Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Homosexuality. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Confussion and Agenda

I cannot stress enough how important it is from now on that EVERYONE who posts or edits ANYTHING here be specific. The uncertainty and vague, misleading statements of this article contribute to the overall inaccuracy of the entire Wikipedia project. This sounds more like the homepage for a political movement than a serious encyclopedic entry. Especially when invoking scientific studies or experiments, medical or religious therapies, or population surveys, YOU MUST SPECIFY what you mean by orientation or homosexuality. ALMOST EVERY SINGLE article here means something slightly different when it says homosexuality. Therefore, they cannot possibly all bear relevance to the same, unified topic. If a study was conducted that associates homosexuality with a preference for latex based wall paint, and the study found that American men between the ages of 18 and 24 who engaged in vigorous, mutual grooming, became enraged if anyone suggested to them to buy any other kind, then in your post/edit, PLEASE SPECIFY the EXACT RELEVANT DATA. -(Never Ailing 13:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

Cite id

What are these things for? <cite id="fn_1"></cite> Hyacinth 04:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Irangay teens.jpg

We seem to have a bit of an edit war going on regarding this image. Edit wars are bad. So, let's discuss. Do note the that image is listed on WP:PUI. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 11:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC) I'm 99% sure that this edit war is lame. I am simiarlly 99% sure we can solve it by finding the copyright information on the damne'd picture. It should be noted that theres a lead on its origin in the lower right hand corner. I'm sure those highly intrested in having the picture remain can find the damned thing.--Tznkai 14:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to revert, it is stupid, but do not make unsupportable accusations, Tzankai, this fellow has been removing not only the picture but also the links to the articles. I do not have time now to do this but the copyright belongs to the Iranian Student News Agency. 69.118.250.245 16:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Then put it on the damned picture page!--Tznkai 16:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Gave WP:FU a good readthrough, and while I'm not sure if I understand it all, fair use needs to be heavely justified. According to the ten step processes, it doesn't seem it is fair use. Can someone track down the copyright holders and ask for permission under GDFL? In the meantime, I think this is legitimate dispute. Can we find a replacement image in the meantime?--Tznkai 17:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I have found the copyright holders: [1]. The entire site, however, is in Arabic, and I therefore have no idea as how to contact the copyright holder. If anyone speaks / reads Arabic, please go to this site and attempt to contact the copyright holder. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 18:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That promises to be pain in the ass. Any chance of being able to pipeline the request through a larger news service by chance? --Tznkai 18:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they seem to have the only images of this... I've yet to see a single report with imags that are not the images from this site... that said, there are several web services with these pictures, including one that has removed the source from the bottom (it's the National Council of Resistance of Iran, may be a bit biased against Iranian media...). So yeah...doesn't look too good. On a side, very POV note, I am absolutely disgusted by this behavior. Looking for images, there are pics of what looks like them crying [2] and of men seemingly calm and discussing their whipping or hanging [3]... Gods... -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 18:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

As well you should. If we can atleast get the copy right information robust, and someone who understands copyright law better than I, and can explain it, we can restore it.--Tznkai 18:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at Image talk:Irangay teens.jpg. We're just about done here, so if someone could finish the taggging process with our specific fair use justifications, we can go ahead and stick it back in the article--Tznkai 14:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

They aren't gay. I have found a translator on the internet. The translation is not complete, but it is readable. The translasion says that they have stolen, wine drinking and breach revolves general composition. Look for your self: http://www.systranbox.com/systran/box?systran_lp=ar_en&systran_id=SystranSoft-en&systran_url=http://isna.ir/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-556874&systran_f=1136907317

Well, that would certainly put an interesting spin on this conversation, but I'm not sure I draw the same conclusion. There is so little actual content that comes through, it's hard to say what it means: "him commitment of robbery raised, breach revolves general composition, wine drinking and for watt for watt in him imprisoned"? Besides, I would expect the "Iranian Student News Agency" to be writing in Farsi, not Arabic, which would certainly explain why an Arabic translator would do such a dismal job, and it casts even further doubt on the output. (Imagine running French through a German-to-English translator—there are a few loan words, and a few chance overlaps, but one wouldn't expect much signal....) /blahedo (t) 16:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You have a good point. I found a German page with more about it. It come from a German (news)paper. Have a look for your self: http://www.joerg-hutter.de/iran_gay_teenagers_hanged_July_2005.htm

Spitzer edit

Spitzer's study did not show a 99.98% failure rate, and it is misleading to claim that as the result of the study. I'm not sure where the figure came from, but one source appears to be the analysis of the study on the religioustolerance.org page. [4] These are back-of-the-envelope surmises and are not an appropriate way to summarize a scientific study. The study itself was a very limited one, and within the limits of the study---which is to say, 274 people referred to Spitzer who claimed to have changed their sexual orientation---66% had achieved good heterosexual functioning. The study itself is not online, but some of the ex-gay ministries have reasonably balanced summaries that can at least be relied on for numbers. See for instance [5]

I am not sure where that figure came from either. I will remove it. And I also added some context to it that I found on GLAAD, let me know if you have any objections. 70.57.82.114 22:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

False dualism

The section called "Genetics, hormones, malleability and sexual orientation" posited an unfortunately common false choice about the "origin" of sexual orientation. That is, there's a nasty bout of biological reductionism running around in our culture; it posits that sexual orientation can either be: (a) Biologically determined; or (b) purely voluntary. After I tried to add a slight measure of subtlety here, editor 70.57.82.114, took it back out (demanding citations which are not present for any of the other explanatory frameworks presented.

There are other explanatory choices available (and indeed, probably largely correct). I tried—very compactly—to characterize another dimension as "formative childhood experiences" (though even that is a bit narrower than ideal). Basically, that stands for a whole range of possible pyschological or psychoanalytic ideas about the formation of sexual identities (and of sexual desires). Some of this is a nod to Freud, but it's not only Freudians who talk about these approaches.

Just by way of a fairly pat motivating analogy, let me present my standard schtick. It's pretty damn clear that spoken language (as in which one) is darn near 100% environmental in cause. The only slight exceptions are the slice of people who don't develop in a way to acquire natural language at all (or to do so fully)—i.e. people with brain damage and the like. On the other hand, it is definitely not "voluntary" on my part not to wake up tomorrow speaking Mandarin. Formative experiences made me into a native English speaker. Likewise, I can equally little decide to wake up tomorrow with a whole different sexual orientation than the one I have today. Still, I might learn Mandarin eventually, and my sexual orientation might shift over the course of my life (in fact, it has, as has that of about everyone I've ever met or heard about).

Unfortunately, both homophobes and homophiles have developed something of a conformant ideological presupposition that makes it easier to think only about "biological destiny." For pro-gay folks biological reductionism means "It's not our choice, it's our genes/hormones/etc". For anti-gay bigots, biological reductionism means "They can be cured once we find the right drugs, gene treatment, etc." Both perspectives, while comforting in their childish simplicity, miss the diversity, historicity and complexity of human sexual behavior and desire. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:22, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

I'm totally behind you if you want to include more info on this sort of view. I can probably pull up some sources, too, if you need em. -Seth Mahoney 02:48, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Lulu to my knowledge there is not scientific backing that an exclusively homosexual person can become even somewhat heterosexual. Or am I mistaken? 70.57.82.114 23:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

"Biology is destiny"

There is an anonymous editor (who seems to be at 70.57.82.114 consistently) who seems to feel very strongly that explanations of homosexuality involving pre-natal biological causation will win out. That's fine; such is a well known and widely held opinion that should be presented. However, s/he has taken this believe too far in really pushing a POV in the article. Specifically, each time I (or other editors) try to include some balanced language about the "nurture" side of causation explanations, 70.57.82.114 seems to insert rather hyperbolic language about how "discredited" nurture explanations are, and how "it is universally believed", and similar.

That sort of thing is really quite inappropriate. Especially since his/her textual support amounts to stuff like the APA writing ""considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality." "Significant role" is a very long way from the sort of complete determinism this editor wants to push. I don't deny that there are far-reaching determinists, but the APA position isn't like that.

Odd conclusions of bio-reductionists

1. One thing that always struck me as odd about the bio-reductionists is that they've always been convinced that it is conclusively proven that biological explanations are the right ones. And yet, they rarely agree on exactly which such explanations are actually true: Maybe it's a gene; maybe it's a virus; maybe it's a hormone level in utero; maybe it's an enlarged brain region; etc. Finding that any of a dozen biological explanations each have a modicum of supporting evidence isn't the same as "conclusively proven"... and WP should be more neutral. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:52, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

2. Another thing that also strikes me as odd about the bio-reductionists is the false equation biology==invariant. Obviously, there's no such necessary rule, regardless of the actual malleability of human sexual orientation. For example, wholly unrelated to my sexual orientation (most likely), I know perfectly well that my testosterone level will change over the course of my lifetime. Probably it was highest when I was a late adolescent, and it's probably been creeping lower since then (I just say this as a general human pattern, mine has never been measured to my knowledge). But I also know that the level would be affected if I were to take steroids or other drugs. It would be affected if I were to start exercising more (or less). It can be affected by some diseases I might get. This one is probably somewhat affected by my actual sexual activity (especially amount thereof). Testerone level is affected by foods I eat (to a moderate degree). And so on. Moreover, even proteins or enzymes directly tied to a specific gene can be activated or deactivated by the sorts of factors I list above. Or brain regions, or other organic features, can also be affected by life histories, and by the mere fact of aging.

In other words, there's nothing about the hypothesis that "sexual orientation is biologically determined" that forces, or even particularly encourages, the conclusion that "sexual orientation is constant over a lifetime." Those two statements are utterly unrelated, logically. There's a really simplistic collection of false correlations that some homophiles like to believe: "I was born this way, therefore I'll always be this way!" I can see why it might lend comfort, but it has no implicational weight at all. Moreover, there's nothing about the "nurture" hypothesis (i.e. formative childhood experiences) that implies anything about malleability. Some things from childhood stick with my my whole life (phobias maybe, language acquisition, some beliefs probably, etc); other things change more quickly and voluntaristically. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:17, 2005 August 20 (UTC)

I'm a queer biologist, and as such you'd think I'd support these assertions, but you're right, they are false. There is biological evidence to support that being a gay male does have biological markers in the brain, olfactory senses, etc., but all this proves is that gay males are biologically different than straight males. Bisexual men are still held in contention. There is no "gay gene" discovery, and frankly, I hope they never find one for fear of eugenics. Curiously, there is no such distinction between straight women and lesbians. This is hypothesized to relate to reproduction. What I'm saying is biology proves that gay people exist and that's about it. --Waterspyder 03:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Odd conclusions of social reductionist

1. Well given that the APA says sexual orientation is determined at birth or otherwise extremely early in life (before puberty) and that you cannot change your sexual orientation I find your personal essay hard to believe. 70.57.82.114 00:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC) (I accidentally deleted this sentence when reorganizing, sorry Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters)

Oh, brief comment on the subheading: I know that I am not a "social reductionist" (and I'm pretty sure I can likewise speak for editor Sethmahoney in this regard). For most any phenotypic feature, I'm pretty much what you'd call a "strong interactionist" (except I wouldn't exactly claim sexual orientation is wholly a phenotypic feature of an organism, as opposed to a performative act, i.e. see Judith Butler). For some good background on the concept, read some books by Richard Lewontin or Stephen Jay Gould. They don't write much about sexual orientation as such, but they write a whole lot on bio-reductionism (and why it's bad... this from two of the greatest biologists of the 20th C). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:49, 2005 August 20 (UTC)

Before you go off about anyone's "personal essay", you might read the articles social constructionism and queer theory. -Seth Mahoney 02:20, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have read it, and many queer historians now think the idea of pure social constructionism is a farce. (Louis Crompton) Psychologist, psychiatrist, nor biolgist believe you can determine your own sexual orientation. For example: APA states sexual orientation is determined probably before birth or shortly thereafter (with probable biological causes), to date absolutely no study has even found correlation tying societal attitudes to homosexual orientation, in fact the APA stated just the opposite, saying it is constant even in society's that have the death penalty for it. Furthermore they all say you cannot change your sexual orientation. You may be able to develop fetishes, but this is not by a long shot sexual orientation. [[User:|70.57.82.114]] 10:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Who said anything about determining one's own sexual orientation? Maybe you should reread those articles. -Seth Mahoney 16:29, August 20, 2005 (UTC)0

It's also foolish to cite some alleged "queer historian" that I've never even heard of, while ignoring important and universally recognized historians like John Boswell (who was clearly interested in the "historicity of sex").[*] I suppose everyone reject the grotesque voluntaristic parody given above, but neither psychologists, psychiatrists, nor even biologists are uniform (nor probably even majority) in reducing sexual orientation to purely biological factors (certainly such is very contrary to the APA's policy statements). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

[*]An Amazon search on Crompton shows he wrote a 2003 book Homosexuality and Civilization that might be interesting to read. My strong hunch is that Dr. Crompton holds nothing like the parodically simplistic positions that 70.57.82.114 keeps advancing (but I might be wrong).

Quick rant re: above, reading unnecessary

Okay, I'm getting a little frustrated with the all-too-common immediate assumption that "sexuality is fluid" means "you can change from A to B!" and that "sexuality is socially constructed" means "sexuality is fake". So, hey, people, if you see me make either of those statements, please please please don't make either of those assumptions. I'm all too glad to chat about what these statements do mean, but don't insist there's something going on that isn't going on. -Seth Mahoney 16:33, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I rather agree with Sethmahoney here. It is rather annoying for 70.57.82.114 to keep suggesting grotesque parodies of psychological causation and/or social constructionism as strawman arguments. S/he has provided some good material on the fetal hormone hypotheses, and a good paragraph (that I mostly added to the article) as a summary of the reparative therapy folks. But it's just plain insulting for her/him to continually refuse to read the actual words I write either on the talk page or in the article(s), and instead make believe that everyone who doesn't actively endorse the theory-of-the-week about fetal hormones is some kind of Abrahamic voluntaristic-choice homophobe. If you are not able to understand ideas outside of your favorite one, 70.57.82.114, please just refrain from insulting other editors and editing the parts you don't/can't understand. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Defense of bio-reductionism

I don't feel I have been pushing a POV. In fact I thought you were by inserting extremely vague sentences which could lead users to erroneously believe that Kinsey thought sexual orientation was changeable. I was correcting errors, you said psychologist believe in nurture views in contrast to biologist. That's wrong. Psychologists have not believed in that for a few decades now. The APA says you cannot catch homosexuality from homosexual parents just like you cannot do it vice versa. And the APA quote I gave you is not the sole support and you generalizing it in that way is inappropriate. I never said it was conclusively proven, but that at the moment the prenatal hormones have the largest scientific backing out of any of the theories. Notices how all the results found in all those experiments you mention are tied into it, the virus, and the hormonal level, which then creates the brain differences. 70.57.82.114 23:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Kinsey most certainly recognized (the obvious fact) that sexual orientations evolve over the course of a human lifetime. The difference between this and some sort of voluntaristic and homophobic "reparative therapy" is a very wide chasm. People's sexual histories are no more likely to go gay->straight than to go straight->gay, and in fact, this dimension is only one of many that evolves: age preferences, appearance preferences, sexual acts preferred, etc., all part of a reasonable concept of sexual orientation (and all studied by Kinsey). There's nothing normative about the fact that people change over their lives.

As to the APA, 70.57.82.114 has provided no evidence whatsoever that they support an "all nature" explanation, nor even that they support a "mostly nature" theory. The only quote s/he provided said that the APA thinks a "significant role" is likely for biological factors. I don't particularly disagree; though a number of major professional psychoanalytic and psychological organizations would. In any case, the world of science doesn't start and stop with American biologists and neurologists (other disciplines and other places have different focuses).

The silliness about "catching" homosexuality from parents seems to be some sort of myth the homophobic religious right likes to talk about. Obviously, no scientist in any field believes such simplistic tripe (though geneticists are probably more likely to than any other specialty). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:30, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

So you admit that Kinsey was only saying that you could develop certain tastes, most certainly not for another gender if you were exclusively homosexual. You have provided nothing showing that Kinsey said you could change sexual orientation.

Here is a nice quotation from the APA: "Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture." Statement on Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, 1994-JUL. [6] So in response to this "though a number of major professional psychoanalytic and psychological organizations would" show me a citation, something you have completely failed to do.

New paragraphs

I am thinking about adding three sections the the biology area, one paragraph each.

I'm happy with the first paragraph, or something close to it. I think your long discussion of fetal hormone stuff (further below) really would be good for an independent article that could link from here. On the reparative therapy stuff, that seems to go under the "Humans are all heterosexual" section. But I already took out a huge discussion there, since linked articles discuss it in detail. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:26, 2005 August 20 (UTC)

Here is a draft:

One of the most extensively researched hypothesizes on the formation of sexual orientation is the prenatal hormonal theory. It holds that just as exposure to circulating sex hormones determines whether a fetus will be male or female, such exposure dictates sexual orientation. There have been a number of human and animal studies since the 1990s that have consistently found correlation between the two, however while in some animals this theory has been proven to be casual (the cause) in humans it is still the subject of in-depth peer review and at the moment is limited to correlation.

Reparative therapy is psychotherapy aimed at the elimination of homosexual attractions and is employed by people who do not think homosexuality is one variation within human sexual orientation, but rather still believes homosexuality is a mental disorder. Transformational ministry indicates the use of religion to eliminate homosexual attractions. While reparative therapy relies on secular theories, transformational ministry takes the approach that the destruction of homosexuality is possible through repentance and faith, usually in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Reparative therapy, conversion therapy and transformational ministry is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions.

70.57.82.114 00:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hormones

General comment: The fetal hormonal exposure stuff is interesting. But I tend to think it's rather tangential to this page. It's worth mentioning in a general way, but the detailed citations and discussion should go elsewhere (this page is already too long). I've put this material in Fetal hormones and sexual orientation (but taken it off this talk page; talk about it at that page). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:20, 2005 August 20 (UTC)

"Our anon fetal hormone editor still overstates the number and consistency of human studies." All the humans studes thus far have found consistently the same results. How is this less consistently? Do you know fo a study that found differing results? 70.57.82.114 22:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll find some citations for the talk page (soon, probably not today). But the studies done are quite limited, and science has a rather consistent "bias against the null hypothesis" (i.e. if ten studies were found lacking correlations, they would go unpublished... in any field, not about this hypothesis specifically). I only start feeling a hypothesis has real strength when quite a bit more study has been done, and quite a bit higher confidence intervals have been shown than have so far with human fetal hormone links to sexual orientation.

In general, I'd feel much more comfortable with some sort of adjective indicating the newness and tentativeness of these correlative studies. I think my initial "weakly" was more than necessary, but a flat statement that "they have been found" is equally excessive in the other direction. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:42, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

Actually, my citation can be the very same 2000 Breedlove study that our friend in Farmington includes in Fetal hormones and sexual orientation. Background is that length of ring finger relative to index finger is strongly correlated with fetal testosterone levels. That fact is rather well established quite apart from sexual orientation. Breedlove found an additional much weaker correlation between implied fetal testosterone and sexual orientation, with lesbians in particularly being most strongly androgynized. It's definitely interesting. Gay men show the same pattern (gays more androgynized), but to a smaller degree.

However, there is a huge overlap between the suggested fetal testosterone levels and sexual orientation. That is, on average of a bunch of lesbians had higher fetal testosterone than a paired group of straight women. But many lesbians had lower fetal testosterone than the straight-woman average. And many straight women had higher fetal testosterone than the lesbian average. The standard deviation within each group is much more than the mean difference between the groups.

So what does it show? Well, I dunno. There's something potentially interesting there, especially if it can be replicated in much larger samples. But it's hardly clear causation, nor even clear correlation. What it amounts to might be something like (purely hypothetically): "High testesterone exposure female fetuses have a 10% chance of becoming lesbian; low testosterone exposure female fetuses have a 5% chance of becoming lesbian." But that's about the strongest conclusion I can imagine coming out of this (and it hasn't yet, it's been suggested), and that's a relatively weak factor. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:00, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

Norms of reaction

Btw. This stuff is really old hat. I wrote quite a bit about it long before the isolated studies in the last couple years. The stuff to understand from smart folk like Richard Lewontin is largely that Nature versus nurture is a silly distinction once you talk about "norms of reaction". Somewhere like 1997, I wrote a comment to the Usenet (way before WP was around) that is still worth reading IMO. It's on my website at: http://gnosis.cx/publish/biology/bio_norm.html. It's also here (maybe worth including in some article; like, e.g. Norms of reaction) :

Talk:Homosexuality/Norms of reaction

I mention genotypes in the article, but the same analysis (and ASCII art) apply equally to a fetal hormone theory.

Reduce "reparative therapy" discussion

The material on the conversionists is way too much for this article. It's a tangential group (quite apart from being rather offensive). I think the articles on reparative therapy, Exodus International, and the like contain all the concepts (and criticisms). But I put the deletiae below to enable a more careful comparison of what was here to what is already in the linked pages (I'll try to get to it; but other editors please feel welcome). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:18, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

Talk:Homosexuality/Conversionists

WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

Someone added a tag for this WikiProject (I think it's been reverted). This is a prime example of overreach (excuse me? you think an article on homosexuality and bisexuality are inherently indecent? Here comes the censorship!). Anybody reading this might find the VfD page here interesting Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Wtf is going on with this article? It seems to have been deleted. I needed to look up some info on research in homosexuality in the 1960's and the whole article is gone. - 8/23/05

This article is a frequent target of vandals. In the case you observed it was blanked. Such vandalism is usually reverted fairly quickly. See also Wikipedia:Vandalism.

If you run into other blank pages, you can visit the history, find the latest non-blank or otherwise non-vandalised version, edit that version and save it with an edit summary such as "rv blanking". MichaelSlone 16:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Disputed phrase

This phrase has been undergoing an edit war today:

...and a fascination with adolescent youths continues to be a part of modern queer culture.

This phrase has been in there for a while, so I think the burden-of-proof is on those who want to remove it.

My personal opinion is the phrase is innocuous, and moderately informative (I didn't write it, and don't feel that strongly about its inclusion). What are the objections to it? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:18, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was innocuous. It seems rather non-neutral to me, and unless someone can provide some pretty impressive references I'd rather see it gone. Exploding Boy 00:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Would you feel the same objection if an adjective was added, such as: ...and a fascination with adolescent youths continues to be a minor subcurrent of modern queer culture.?

I've been bold and rewritten the phrase to remove some of the incorrect implications that the original wording had:

Fascination with youth can also be found in modern male sexuality, both heterosexual and homosexual.

The problem with the original phrase was twofold: it implies a continuous connection (which may be true but would really hard to justify over such a long period), and worse, it implies that fascination with youth isn't as much a feature of heterosexual male sexuality. Which it is.

I think the statement serves a useful purpose: to remind people that attraction to youth isn't something relegated to classical periods.

Ben Arnold 00:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Much better. Exploding Boy 00:55, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

The phrase implies a hihger rate of pedophilia among homosexuals. An assertion that is untrue and strongly POV. I can't believe its even an issue here. (On second thought considering the high rate of ignorance among people in general perhaps its not so unbelievable.)

Tendencies to suppress the subject of homosexuality on some Wikipedia pages

There are some editors repeatedly removing content from Wikipedia pages when the subject of homosexuality and terms such as "gay", "homosexual" etc. have been mentioned, even when independent sources undoubtedly support the view that a specific person, for instance, a Hollywood star, was homosexual. The frequent strategy of these Wikipedia editors is to denigrate all sources which say that the said person was gay. I don't think that this is fair play. What do you think? See, for example, Talk:Nick Adams and related archive [7], Talk:Gavin Lambert, Talk:James Dean, etc.

Leviticus description

A mini- edit war emerged over the inclusion of an additional phrase describing proscriptions in Leviticus. A couple variations were tried, IMO opinion the first was too heavy-handed, but the current version seems all right:

The first recorded law against homosexuality is found in Leviticus, and it prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts between men (and also prohibits many other practices that are widespread among modern followers).

Let's work out here a compromise, rather than just revert. I can see a concern with topic drift—this is not a page for a doctrinal discussion of Leviticus. On the other hand, as stated baldly, there is an insinuation that Leviticus singles out homosexuality as an especially prohibited behavior. Some readers will know the context anyway (e.g. the prohibition of mixed threads in garments, death sentence for adultery, etc), but others will not (not everyone grew up in Abrahamic countries, for example). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:41, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

I really don't see that insinuation. If I read just "The first recorded law against homosexuality is found in Leviticus.", and knew nothing about Leviticus than that it was a religious text of some sort, I wouldn't suppose that. If you read (in theft, not Code of Hammurabi) that "The first recorded prohibition against theft was in the Code of Hammurabi" (and no, I've no clue whether or not that's the case), would you not suppose that the Code outlawed lots of other things too?

If I read (hypothetically, again not claiming the fact), that "The first recorded law against theft was in the Code of Hammurabi, which prescribed cutting off a thief's hands", I would leave with the quick impression that the Code of Hammurabi was especially concerned with theft (more so than other crimes). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:17, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to the parenthetical portion in its current form - it seems to say "Look at these hypocrites!" I think it would do very well to say "(as well as prohibiting many other practices, such as adultery, eating shellfish, not keeping the Sabbath holy [whatever])". That states the facts of the case in an NPOV way and is nearly as effective in showing the hypocrisy of gay-bashing types who like to cite Leviticus.

~~ N (t/c) 18:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I like Nickptar's suggested parenthetical. It provides the context of Leviticus having many prohibitions, while not insisting on comparison with modern practices. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:17, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

I have no problem with citing some examples of other prohibited behaviors. Discussing only the one against men sleeping with men gives it a false sense of primacy. Haiduc 19:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Nickptar's comments hit the nail on the head; the current insertion was essentially asserting hypocrisy, rather than simply stating facts. As well, it implied that "Abrahamic" groups did not follow the other Levitical laws when, in fact, some do. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not keen with the examples chosen; the ones used should be comparable, that is, they should either describe the prohibition in similar terms, or prescribe similar penalties. The "mixed threads" one in particular was clearly chosen to suggest triviality. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No, not to suggest triviality. I wish for the list of prohibitions (of which there are many in Leviticus) to include both ones that the average reader finds common sense and ones she finds surprising. That lets a reader decide for herself whether the prohibition on homosexual sex falls in the former or latter category. By selecting only the few Leviticus prohibitions that are typically still current law (or at least current morality), it biases the context greatly. FWIW, the mixed threads thing was a serious no-no to Leviticus, as much so as the violating Sabbath or adultery. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:35, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

To begin with, some groups (such as Orthodox Jews) still follow all the laws of Leviticus, including the mixing threads, crossbreeding animals, etc. Secondly, relevant examples should be used, i.e. laws that also require the death penalty. The death penalty isn't required for everything. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Leviticus 19:19, from the Good News Bible, reads Obey my orders. Do not crossbreed your cattle. Do not plant two kinds of seed in the same field. Do not wear clothing made from two kinds of fiber.

Other fun ones:

19:6 It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.

19:7 And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is abominable; it shall not be accepted.

"Abomination" of course, being the same language used about homosex.

This one seems relevant to the Jimbo beard controversy (pro/con):

19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Not so fond of my tattoos either:

19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

Was not death prescribed for some of these other offences as well? Haiduc 20:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the homosex thing takes some interpretive effort to get the death penalty also. It reads, in one translation (18:22): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." But exactly what is prohibited is unclear, e.g. [8]. Moreover, you have to combine the meaning of some other sections to get the "abomination=death penalty" bit. But the same abomination description is used of eating sacrificial food as leftovers for too long (and a bunch of things). Most prohibited acts are even less straightforward as to punishment. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:28, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Also [9]: "Nor does the naming of the death penalty mark homosexuality as particularly heinous. Also punishable by death in the Law is disobedience to parents (no age specified), picking up sticks on the Sabbath, adultery, and many other actions."

We have a debate about this every single time the issue comes up, and it's always the same argument: the pro-sodomy people try to trivialize the Levitical prohibition against sodomy by bringing up the issue of "eating shellfish", etc, although the same method could be used to excuse adultery, murder, and literally every other sin in the list. The reason why sodomy remained forbidden is because it, like adultery and murder, is specifically and unambiguously condemned in other revealed sources, as mentioned many times before.

Since "eating shellfish" and these other issues are not remotely relevant to the issue, there is no legitimate reason to mention them as a means of trivializing the prohibition in Leviticus - especially if the opposing view is not allowed to be mentioned. As Jayjg said, simply stating the prohibition is perfectly adequate, and does not "imply" anything one way or another. 66.216.226.34 21:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The prohibition is listed twice in Leviticus. The second one is: KJV, Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."[10]

That's a pretty clear death penalty. "Abomination" refers to an act of gross uncleanliness, also translated as "detestable". -Willmcw 21:11, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Right. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. I see a series of new laws have been chosen, all with the intent of shocking the reader with their "triviality". Unsurprisingly, laws near this section prohibiting placing a stumbling block before the blind, not perverting justice, gossiping, taking revenge, hating your brother, withholding a worker's wages, using false measures etc. are left out. This kind of obvious POV is not permitted in Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps then we should just mention that Leviticus prohibits a large number of things, while providing no specific examples (and letting the reader check the article Leviticus if s/he's curious). I can't really see any NPOV selection being possible in our small amount of space. ~~ N (t/c) 22:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I also note that the site chosen for the link is simply not a credible, encyclopedic source: "Our vision is to provide the training to build a new generation of confident, courageous, yet winsome and attractive ambassadors for Christ capable of restoring credibility to the Christian world view." They are seeking to be "ambassadors", i.e., promoting a certain POV about Christianity. Thus they should only be used as primary sources (in articles about themselves), rather than as secondary sources. You wouldn't use examples from a strongly anti-homosexual Christian source to discuss this law, and the same rule applies to this group. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I admit to not reading any of the above, so I may repeat what several other people have said.

1. Leviticus prohibits all SORTS of things.

2. So what?

This is an encylopedia. We report and repeat summarries and facts. We do not provide commentary. Whether the commentary is factual or not, its not our job. Readers Aren't Stupid.

Perhaps sticking in the line "within the holinness code of Leviticus is found the first law condemnning homosexuality. For those who know, they know. For those who don't, they may be curious enough to read. Lets not bludgeon the readers over the head. If we get down to it, the law within any number of legal systems in various cities, states, nations may prohbit and condemn all sorts of incongrous and silly acts and states of being, such as tying alligators to fire hydrants--Tznkai 22:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It's getting better in the current edit. The problem has always with the death penalty clause. That will lead many readers to assume that Leviticus singles out homosex with unique severity. Yes, readers who know the background won't assume that, but that's not all (or even most?) readers.

If the sentence simply read "Leviticus is the first law condemning homosexuality" and stopped there, I would feel no desire to compare it to other prohibited things in that book. This is the exact point I made above about a hypothetical discussion of Hammurabi code (it's polite to read the prior discussion, btw). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:38, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

It is simply a description of the first known source for this, and the severity with which it is viewed, and there is no reason to believe that readers will assume anything from that. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest that the entire Leviticus entry is entirely irrelevant on its own? No discussion of this passage contributes anything to this article. Now, if we were demonstrating the origin or early occurrences of admonishment of homosexuality, within the modern Christian canon, then Leviticus assumes a role as the first entry. But no one entry has any validity without most of the others. Therefore, the entire Leviticus line should either be dropped, as it is pointless, or the topic should be expanded into the key passages throughout all relevant canon that pertain to this subject. May I suggest that it is relevant if it serves or did serve to seriously develop the role of homosexuality as a sin and a crime, and the punishment and common sentiment associated with it. -Never Ailing (24.243.12.145 12:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

Help make it shorter!

This article, while generally remarkably good, is also really on the long side. Most sections contain links to "Main article(s)" and/or "See also", and much of the material in these sections could (IMO) be helpfully moved into those (shorter) linked articles.

I know this page is probably a more common entry point than most of the linked topics, so everyone wants their favorite bits here. But WP as a whole would be improved by keeping each article of moderate length, while providing generous links to related concepts. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:21, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

Queen Victoria apocrypha

An anon editor seems set on inserting an unlikely urban legend about QV not believing that lesbian sex existed. It's an old story, and almost certainly false. I tend to think that even if it can be given a citation, it's still not interesting enough for the main article; but it needs evidence at the least.

Remember friends: Less is more! Let's make this article even better by making it shorter. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:59, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

Variation on apocrypha. Our anon editor has a new spin on a tall tale. In this variant, the "couldn't believe in lesbianism" thing is shifted slightly. But according to [11] the "Labouchere amendment" 1885 says:

Section II of the Criminal Law Ammendment Act, 1885

"Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures, or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency shall be guilty of misdemeanour, and being convicted shall be liable at the discretion of the Court to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour."

Please don't just make shit up! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:25, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

Censored material

Here's the paragraph which LuLu keeps trying to censor:

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, declaring that homosexuality was not a mental disorder. This decision has been the subject of controversy, as there have been allegations (see source below) that the change in position in 1973 was conducted under circumstances which some APA members described as a climate of intimidation due to the actions of gay-rights activists. Additionally, they have pointed out that the final vote was held with only a quarter of APA members participating, out of whom only 58% voted in favor of the change (among other sources, see: 'Homosexuality, Fact and Fiction' (section: "Is Homosexuality an Illness?"))

Discussion is senseless given that the gay activists who 'own' this article never allow any opposing views to be represented, but just for the sake of argument the issue is as follows: Since the APA's 1973 decision is cited constantly in many homosexuality-related articles as a supporting argument in favor of one side, at some point the opposing side of the issue needs to be mentioned to provide some semblance of balance. The allegations cited in the above paragraph have been made by APA members themselves, and I believe that the numbers cited are not in dispute. 66.216.226.34 04:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the "citation" being a homophobic proselytic Christian site, this description is way too rambling, and only nominally relevant to the article even if it were better supported. Maybe this can go over in the DSM article, or some minor subarticle.

Please help out, other editors, in reverting this nonsense if our anon puts it in again. I did do the 3RR, so probably s/he'll be blocked for a day; but not doubt s/he'll be back after that. Thanks much. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:59, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Characterizing any opposing view as "homophobic", and then using that as an excuse to exclude it, is a good example of precisely the type of bias I was referring to. You, and a handful of other activists, have staked out ownership of this article in violation of Wikipedia policy. The admin Raul654 tried to intervene for a time, but then said that he doesn't have time to fight the "POV-pushers" who control this article. 66.216.226.34 05:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The main problem isn't that your "citation" is homophobic, it's that it is completely unreliable and POV-pushing. But no matter how much better a citation you might find, the addition is irrelevant trivia at best. Whatever the circumstances and voting procedure, the DSM really was modified... a word more than that is topic drift. It's not "the opposing view", it's pointless trivia. Notice also that the article doesn't say: "The APA changed the DSM and they were right"... if it did, that would be POV, and I'd be the first to take it out. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:32, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

I think the big problem is that you're trying to make claims that are misleading and irrelevant. What you're suggesting in essence is that there is disagreement among modern psychiatrists about whether homosexuality is a disorder; there is not. That some might hav opposed the delisting is trivia at best. Check the APA's website; it clearly states the Association's position on the matter. No respectable, reputable psychiatrists claims that homosexuality is in any way disordered. Exploding Boy 05:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Right on cue, we've had almost identical posts from two of the owners of this article, posted within minutes of each other.

The fact that 42% of the voting membership voted against the change proves that large numbers of APA members opposed the decision, regardless of the illusion of unanimous concensus which the APA's official website promotes. This is not "trivia", nor is it irrelevant given that the 1973 decision is constantly cited as evidence to back up a number of arguments made in these articles. 66.216.226.34 05:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The APA has voted on many decisions in its history, very few of them unanimous. All its positions are stated as "its positions", not long digressions on the 3 decades old voting history. In fact, the same goes for every organization that votes on positions. The Southern Baptist Convention also has various positions on various questions, and very few of its votes are unanimous. They don't then describe their own positions as "contested and unfair" once they are adopted. That's just not how the world works (not, of course, that I believe the APA vote was unfair in any sense). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:56, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

I would also note that the reference in question is highly dubious and biased, yet the position it posits is presented by 66.216.226.34 as undisputed fact. While it may be true that 58% of the APA voted in favor of removing homosexuality from the DSM (again, sources from a more reputable source are required here), I find it dubious that they did so because of "intimidation" and this would have to be demonstrated with better references than have been provided so far, and would certainly have to be attributed as opinion, not objective facts (e.g. "oponents of gay rights claim that..."). I would note that it is not enough to provide references, sources must also be reputable. That is, not from a random on the web.

What is more, attempts to simulatneously add the same content to the Reparative therapy page do not sit well: if the content is biased on this article, it is most certainly biased on Reparative therapy. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, there is the minor issue that even if in 1973 42% of "the psychologists" had been opposed to remove homosexuality from the DSM, the edits on that matter keep implying that this is still the case. And that is where it gets even more tricky - because, you know, attitudes since then surely changed. So maybe there is an article in WP where one can state the 42% figure, but in that case, kindly with a note about current attitudes as well. -- AlexR 10:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

In response to the various replies above:

I added it to the Reparative Therapy article because LuLu had previously told me it belonged there rather than here - but of course people have inevitably tried to delete it over there as well. This is just censorship-as-usual.

The paragraph does in fact state that these are allegations, rather than citing them as undisputed facts as one person claimed above. If the wording needs to be changed to make this clearer, then change it rather than deleting the entire thing. The allegations have been made by members of the APA itself, and the numbers (as far as I know) are from the official records.

Concerning numbers: the 58% figure refers to the percentage of favorable votes out of the mere 25% who actually voted - not 58% of the total membership. The actual percentage of the total membership who favored the change would therefore be around 14.5 percent (58% of 25%) - not exactly the huge endorsement implied by the many citations of the 1973 decision that are routinely made in articles dealing with homosexuality.

It's the abovementioned usage of this 1973 ruling that requires at least some mention of the controversy surrounding it - constantly censoring any mention of the subject is not in keeping with Wikipedia policy, and the various excuses that have been given are not fooling anyone. 66.216.226.34 12:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring the poor behavior of atleast one of the participants, to which I have only WP:AGF and WP:NPA and otherwise WP:DICK to say, I have edited the sentance (again) to note that controversy existed, it was done by vote, by the APA, in 1973. These are facts. Verifialbe facts. Everything else is speculation. WP:NPOV does not allow us to speculate or other personal essays thoughts and analysis that would constintute original research. We are here to write an encyclopedia not to use a message board asserting our opinions or someone elses on why something happened.--Tznkai 13:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It was not "original research": it came from allegations made by APA members themselves, and a source was cited. The only "original research" going on here is the attempt by a few editors to decide, based solely upon their own opinions, what constitutes verifiable facts and credible sources.

That having been said, the recent changes made were an improvement, however small - at least it's now acknowledged that the vote was controversial, although I would think that a brief mention of the reasons for the controversy could be added as well. 66.216.226.34 19:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Explaining the controversy the way you want to is speculation with a non reputable source, of a non notable opinion.--Tznkai 05:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

What sort of poor maths is that? Because only 25% of APA members voted, the number of supporters is supposed to drop to 14.5%? Excuse me? How exactly do you know that the other 75% were opposed to the removal? They might as well have all supported the removal - or support was somewhere between 0 and 100% among them. It is that kind of completely BS statements that makes it obvious that edits like these are POV-pushing, and not intended to add facts to the articles. -- AlexR 05:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Our anon vandal want to insinuate something sinister, I think. I.e. only a small percentage of APA membership attended that convention, so there must be something nefarious about the vote. Of course, this is exactly the same as every convention of every professional organization. Most members don't attend each meeting, and votes are among those who do attend (well, charters differ, sometimes there are proxy votes or whatnot; but none of it is sinister). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Once again: the allegations of intimidation stem from APA members themselves, not my own "speculation"; and the point about the vote is simply that very few members actually voted in favor of the decision. What the others would or would not have done IS speculation.

Calling me a "vandal" for trying to include information about a well-known controversy is way out of line. It is the constant deletion of any opposing viewpoint which would seem to qualify as vandalism here. 66.216.226.34 07:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Lets get some criterion set down here. Notability, Verifiability, Relevance. Establish those. Is it significant, is it refrenced by a reputable source, does it increase the useful information content more than it screws it up.--Tznkai 15:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

By trying to be very correct you have ended up turning the facts upside down. All science is rife with controversy, but that does not necessarily make a theory "controversial." The normalization of same-sex attraction is widely accepted in the field, as can be seen from the ever-widening circle of consensus (the recent adoption by the Chinese Psychological association of similar views is a point in fact). Thus the present use of the term "controversial" is a misuse of the term and a blatantly POV intrusion into the article. Haiduc 23:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

If I might rephrase this, all votes are controversial. Thus it is sufficient to say that it was a vote. Non-controversial votes are anomalous and are indicated by the fact that there was unanimity or near-unanimity. Haiduc 23:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

19:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC) I think this link might provide you useful material on this subject: [Dr. H. Anonymous Speaks — APA Annual Conference, 1972]

Question

What queer theorist or Kinsey said that you can develop completely new attractions to another gender? Note that the APA states: "Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation? No... [it] is not changeable." [12] 71.32.199.15 20:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This short question is so convoluted, and full of wrong assumptions, that it's hard to answer directly. But a quote from Kinsey Reports might be illustrative:

Kinsey reported that most American males fell in the 1 to 2 range of the scale and that a large majority appeared to be at least somewhat bisexual (in the 1 to 5 range). The study also reported that 10 percent of American males were mostly or completely homosexual for at least part of their adult lives (in the 5 to 6 range).

In other words, if a large majority of American males are "at least somewhat bisexual", then even if we stipulate that there is a "true and essential" sexual orientation buried in someone's genome (or wherever), it's almost always "bisexuality", which is quite consistent with expressions towards different partner genders at different times in life. I don't really believe in such an "essence", but then, I'm an anti-essentialist by nature (hint: there's a joke there).

Moreover, the second sentence is helpful also. 10% of American males were mostly or completely homosexual for part of their lives. But both Kinsey and everyone else show that the number who are exclusively homosexual for all their lives is smaller, probably a bit less than 5%. Which leaves a gap: a certain percentage of American males are exclusively homosexual for some, but not all, of their lives.

Our anonymous young Mormon friend has probably been fed a lot of homophobic stuff about how anyone who can change (from homosexual attraction) must/should change. Which is a bunch of crap, of course; and I think he feels better if he can essentialize and permanantize sexual orientation. But what Kinsey (and every other observational scientists) found is that people often do different things during different parts of their lives.

And transitions are just as likely to go from opposite sex to same sex attractions as the other way around. I cannot imagine anyone here not having a number of friends/acquaintances who had perfectly satisfying and sincere heterosexual relationships/attractions, and then later became attracted to people of the same sex. Nor not having friends/acquaintances who were previously homosexual in their attractions, but developed opposite sex attractions. In none of these cases, among my own acquaintances, did anyone ever go to sleep deciding "I'll wake up tomorrow attracted to a different gender of people." But as a matter of reality, many people really do change inclinations over time... this fact is about as shocking as the fact that some people gain or lose weight over the course of their lives (and about as rare). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:46, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

Lulu, no medical organization claims you can change sexual orientation. In fact read the website I just gave you, it states, "no". 71.32.199.15 00:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I actually found an interesting quote at the APA site you cite. Do note that that webpage is more of a "popular outreach" site that a footnoteable primary source. But this was still noteworthy:

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age.

Notably, this APA popular site is not bio-reductionists like our young friend. And it points out that "in most people ... early age" (most is distinct from all). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:18, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

The volitional canard

Nonetheless my old friend:

Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Regardless of the principle cause of sexual orientation, there is no evidence illustrating that a person can change it, in fact there is more evidence contradicting it, which is why the APA has adopted these statements. 71.32.199.15 05:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Would you be willing to share with me why you keep repeating this claim with which neither I, nor anyone else here, has ever disagreed with? And then every time you repeat the obvious truth, insert edits that are obviously untrue? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:34, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

First of all you deleted the information that stated sexual orientation was something non-changeable and I added it again. What edits have I inserted that are "obviously untrue?" My last edit was: "According to the American Psychological Association and others medical organizations sexual orientation "is not changeable". That is true according to the quotes above. You are an extremely rude person, instead of keeping to the material you spar on tangents and assumptions clearly to distract from the real matter at hand. I think you're pushing a POV, as evident in your deletion of that material and emphasis on fluidity. Look at our past discussions you do not see me accusing you of being a Mormon, but you have made multiple assumptions of I. Rather I have kept trying to understand what you have contributed and tried to make it more readable with less confusion. 71.32.199.15 05:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I sincerely apologize for making assumptions about your background that you have not explicitly stated. That was catty of me, and unprofessional. I just made the Mormon guess because of where your IP address places you geographically; and made a guess about your age from your style of writing. But that's none of my business unless you state it explictly (partially I was just trying to nudge you to create a named account, which actually offers you better anonymity from spying techies; you can put as much or as little personal information as you like on a user page, including none at all). FWIW, you can find out everything about my biography by clicking a few links from my user page, if you are so inclined. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:36, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

I do not know why you wish to be dissimulative here. I'm honestly not trying to be confrontational or insulting; I really do not understand what benefit you feel comes out of that. There are two completely different, and essentially unrelated claims that you keep smashing together, as if one implied the other:

Human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight.
Human beings never change their sexual orientation over the course of their lives.

The first claim is absolutely true, and I've never heard of anyone other than a few dogmatic homophobes claim otherwise. The second claim is just as absolutely false, and I cannot imagine anyone seriously claiming it with a straight face (no pun intended).

Likewise, I cannot choose to wake up tomorrow and speak Mandarin. Many other people in the world cannot choose other than to wake up speaking Mandarin (well, they might remain silent, but if they speak, it will be in Mandarin). Nonetheless, it is self-evident that many people in the world do change the languages they speak over the course of their lives. Actually, language acquisition is somewhat more volitional than sexual orientation, since you can enroll in a language course; but the analogy is still fairly good.

The claim you keep inserting into the article, is roughly the second one. It is absolutely, and self-evidently false. Whenever you are challenged on it, you come to the talk page and argue in favor of the first claim, which is true enough, but unrelated. In logic, that is probably called the "Fallacy of four terms" (maybe a different fallacy is closer, there are a lot of them categorized). Do you think you will fool someone with this kind of substitution, or what? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:12, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

Essentially what you are claiming is:

Sexual orientation may change over a person's lifetime (but not voluntarily)

However, the APA states that:

In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age.

The word "shaped" does not mean what you seem to think it means. Not that a "popular audience" primer from the APA is exactly a primary source, but even there they are not saying what you are reading. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:23, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

Anyway, whatever the APA says, a little bit of common sense can come to our rescue. If I had a dime for every close friend who changed the gender of their preferred sex partners during the course of their lives (not just in one direction, and sometimes they go back the other way)... well, I haven't had that many close friends, but I'd still be able to buy a double latte. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:41, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

Now do you see? If sexual orientation, namely homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual is determined in the majority of persons at an early age, it is not possible for them to transition in between them. Even Kinsey found that 4% of people are exclusively homosexual their entire lifetime. 71.32.199.15 06:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's roughly correct. And Kinsey also found that 10% of people are exclusively homosexual for some part of their lives. So by some basic subtraction, that means that 6% of people are exclusively homosexual for some, but not all of their lives. In other words, that's 6% who change sexual orientation over the course of their lifetime. Moreover, that's not the whole number who changes. A large percentage of people, well over 50%, are exclusively heterosexual for some part of their lives. But a good chunk of those people are not exclusively heterosexual for all of their lives. So that's an additional X% who change sexual orientation over the course of their lifetime. But in any case, given the limited categories you list, on their death bed, about 95% of people will be discovered to have been "bisexual" (at least in attractions/fantasies, even if not in outward actions).

I wonder if you are trying to create some indefinable and unmeasurable "essence" that underlies what people actually do and can be observed doing. At the end of a human life, we can finally conclude: "Ah, so that was their true sexual orientation!" But in more parsimonious langauge, that ain't what "sexual orientation" means. Sexual orientation is just what people are inclined to do at roughly this point in their life, and what type of people/thing they are attracted to, and fantasize about. That changes.

In fact, it changes in almost everyone. For example, when I was 15, I generally had a sexual interest (though no realization at that age :-)) in people who were roughly 13-17. Now that I'm 40, I am age-appropriately attracted to people roughly in the 30-50 yo range. If I my ideal object of sexual attraction hadn't evolved over time, I'd probably be in trouble with the law for statutory rape. Or at least exhibit lechery. I didn't wake up on each birthday, and decide the new age range of those people I would find attractive; but in point of fact, it evolved (in a rather common and typical manner). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:23, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

explanation of recent edit

Reputable psychologists believe that sexual orientation is shaped at an early age in most individuals, with signficant recent evidence indicating that biology, namely genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a considerable role. They also do not believe sexual orientation is voluntarily changeable.

Why:

What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.

Feel free to touch it up. 71.32.199.15 07:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Elvis Presley's homosexual leanings

There are claims that Elvis Presley, apart from his relationships with women, had also some relationships with men. See Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley. What do you think about these claims?

I don't really think it's significant for anyone other than, you know, the dead one with the hair and the rock...Zeppocity 13:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Genetic disease

Add the following to the article, to bring a more concise understanding of what causing homosexuality and the future treatment of this disease:

Genetic disease Background Homosexuality has been traced to certain genes that are not normal. This abnormality or genetic disease is at the heart of the individual sexual problems and gender issues.

Treatment Gene splicing is a process of removing problematic genes and replaceing them with correct genes. This therapy is currently being used for many diseases, including diabetes.

Future In future, it is expected that gene therapy will be possible in the womb, thus the parents will be able to decide on their child's sexual preference. Inevitably, most parents will ask that the malfunctioning gene causing homosexuality will be corrected and homosexuality will be eliminated through this process. In other words, homosexuality will at some point in time become rare if not extinct.WritersCramp 15:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, no, I don't think we are gonna add that - not even if you put it on the talp page thrice. First of all, there is absolutely no consensus that that homosexuality is caused by genetic variations. And secondly, you seem to have a minor POV issue here: Not everybody agress that homosexuality is a "disease", a "sexual problem" (and a "gender issue is something else entirely, BTW), "problematic" or "malfunctioning". Therefore, kindly don't bother inserting that crap into the article - you are just wasting our time when we have to remove it. Thank you very much, and now go and play elsewhere. -- AlexR

There are plenty more citations to support this, it is not a theory it is scientific factGenetic Disease WritersCramp 12:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Errm, no, something widely accepted within the scientific community and supported by actual scientific research and solid justification is scientific thought, if I'm not horribly wrong; a minoritarian view, either with a reasonable number of popular supporters or not, is scientific theory and should be kept as a possibility, not fact, and again, as AlexR said, the sci a) commy widely disregards the interpretation of homosexuality as an illness of any sort, it being as it is currently accepted as a sexual alternative, which wouldn't take much reading to determine, sir, and b) there's no consensus as to what actually defines sexual orientation (you know, just in case reading the same thing twice finally gets it in your head...?) Zeppocity 13:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Please ask someone with Huntingtons disease whether having unpure genetics is a disease or something that should be glorified in parades with strange people wearing strange clothes !WritersCramp 14:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Or someone with blue eyes, for that matter :-). It's a fairly rare, and recessive, genetic condition, y'know. Heck, you may even be able to change eye color with gene splicing, at some point in the future... not that I believe sexual orientation is particularly directly related to genetics, but even if it were, so what?! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:23, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

Congratulations, your theorizing has oficially gone off into homophobia and by completely ignoring the points made against what you've stated, you've proven to be utterly incapable of actually reasoning as to the matter; this is exactly what Wikipedia needs, people who bring in their POVs and fight for them like rabid dogs. Moving along, Zeppocity 14:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Zeppocity

Primarily I'm not going to edit any of the convoluted excuses for perversion posted on this topic and I'll be shocked if my not so politically correct opinion here is allowed to remain, but its my .02 and I'm going post it here anyway ..

Homosexuals and their enables are the ones who (as you describe it) "fight like dogs" over their [s]POV[/S]propaganda.

Sexual perversion (homosexuality) has been frowned upon and proven to fly in the face of every conceivable rational aspect known to mankind ancient or modern. Its a damnable unwholesome behavior with no redeemable quality whatsoever.(Notice I said "behavior" and not the person as people are redeemable if their willing).

You'll only call me and others "homophobes" if we dare speak out against perversion, but that's expected, its the only defense (due to the ignorance of the masses) to a indefensible position. However it doesn't carry any weight with the wise.

The term "homophobia" is a made-up term, created by the homo-nazis/psycho babble peddlers in their futile effort to try and make wrong the hundreds of millions of people throughout the world who are appalled and disgusted by the morally insane sexually psychotic alternative lifestyles promoted by them.

It indicates a "fear" of sexual perversion. One does not have to "fear" dog crap to not want to play with it, eat it, or sexualize it or in general oppose those that do.

Creatures such as yourself, who (feebly) attempt to attack those of us who speak out against moral insanity, do nothing except show the level to which you have sunk in your own personal morals and ethics.

The ignorant will stay so until they learn. My effort is to stand up for decency, morality and ethical standards, and I do so simply by providing the reality of truth, ethics and the morals which founded this country.

If you are adverse to these morals, I recommend you move to a more "liberal" locale, such as Canada, France, Netherlands Norway, or Sweden. I'm told that their Socialistic permissive governments are quite willing to tolerate the various psychosis inherent in both sexual psychotics and the lower forms of life which grant them credence. edit: I See I wasn't logged on.. --152.163.100.12 13:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but our American government tolerates it now too - because the people of America no longer tolerate homophobia just as they no longer tolerate racism. As your bigoted generation fades away, the future *will* be even more permissive than you could ever imagine. The "moral" which founded this country was freedom - and that includes the freedom to do something you consider "perverted." FCYTravis 03:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The "moral" which founded this country was freedom -

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other".- John Adams 1798 --152.163.100.12 16:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, while I don't know where our homophobic friend happens to live (maybe USA, maybe somewhere else), many WP editors live in Canada, France, Netherlands, Norway, or Sweden, and have no need to "move" to those places. A WP article is not here to represent the homophobic positions of one of those governments that happens to have such retrograde laws; it's here to represent neutral consensus knowledge. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Consensual sex

Which US states do not allow consensual sex between unrelated adults? WritersCramp has changed "all" to "most" in this discussion, indicating that some do not allow it. Please list them here and provide sources. Exploding Boy 15:05, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

He's incorrect... well, he's incorrect from some points of view. From a Federal standpoint, you can have sex with a consenting adult in private. [13]

Sadly, there still are states that have such laws (they don't have to remove the laws just because they're unconstitutional, that happens if the law is challenged). Michigan, for example, has a law against "crimes against nature" which includes "gross indecency", in public or private, regardless of sex! [14]

They are surely unenforceable now, though, like the miscegenation laws? I don't know for sure (it was me who changed 'most' to 'all'; I simply assumed that Supreme Court decision trumped local law, but I'm an ignorant foreigner, so wouldn't know for sure) Rsynnott 01:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

If a state legislature has not repealed a law and if the law has not actually been tested for constitutionality in court, then somebody could get arrested, tried, and convicted under that law. The conviction could then be appealed, and I suppose under some circumstances it might crawl all the way to the Supreme Court. At that point the law might be found to be unconstitutional, so the prisoner would have to be freed. The process could be be very trying on the person on trial, both in terms of defense expenses and in terms of diversions of personal energy to fighting these charges. I think usually prosecutors are pretty savvy in not pursuing a case against somebody if tbey figure they won't get a conviction that will stand up through the appeals process. 金 (Kim) 07:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

That is incorrect. In the extremely unlikely event that a trial court did not adhere to Lawrence v. Texas, the decision would surely be overturned at the appeals level. As a similar example, I don't believe there have been any flag-burning convictions since Texas v. Johnson. Rhobite 18:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Help remove commercial links

External links to publications (magazines, etc) that simply "may appeal to gay audiences" do not merit inclusion. Only external references that contribute in some way to the scholarly discussion of the topic should be included in WP. If a publication has its own WP article, it's fine to link internally to that. If it lacks a page, that's probably a sign that it is not really important enough to start with. Something like The Advocate is probably close enough to academically serious, the mere gay-fashion magazines are not. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Btw: See Wikipedia:External_links:

1.3 What should not be linked to

2. Links to a site that is selling products, unless it applies via a "do" above.

Commercial, for-profit magazines are not per se prohibited, but consensus clearly frowns toward such links. Academic journals relevant to a topic, sure (even if the journal might be for-profit). And non-profit groups, even if POV advocacy (with link explaining position of group) are OK. But basically, it's not our job to sell other people's stuff (even if it's good stuff). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards. If you want to get rid of commercialism (a futile and questionable endeavor, if you ask me) then the thing to do is to keep independent journals like White Crane and get rid of the slick commercial glossies like The Advocate. Haiduc 03:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been on an endeavor to rid WP of commercial links. Doing that is, of course, WP policy. Admittedly, I've touched a miniscule percentage of all the articles; but at least they're diverse (e.g. both Homosexuality and Digital Rights Management), it's nothing special about this topic. While my project might be futile, it's certainly not "questionable" in the sense of being anything other than clear WP policy: articles aren't here to sell the products of any particular companies, and they should not be hijacked to that goal.

If you want to put White Crane back, I won't make a fuss. But it would be much better to create a WP article on it, and link to that (tell us why it's an important journal in the article). Notice that I switched The Advocate link to its WP article (yeah, The Advocate is glossy, but it's widely read and carries some news content; but anyway, its WP article describes all that). I was not familiar with White Crane, but basically a quick look suggests it is a commercial for-profit print magazine (but not as widely read as something like The Advocate or Out). However, it looks like a significant amount of content is available gratis online, so I was not as clear on getting rid of that link as I was for the ones that were just ads for the print magazine. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Work needed on religious views

Christianity could use some edits, such as the inclusion of the Inquisition, how it lashed out at pederasty, how it later included procreative themes by combining Platonic thought that it is unnatural, and some modern coverage, the large dissents
Islam should be made clear that it allows and as even regarded homosexual attractions as holy while always condemning homosexual sex
The Buddhism and Taoism sections are decidely negative, odd given that those two have been traditionally friendly, it should be made clear that nothing in both of them condemns homosexuality, only when syncretism is applied with Confucianism does exclusive homosexuality come under fire, but never homosexual sex (nonexclusive)

71.32.199.15 05:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

-An unnecessary stab taken at 'Abrahamic congregations' and their ilk: 'no reputable psychologists support reparative therapy'. This is obviously not an objective statement, and it needs to become so. This is an encyclopedia, not an editorial. -Turi

Might as well toss in that the APA states that reparative therapy can be very dangerous and that they urge people to avoid relying on it. It also states that homosexuality is not a mental disease or disorder, and does not interfere with thought processes or the ability to execute difficult tasks. - C.M. Ponder, Ph.D.

Anastasius?

In the history part of the article, in the "Europe" section, it says "Notwithstanding these regulations, taxes on homosexual boy brothels continued to be collected until the end of the reign of Anastasius in 581." I’d like to know which is wrong, the name or the date because the only emperors called Anastasius were Anastasius I of the Byzantine Empire (c. 430-518) and Anastasius II of the Byzantine Empire (d. 721) and as you can see, none of them ruled in 581. Has anyone got any idea what might be the wrong thing here? Note that according to the article Justinian expanded the proscription to the active partner in 558 so it isn’t a case of numbers switching places (518: the last year Anastasius I ruled; 581: the year given in the article). --Thorri 13:52, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup Notes

Intro Cleanup It is inaccurate to introduce that the minority of people are exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. I have rewritten it in such a way that more accurately reflects the research without demonstrating a biased point of view. There also seems to be a particular prejudice against Islamic religions. There is also a bias towards US statistics which I have left alon for now.--Waterspyder 01:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Coining may be less stuffy, but it is used incorrectly in the intro. I agree with the other edits. --Waterspyder 01:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

To be more clear. You can coin a phrase or word. He coined a phrase or word. He is coining the phrase. BUT Coining in the infinitive is incorrect since it is never an ongoing action.--Waterspyder 01:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Cultural notes: Statement also originally meant to indicate a shift in prevalence.Unfortunately there is no surety since no documents show which forms are actually most prevalent, though speculation leads one to believe that egalitarian is gaining popularity. Prevalence and favour are two very different words indicating incidence in the first case and popular opinion in the second. One is statistical, the other is opinion. --Waterspyder 02:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Both aspects can be documented. Haiduc 02:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but then we should have news articles/journals/academic papers reflecting the stats and opinions, otherwise it is original source material and will be and should be disputed. I worked at a Pride Centre in Canada for 4 years, and while I cannot prove the statement of the original author that egalitarian is probably the most popular form, I would feel comfortable supporting a statistical assertion that it is the most prevalent. I do also however know that there is still a significant community that is age-based, since youth and fitness is favoured as a gay media aesthetic. There are also still a lot of women who enjoy the butch and femme gender dynamic and find it empowering. I don't think they are shunned or in disfavour, they just aren't the preference being exhibited by people in Western society at the moment. I could also talk about other cultures, (since the article is very North American-centered), but that's another discussion altogether. --Waterspyder 03:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate Material and POV

There is entirely too much duplicated material in this article. There is no reason for certain subjects to be repeated 3 times in the course of the article. I am going to go through and attempt to remove duplicate items and correct any obvious POV issues. The anti-Islam sentiment is disturbing. Yes, certain sects of Islam do persecute gays, but they are certainly not the only ones. --Waterspyder 17:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes there is way too much duplication, such as the forms discussion coming up again and again. On the other hand, I have yet to see any "anti-Islam sentiment." I have many Moslem friends, and in many ways feel more at home in Moslem countries than in the west, but that does not prevent me from documenting past and current practices, "good" or "bad". Haiduc 17:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Good and bad is great, but the point is that Islam and only Islam is being singled out as instigators of institutionalized violence against homosexuals. I think the article needs to reflect a more balanced presentation of all the good and bad. There are tribes in South America that burn homosexuals at the stake. There are regions of thailand where queers are crucified. So my question is why is Islam, and only Islam identified as being a persecuting entity. I added in that other non-Islam countries (like the Vatican) also adopt policies of persecution against homosexuals. I am not trying to remove the information that gays are stoned in Iran under Islam law, but rather would like to see a more balanced relfection from all angles, not just of one brand of religious persecution (which I acknowledge exists in certain doctrines). --Waterspyder 01:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

There are tribes in South America that burn homosexuals at the stake. There are regions of thailand where queers are crucified.

News to me. Please document and include. Haiduc 01:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I will when I find the proper acedemic documentation. I studied it in my Religions class at University (albeit it was a small component of the course). But I won't include those things in te article proper until I can find the original references. I should also mention that we studied jsut as many tribes and religions that embraced homosexuality as did persecute it. --Waterspyder 04:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I should also mention that we studied jsut as many tribes and religions that embraced homosexuality as did persecute it. Sounds like your instructor was driven by political correctness there. Haiduc 04:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. I mean, there are First Nations tribes that celebrate the two-spirit members of their tribes, but other tribes who persecute them. So it's unsafe to make blanket statements about which groups accept what. I know I'm accepted by most muslims in my University, but I also know that a local Muslim politician is adamently opposed to rights for homosexuals. I can't take this to mean that all Muslims persecute homosexuality (which is definitely forming part of the tone of this article). As for more solid points, why are muslim countries singled out when, for example, in Barbados it is illegal to commit any act of homosexuality. This is not a predominantly muslim country. Neither is Bhutan, Burundi, Cape Verde, Cook Islands, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Jamaica,Kiribati, Laos, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, or Namibia and they all have anti-homosexuality legislation. (This is not an exhaustive list BTW). Conversely, predominantly Muslim countries like Egypt have no homosexuality laws. And according to legal research, Iran is the only country, muslim or otherwise, that explicitly details exclusive punishment by death while the article makes it sound like it is a daily practice in many muslim countries. Saudi Arabia and Yemen has a maximum penalty of death and a complex system to ensure lawful prosecution. Nigeria enforces death in certain muslim regions, but is not a federal practice, it is a regional one. This is also true of Pakistan where practices lean towards 100 lashes rather than stoning. Malaysia has some stiff punishments involving lashings and the Maldives enforce life imprisonment. This being said Nepal and Singapore also enforce life imprisonment and are chiefly Buddhist countries.

I guess what I'm trying to say is generalizations are dangerous.--Waterspyder 21:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the specifics are what matter. I was just suspicious of the 50/50 break in the pro and con tribes. The evidence is that the ones that problematized same-sex sexuality were few and far between (consistent with history in other parts of the world). As for the "anti-Muslim" slant, those countries were singled out for extreme behavior - executions. As in Saudi, Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iran all the time since the revolution . . . You want balance? Look at the historical treatment of Islamic countries. There is no prejudice, not on my part at least. I just know no non-Muslim countries that kill people (at least officially, not like in Kansas) for loving others of the same sex. Not in our day, anyway. (I just read your comment about 100 lashes. 50 can kill a strong man.) Life imprisonment in Nepal and Singapore?!? For what, child rape? There are major gay scenes in both countries. Haiduc 23:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologize, I never meant to imply there was a 50/50 division. I will honestly admit to not knowing in which direction that break actually leans towards. As for Nepal and Singapore, well, many places have gay scenes, but those are the official laws of the country for acts of homosexuality. Heck, places like Cambodia were local culture does not have documented prejudice against homosexuality or laws govorning it doesn't mean that gays don't experience cultural backlash for being gay (not to mention my friend was assaulted at gunpoint for being gay while in Phnom Penh). I suppose my other point is that while Iran, Saudia Arabia, Yemen and regions of Nigeria have maximum punishments of death for "homosexual crimes", I think it is unfair to say "extremist Muslim countries". This is a small percentage of all Muslim countries and by phrasing in the way that it is, it sounds like fearmongering and supports the idea that muslims are extremist terrorists (I know it never says the last part, but a lot of people jump to conclusions). A more accurate was to say it is "Iran, Saudia Arabia, Yemen and areas of Nigeria support capital punishment as a maximum penalty for acts of homosexuality in accordance with certain Islamic beliefs." I know it may seem like it says the same thing, but in more words, but what it accomplishes is that it doesn't have the undertone that implies all muslims support this. It could be inferred that it is primarily Sunni's support this punishment based on demographic information, but I cannot be sure because politics plays a large role also. --Waterspyder 00:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Achilles

I'm going to take out Achilles out of the mythology part of the text. Not because he might of been or might of not of been homosexual but because the article on Wikipedia doesn't say anything about the fact. Whispering 21:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It qualifies Patroclus as his lover. I think you missed it. Please revert the entry in the article after checking. Haiduc 22:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

My edits

This page was far too long (88 kilobytes), so I moved the information on the POVs of specific religious groups to religion and sexual orientation. I also moved most of the "social attitudes" section to societal attitudes towards homosexuality. I moved some of the text from those articles here because they function better as a summary. I deleted (without moving elsewhere) about two sentences in total in all my edits to these homosexuality pages. Guan aco 00:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I like Guanaco's edits. I made some additional edits today, primarily dealing with "Taxonomy" (which made no sense as a heading). Only duplicate information was deleted, much information was reassigned to more relevent headings. --Waterspyder 21:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"Organizations which advocate..."

Organizations which advocate chastity or changing sexual orientation

NARTH - The National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a secular organization which attempts through voluntary therapy to change the sexual orientation of non-heterosexuals.
Courage - Apostolate for Catholics who are not heterosexual, which provides Roman Catholic theological information encouraging celibacy for homosexuals and heterosexual relations in the context of marriage for bisexuals.
Exodus - Christian ministry which views non-heterosexual relationships as sinful and attempts to change sexual orientation using spiritual methods.
International Healing Foundation - Organization advocating the position that same-sex attraction is neither innate nor a conscious choice, and can be cured by healing psychological wounds believed to cause the attraction.

Discussion

Could editors please discuss their issues with this section here, rather than simply reverting back and forth? My take on the matter is that these are significant viewpoints and should be represented. What do other people think? -Willmcw 07:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I would link to ex-gay in the see also section and include the external links there. Attempts to change sexual orientation in this manner are generally recognized as ineffective or harmful. The movement is certainly worth mentioning, but it isn't so important that it should be on the main homosexuality page. Guan aco 20:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

These external links definately provide value in ex-gay but only questionably do so here. Guanaco's got a great point. Link to ex-gay and include those there. 70.145.102.253

Rio de Janeiro picture

I was slightly taken aback whe I read the caption of the Parade picture that mentioned Rio de Janeiro as having the largest gay pride parade in the world. That's not true, São Paulo has it, the last one outnumbered Rio de Janeiro's participants greatly. It has around 2 million participants. I almost changed the name of the city in the caption, but, of course, I noticed that is NOT Sao Paulo, since it has no shore. Maybe the caption could be changed to "one of the largest gay parades".

Good idea. Go for it. Be bold. -Willmcw 21:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion

I want the anon who removed this information to immediately explain the deletion, or be reverted as an essentially vandalous change. FCYTravis 02:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Critique of Homosexualism

I think more criticism of homosexual behaviour should be added. i.e. links like: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05050407.html Would be cool! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.210.90.180 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy. The type and amount of criticism included in an article should reflect that. For example, weasel terms should be avoided. Guan aco 20:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand we could consider an article containing critiques of all sexualities, including of course critiques of heterosexuality. There is lots to be said on all sides. Haiduc 22:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, but indiscriminate dumping of anti-gay text or excessive anti-gay links into this article should not even be considered. Guan aco 22:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Since it does not cost anything, here it is: Critiques of sexual behavior. It can serve as a repository for some of that stuff, at least for the more articulate elements of it. Haiduc 23:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll see if I can add some content there. It will be one of the harder pages to keep within the Verifiability and NPOV policies. Guan aco 16:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a lot of work to dig up the sources, but the material is already out there. And it levels the playing field, so to speak. Haiduc 16:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Priests

I've looked over the section on Homosexual priests, and it still doesn't seem right. I would like someone that might know a bit more about this than me to weight in for I thought that priests today couldn't have sex even before they joined. Chooserr 05:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

There are a few issues getting confused together here; priest or otherwise, nobody's supposed to be having sex unless married (and then only to their spouse). However, if one does, and legitimately repents and confesses, the sin is forgiven. From a policy standpoint, that was the case before and continues to be so. Separately, the new announcement is that priests are no longer permitted to be attracted to other men. When everyone pointed out how dumb this is, they hedged and said that if the homosexuality were "transient" that it was okay; and the three-year business is a metric they instituted for deciding whether it was transient or not. To summarise:

Sex out of wedlock isn't okay
but you can confess and be forgiven and still become a priest
except if it was sex with another man
unless three years have passed.

All clear? I'll let someone else fold that into the article; anything I wrote would be too snarky. /blahedo (t) 08:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've had a go at editing that section.[15] I took out the statement that the Church "accepts the three distinct orientation findings". I don't think the Church accepts or rejects these findings, certainly not as part of her official teaching. If I'm mistaken on this, I'd appreciate a reference. I took out "Christian scripture forbids non-procreative capable sex". I'm not sure what "capable sex" is. As for "non-procreative", that may be true in a way, but it's open to misunderstanding. The Catholic Church fobids all deliberate sexual stimulation except in the context of a man and a woman who are validly married to each other, and where the procreative meaning has not been deliberately taken out of the act. "Non-procreative" might make people think, for example, that sex after menopause is not permitted. The point is that, according to Catholic teaching, we are not permitted to deliberately make sexual acts non-procreative. Sex during the infertile period is fine. I took out "a Cross that must be borne". I've no doubt that the Church did say that, but there's no reference, and I thought there were enough quotes without it, especially since I added some.

I changed Additionally, any candidate for the priesthood must abstain from sexual relationships with other men for three years before being accepted to seminary. I thought it was misleading. For one thing, the actual document says before being ordained as a deacon, not before being accepted to seminary. However, worse than that, it gave the impression that all that was required was to abstain from homosexual acts. The document says that the tendencies should be overcome at least three years before ordination, not just that they mustn't have engaged in the acts. That relates mainly, in my view, to the case of men who as teenagers might have experienced some temporary confusion about their sexuality. (I believe it's quite normal for schoolgirls to have a "crush" on some kind female teacher, and to grow up to be wives and mothers with absolutely no lesbian tendencies.) It doesn't mean that someone involved in the gay lifestyle at the age of 27 can decide he wants to be a priest, practice abstinence for three years, and then, with the same inclinations and temptations as before, join a seminary. In other words, it's not that you can abstain for three years because you want to join a seminary; it's if these tendencies were just a result of a period of adolescent confusion, and they have cleared up completely at least three years ago, and you want to be a priest, then, you could be admitted. The Vatican document states clearly that it would be wrong to lie about these tendencies.[16]

I took out the bit about how being accepted to seminary carries the added responsibility of taking and following a vow of celibacy, not because I objected to it in any way, but because I felt it didn't flow quite so well after what I had added.

Finally, I changed one of the references (currently no. 11) so that it now links to the actual Vatican document, rather than to a news report about it. AnnH ^(talk) 10:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions in the lead

The lead currently says, essentially, that some followers of Abrahamic religions are against homosexuality, while some aren't; and then that some followers of non-Abrahamic religions are against it, while some aren't. So what's the basis for distinguishing between Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions in this context? Just Americo-Euro-centrism, or do we have a better reason? Mark ¹ 10:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's an artifact of trying to NPOV the paragraph without totally removing what various people were saying; the final result being that it doesn't say much of anything. If it does say anything, it's that the condemning in the non-Abrahamic religions is a result of contamination by the Abrahamic religions (and Christianity in particular), but even that isn't very strongly stated. For the lead, it might be better just to say that the religious perspective on homosexuality is extremely loaded and controversial.... /blahedo (t) 02:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Persistent reverting

Ambi, cut it out. If you have specific edits that you think are "original research", address them individually; the vast majority Naif's many, many edits are typo fixes, link fixes, and substantive changes with citations, not "masses of original research". /blahedo (t) 10:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That is complete tripe. Of his many, many edits, I spotted one reference - and that was for a particularly controversial claim which he was trying to state as definitive fact. I've re-added some of his edits which were, as you rightly note, copyedits. The vast majority of the his remaining edits, however, were utter crankery. Ambi 10:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that one of the reverts actually removed a source. That's not a positive direction. -Willmcw 10:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The particularly odd things Naif added were with regards to an unsourced supposed "pederastic initiation experience" which seems to be suggesting that you've got to be raped as a child to be gay, and the odd inference that creating a spectrum with regards to homosexual relationships somehow automatically legitimizes underage relationships. Neither of those seem to me to be supportable. I'm gay and I sure as hell wasn't involved in any "pederastic initiation experience." FCYTravis 10:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)