that such a widespread "link" actually exists in the "public mind"? (which public mind? The American public mind? The Indonesian public mind? The conservative public mind? The liberal public mind? Am I getting my point across here?) How is homosexuality linked to serial murders? Does it mean that many homosexuals are the victims of serial murders and, if so, what does that have to do with the subject matter of this article? Does it mean that many homosexuals are serial muderers? In which case, what evidence is there to back this up?

Homosexuality was listed in psychological manuals as one of many sexual disorders, and many attempts were made to treat it. This perception of homosexuality as a disease can in part be explained with psychology's roots in the theories of Sigmund Freud, who believed that early childhood influences determined the later sexual orientation of a person. Researchers concluded that children could be "made gay", deliberately or involuntarily.

This above is true, but is covered in detail in other articles (Homosexuality and psychology) and seems unrelated to the topic (other behaviour) of the section is in, or even the last sentence. It more appropriately belongs in the opposition section of this document.

At the same time, pedophiles saw in the sexual revolution their best chance to get society to acknowledge pedophilia as normal and to accept what they believed to be consensual sexual relationships between adults and children.

The above is highly controversial but there is not mention of this. Obviously there are many others are opposed to this statement.

While there are heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles, research by Edward Brongersma, Frits Bernard and Rüdiger Lautmann shows that the majority of pedophiles (60-90%) seek relationships with boys. Even if this data is invalidated by new research, so-called "boy lovers" were at least more visible and better organized than heterosexual pedophilia advocates. Other researchers have argued that pedophiles with no adult sexuality -- ones attracted only to children, not women or men -- should be considered neither homosexual nor heterosexual.

There is considerable evidence that the research by Edward Brongersma, Frits Bernard and Rüdiger Lautmann doesn't actually demonstrate a link between homosexuality and padedophllia. Citing this evidence, and the considerbale other evidence disputing the above claim, as well as mentioning the various proffesional bodies who refute the link would greatly improve the quality of this section.

Among a public that was struggling to understand the fast changes of sexual norms and values, the distinction between homosexuals who sought consensual relationships with other men, and homosexual pedophiles who wanted to legalize sex with children was sometimes lost. To make the situation more confusing, "boy lovers" initially used umbrella organizations like the International Lesbian and Gay Association to publicize their views on the ability of children to consent to sexual relationships. They believed that the successful gay rights movement could be used to piggyback their own views.

Again, some evidence to support this assertion would greatly improve the NPOV of this article, as would some opposing views. It should be made clear that these views are generally held by those opposed to homosexuality and are controversial. If no evidence can be found then this section should be deleted.

In the 1980s and 1990s, "boy lovers" increasingly left gay rights groups because they no longer felt represented, and joined existing pedophilia advocacy groups or formed new ones. Today, pedophilia advocates are organized internationally in advocacy groups like the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA, United States), AG Pädo (Germany), and Vereniging MARTIJN (Netherlands).

This material seems unrelated to the subject matter at hand and would probably better belong in a history of paedophillia.

The presence of pedophiles among gay rights groups contributed to public misconceptions about homosexuality, which is now generally recognized as distinct from pedophilia. It was also exploited by anti-gay groups who tried to support their "recruitment" argument with statements often gleaned from "boy lovers" operating within or outside the gay rights movement. The recruitment argument in turn was used to argue that homosexuals are a danger to children.

This is a repeat of material already in this section (third paragraph) so should probably be integrated with the other material or dealt with in a similar fashion.

Homosexual serial killers [1] (http://web.wt.net/~pdhunter/hsk.html) like John Wayne Gacy did not exactly contribute to a positive public perception of homosexuality either.

Again, evidence that homosexual serial killers really did not "contribute to a positive public perception of homosexuality" would improve the quality of this article. I don't really think there is a sizeable opposition to homosexuality because everyone is afraid that they're all killers.

A slightly more moderate argument against homosexuality is that, given the moments of common history among gay rights and pedophilia advocates, it is likely that an increased tolerance of homosexuality would encourage pedophiles to push forward with their own agenda. This slippery slope argument holds that while homosexuality itself may not be particularly harmful to society, it opens the door for other "sexual perversions.

I don't really think that Wikipedia is the place to assert what is and isn't "moderate arguments agaisnt homosexuality". We should not cite controversies as facts, but describe the controversies making it clear who holds what opinions and that they are disputed. Counter arguments would greatly help the neutrality of this page.

In summary, this section needs a lot of work to bring it in-line with the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. It's very ambigious what this section is actually trying to achieve and how it relates to the rest of the article. Do we need it or can the controversies covered here be integrated into the other sections of the document, for example? Do the controveries actually have anything to do with "morality", or does the entire article belong in another article? Can or should such a controversial topic be covered by an encylopedia like this?

Again, in the meantime I submit this article be marked as being controversial. I also ask that as many people come along and submit their ideas and edits so as we can reach a more moderate and balanced article. --Axon 15:30, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, mark as controversial, for the time being. I would actually just as soon go for a general rewrite of the whole article, on the following grounds:

1. There's no real working definition of 'homosexual' - since we're talking about multiple people's viewpoints, I think a bit about how some people see homosexuality as an act and others see it as an inborn blah blah blah might be necessary (maybe we could use the bit about morality and genetic determination as a starting point).
2. The section about homosexuals in Nazi Germany is misleading. To say the Nazis persecuted homosexuality doesn't really cover the ambivalence of their position at all.
3. Curiously, no mention of lobotomization as a "cure" for homosexuality. Is this debated?
4. Generally, the article is leggy and sprawling - it reads like there has been considerable editing from two or more writers with very different views with little attempt to consolidate.

I think as far as the issue of pedophilia and homosexuality is concerned, there is a valid point to be made that for a long time they were considered to be the same. Though few would make the statement today, there are definately still many people who would be concerned about leaving their children alond with a gay man or who believe that gay people, gay men especially, should not be allowed to adopt, suggesting the myth still very much exists. A brief discussion of why this is and why it may be wrong could be useful, but no, not the discussion that is there now.

-Seth Mahoney 20:37, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Marked as disputed. Actually, I think the main part of the article seems balanced to me. The articles Homosexuality and Homosexuals in Nazi Germany are probably the best places to discuss these controversies. For example, I wrote the section on Nazis merely an example of non-religious "moral" objections to homosexuality.

I'm not saying that the main part of the article isn't balanced, but that it could use a rewrite so it has a more consistent and readable style.

Similarly, I'm not sure why we would need to discuss "cures" for homosexuality, or why we need to specifically focus on lobotomy as a cure. Surely, this article is just about moral arguments for and against homosexuality?

"Cures" were already mentioned, and rightly so. Since we're on the topic of homosexuality and morality, I think it is justified to mention one of the most immoral attempts at "curing" in the history of "cures". I mean, with a general article title like "Homosexuality and morality", editors are put in the position of discussion moral positions against homosexuality as well as the morality of some of those positions and actions taken with those positions as justification.

I agree that some people have and still do regard homosexuality and paedophillia as the same. I just think the way such information is presented here is highly biased and more properly belongs in the "those who disapprove" section. --Axon 09:57, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gotcha. Agreed. -Seth Mahoney 23:18, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

I would agree that the whole document could probably use some rewriting for clarity and modelled into a more cohesive flow. On the subject of cures,I agree that the possibility of curing homosexuality has certainly been used as an argument against. Just not sure where you are going with the "lobotomy" angle. --Axon 10:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm basically just saying, look, if you're going to mention "cures" from the world of psychology like ECT, you really have to mention the mother of all "cures" for homosexuality that was used by that institution, and that would be the lobotomy. One reason is that we don't want to accidentally paint the picture that these psychologists, acting out of concern for the patients, were just applying treatments that did no permanant harm. Another is that there's a flip side to the relationship of "homosexuality and morality" and that side contains the very immoral things done in the name of saving gay people from themselves. -Seth Mahoney 20:15, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

I concur. On another note, how exactly should we deal with this article. It seems the whole subject matter is dealt with in other sections: for example, arguments "for" the morality of homosexuality should more properly belong in the gay rights article. Religious arguments for and against should, surely, belong in the Religion and homosexuality articles? etc. What was the original intent of this article? How does its subject matter differ from these other articles? Does the original author's out there have any opinion on this matter? --Axon 13:44, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not one of the original authors, but I think arguments could be made for its existence on the following grounds:

1. As one of a set of "Homosexuality and..." articles, presenting the relationship between homosexuality and some other social or political entity.

2. As a sort of overview article (like a well-developed list) directing readers to other articles, with a brief explanation of the relationship. For example, if I wanted to read about various moral positions regarding homosexuality I might not think to search for "homosexuality and religion" and I almost certainly wouldn't think to search for "homosexuality and psychology". This article lets me search for "homosexuality morality" and find some general-overview text, along with links to other articles that contain pertinent information.

So, I would say that we should approach the article as outlined in #2, identifying people who have spoken out on moral grounds in support or opposition to homosexuality, gay rights, gay marriage, etc., and pointing out other articles, especially those in the "homosexuality and..." category that deal with a particular institution's relationship to the morality of homosexuality et al. It should be a very general sort of overview that basically functions in the same way as a list. -Seth Mahoney 21:53, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think there might be an argument for making this an index page to all moral, ethical and philosophical issues related to homosexuality. So, it could link to the "Homosexuality and Religion" pages, plus links to such pages as "Homosexuality and Atheism", "Homosexuality and Civil Rights, etc relating all non-religious moral and ethical arguments for and against homosexuality. Although, this would require not an inconsiderable amount of work. Also, this makes the page a category rather than a article. However, I still think most of the content on this page belongs more properly in other pages. Perhaps we could also shorten it to summarise morale, ethical and philosophical arguments for and against homosexuality. Again, knowing why this page was initially created and what it sets out "to do" would be immensely helpful.

Also, I've always pondered whether the title of the article is itself POV with it's implicit assumption that homosexuality and morality are non-seperate issues and it's suggestion that morality does apply to homosexuality. Not sure if there is an argument for changing the title and what you would change it to ('Homosexuality and ethics'?). However, I think that all the content in the page is repeated in other places and simply re-editing this page might not be a solution.

Certainly, the introduction to the article is somewhat POV. Not only does it explicitly link paedophillia and homosexuality (the author seems to want to make a link between these two issues wherever and whenever possible) it also randomly links to Reparative Therapy (why must all pages that Ed Poor has edited link to the Reparative Therapy page?) --Axon 18:42, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think there is an argument for linking to the reparative therapy page. I mean, "reparative therapy" is one way people arguing against homosexuality like to "deal" with it. I think there is also a place for arguments that would try to link homosexuality and pedophilia. I agree, though, the intro isn't the place to do it.

As far as the title goes, I think it is fine, so long as we neither make the page a moral diatribe against homosexuality nor an attempt to sweep under the rug any possible moral issues raised. I don't think there is an implicit assumption in the title that leads to the conclusion that morality necessarily applies to homosexuality (though I think morality does apply to homosexuality, like all sexuality and all other human actions, so maybe I'm biased). I mean, if I said, "my computer and the sky" I'm not implying any necessary relationship between them, just at most positing the possibility of one.

I'm also not so much opposed to duplicating (in abbreviated form) content from other pages, so long as it meshes together into a relevant and readable whole, especially if we do decide to make this some sort of readable index page. -Seth Mahoney 22:11, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

I agree there are arguments for linking to Reparative therapy but I just don't think it needs to be linked to in the initial paragraph anymore than, say, same-sex marriage needs to be linked in the first paragraph. I think particular care should be taken to ensure that the first paragraphs of all articles be as neutral and as possible.

From my own perspective as a moral relativist I do not consider it appropriate to apply morality to homosexuality. Being gay is neither good nor bad, it merely is. This is my primary objection to the title of this page, although I suppose one could argue that it is a page for opinions about homosexaulity from those who believe in morality in which case the title probably is valid. However, the title does exclude the opinions for and against homosexuality of those who do not hold in morality.

I think making this a summary of moral arguments for and against, linking to other "Homosexuality and..." pages would perhaps be more proper. Would this make this page a category or an article, though? For an example of what I imagine this page should look like see Religion and homosexuality --Axon 12:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it could still be an article, though there could be a matching category, I suppose. It might get a little burdensome, though, and I think there are appropriate enough existing categories for any relevant articles.

I agree with your assertion that reparative therapy et al shouldn't be in the introduction paragraph. In fact, maybe we should take it a step further and not include any specific issues in the intro, just maybe a brief description of morality, morality as it applies to sexuality, and morality as it might apply to homosexuality specifically. Each section can then be devoted to discussion a certain position or a certain issue, with as many relevant links as possible. As far as the particular format, what I'm imagining is far more structured than religion and homosexuality, something more along the lines of an index with abstracts. -Seth Mahoney 17:32, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable. I have to admit though, I'm somewhat reluctant to edit this page after the rather ferocious edit war I'm ashamed to say I was involved with here, previously. Not to be lazy, but I would prefer to watch while you start work and then join in later as needed. --Axon 17:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll work on it throughout the week then. -Seth Mahoney 19:33, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I worked on the article to try to eliminate any biases and make it more objective today Jan 14. What do you think?

"Reactions" section

Does anybody else feel that the "reactions" section could be touched-up in terms of neutrality? I don't think phrases like "so-called" and the use of quotation marks around words such as "therapy" would be missed.