![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
What on Earth does homosexuality have to do with this? You can't correlate a specific sexual orientation with risks and infections that are universal to sexuality itself. Having references that support statistical claims such as "homosexuals are more likely to contract HIV than heterosexuals" does not necessarily merit its inclusion in the article, as these type of claims cannot be presented like some blanket statement over the entire nature of homosexuality itself. The entire notion screams POV. The fact that it was added, and is meticulously maintained, only by editors who huddle together within spheres of religious and ex-gay articles really frightens me. This needs to be brought to the attention of an administrator or someone with a more neutral interest in the subject who can decide its appropriateness. 74.242.121.34 ( talk) 02:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The AIDS, STDs and health issues sections belong in the Human sexual behavior, Gay community, Anal sex, Oral sex and similar articles, not here. Exploding Boy ( talk) 16:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Now that there is a new homosexual orientation page, we need to decide how to get rid of the redundancy between these two pages. I think we all agree that the Theories of causality, Malleability of sexual orientation and Pathological model of homosexuality should be summarized. I have tried to do this and have summarized the information on Talk:Homosexuality/Sandbox. I also think that Coming out and Sexual orientation and the law are specifically about a homosexual orientation and should be summarized, but I am okay if they aren't.
The other thing is that there is a lot of redundant information between this page and same-sex relationships. Things like Same-sex relationships in history, Same-sex couples, Same-sex sexuality, Religious perspectives on same-sex sexuality are pretty much redundant with what is on the homosexuality article. I think we should decide what all we are going to keep and work on the sandbox page until we come to some agreement. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 01:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that every visual example of homosexual art or other media is male oriented? What about putting lesbian historical or artistic visual media somewhere in this article as well, or is this just a man thing? 125.175.84.194 ( talk) 09:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that this article is semi-protected. Would the person who did this please place the required tag on the article. Exploding Boy ( talk) 16:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This section currently uses the acronym "LGB", where simply putting "gay & lesbian" would make more sense. It is not unusual for bisexual people to have opposite sex relationships, as this is part of their orientation. The use of the acronym implies that bisexuals, too, date opposite sex people as a means of cover-up, which would be highly incorrect and may fall under an unintentional case of bisexual erasure by whoever wrote that paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.119.71 ( talk) 00:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Homosexuality is basically the attraction in between the people of the different sexes ,while this kind of things are common and are now welcomed even by the government of many countries ,but it is not that openly discussed in the India due to various social stigmas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.208.36 ( talk) 18:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
After reading the article titled "Homosexuality" I found that it lacked the usual standard of impartiality found on wikipedia. The points put across in the document especially to do with religion were misleading and biased. It has no information about why some religions and countries are morally against homosexuality. It also has no information about the risk of HIV, AIDs and other related STDs and illnesses which are directly linked to homosexuality and that seriously diminish life expectancy and personal health and hygiene
for further discussion on the point please contact me at "doctorjohndavies@googlemail.com" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.66.188 ( talk • contribs)
While the Two-Spirit identity was vastly common throughout the continent, if not universal, to call it the most common form of same-sex relations is presumptuous I would say. It is most likely that most homosexual activity took place within male-male or female-female identities and that the third gender was also expressed but not on the same scale. The Two-Spirit was a "between-gender" identity...neither male nor female but a combination. Homosexual and bisexual men who identified as male likewise not engage in this transgender role but would seek out relationships as men with other men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.249.252 ( talk) 15:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Homosexuality is biologically speaking, a defect which can be cured genetically, isn't it?, is there much dispute about that?. Rodrigue ( talk) 17:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
In a word, no. First homosexuality is not a defect. Homosexuality is, biologically speaking, genetically determined, just like your skin color, hair color or eye color, and can be changed, long term, just as easily. Generally genetic traits cannot be changed, you are born with them. It is theorized that some homosexual behavior or inclination can be environmentally influenced (as opposed to genetically) but this does not speak about it from a biological perspective. Some behavior learned from the environment can be changed through environmental conditioning. But then, why would someone want to do that? It would be like if you learned to write with your left hand, why would you want to force yourself to write with your right hand, and not your left hand? Atom ( talk) 20:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, these kinds of questions are probably best fielded at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous. Atom ( talk) 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Joshua,
The map of the world with the Illegal/Legal information was correct before you changed it. Note the original file on the Wikipedia Commons.
Under the Section that said "Homosexuality Legal" and listed subheadings of "Same-sex marriage" etc..etc... the subheadings, albeit a a bit misleading, were to show areas in which it was not only legal to be homosexual but various stages of "acceptance" among the country (ie: some accept homosexuals to the extent where they are given equal rights of marriage).
Your changes showed that same-sex marriage in, for instance, Saudi Arabia is punishable by death. In actuality, the institute of "same-sex marriage" does not even exist in Saudi Arabia, so how can one be put to death for it? Rather, the map is showing that by BEING homosexual you are put to death. Just as in many countries being discovered to be homosexual can result in prison time.
Just a thought...the map needs to be re-worded, but as it stands now, the "new titling" of "same-sex marriage legal" and "same sex marriage illegal" is incorrect. -- Nsaum75 ( talk) 19:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Joshuajohanson, In actuality, in many islamic countries, if you are homosexual or are suspected to be of homosexual orientation, then you do get the death penalty. If they find you having sex with someone of the same gender, it only makes it that much 'easier' to prove your homosexuality and punish you. -- Nsaum75 ( talk) 02:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The edits by User:Micov on Homosexuality were removed because of a few flaws in presentation; however, the information still seems relevant and backed-up. Any objections to putting them in (in the right place)? Darimoma ( talk) 11:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I came here to look for a list of dates of decriminalization of homosexuality. Wikipedia does not appear to have this, beyond the handful of dates mentioned under "Politics". I cannot help but note that this article is in an abysmal state in terms of encyclopedic tone and neutrality. I am not going to invest time trying to fix this, but can editors please try to observe a minimal semblance of writing neutrally? It is clear, of course, that the "LBGT" articles are mostly written by "LBGT people", but please try to make this circumstance a little bit less painfully obvious. First of all, discussion of legal issues needs to be disentangled from the generic rambling discussion of societal attitudes, "oppression", etc. Assume that the reader is interested in mere facts, not political sermons. The constant implication that the position of the majority is "wrong" raises giant WP:REDFLAGs. You cannot present this as the justified fight of a tiny minority who was "right" all along against evil mainstream society who was "wrong" all along. WP:DUE says that mainstream positions should receive precedence. It is highly dubious to state "the gay community first began to achieve actual, though limited, civil rights". Civil rights are for citizens, not "communities". The "right" here referred to is the single issue of the legality of homosexual acts, which was not a civil right prior to the 1960s, and which is now a civil right in most countries. Etc. Frankly, the entire article would need to be rewritten from scratch to get rid of the inherent bias present in every turn of phrase, and I say this not because I want to see any sort of "anti-gay" view given more precedence, but simply because it hurts to see such blatant violation of Wikipedia core policy. You can state the same facts in neutral language, please try. -- dab (��) 14:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
9 References for the 2-7% homosexuality rate in the intro section seem excessive. 5 at most seems good enough? Inseeisyou ( talk) 07:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
A woefully poor amount of information is included on health hazards. AIDS played a huge role in the history of gay sex, and it is all but completely ignored. This section needs to be expanded. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 01:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This is transparent. I don't think any discussion is needed. Dybryd ( talk) 02:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Were there any women on the Titanic? Of course, have a section on AIDS. But don't pretend it's a "health hazard" either specific to or general to "homosexuality". The modern western gay male perspective tends to overwhelm general coverage of homosexuality on Wikipedia anyway.
This article is not called male homosexuality or modern homosexuality or American homosexuality (or, if you'll pardon a little talk-page POV slippage, non-monogamous homosexuality). I suggest a section called "HIV and AIDS in the gay male community."
[ETA: heh. I just checked the blue link in my list above ... and it's a redirect to this article. Maybe the two things are synonymous after all.]
Dybryd ( talk) 01:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Unless someone can explain why the subsection AIDS and STDs among Western men who have sex with men is beneficial to the article, it should be removed. This article is about homosexuality, not Western homosexual men and certainly not Western homosexual men who have sex with other men. There is an article entitled Men who have sex with men, and that is the appropriate place for such content (although it would need some work before being added there). In fact, there is a link to that article in what has been added here. This is analogous to the Heterosexuality article's going into detail about the increased risk of cervical cancer to straight women who have many children or whose partners are uncircumcised. That would be inappropriate, and so is this. My good faith is substantial and I am hesitant to revert without discussion, but I am detecting some major POV problems with these additions and would like to see an effort at consensus before content so peripheral to the topic of the article is permitted to stay. Rivertorch ( talk) 05:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
My investigation regarding homosexual behavior has led me to many health findings that are not documented in any of these major topics view on this site. That brings into focus who the writters are that score these so called "fndings." It is evident that, although it is not politically correct to identify such findings, I find myself in need to set the record straight and therefore I will identify some of the health hazards associated with this lifestyle. First, it has all kinds of sexually transmitted diseases. There are too many to list. All of which are incurable, but many are uncontrollable, AIDS being the KING of them all. Second, there is a high degree of promiscuity associated to praticipants. It is recorded that 75% of all homosexuals are sexually active with more than 100 to 1,000+ partners in ones lifetime. This is extremely out of the normal for a civilized society. The average heterosexual has just a one, two, or three in his or her respective lifetime. Many of which have only one. Third, all the hurtful practices associated with the act of homosexual behavior. Such as fisting, which tares the rectum of the receiver. And let us not forget "rimming" which creates feces, bacteria in the ingesting male. A medical doctor said that every weekend in San Francisco there are young men that come into the emergency room looking for medical attention due to rectal trama. "It looks like hamburger meat." This is not safe sex! Fourth, is the domestic abues of both men and women homosexuals. Men are 6 to 8 times more likely to be offended by one's parter than heterosexual couples, while even worse are women 8-10 times more likey. Fourth, is the rate of death of the gay community. Men and women are likely to live 20-40 years less than heterosexuls, thirty being the most accurate. No one is talking about this tradegy. Fifth, is the alcoholism, illegal and legal drug abuse associated to the gay lifestyle, most us which is to dim the pain of self abuse.
Now, why have some of these facts not been recorded? "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS." I encourage you to check the facts before you drink the punch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.117.90 ( talk) 06:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I placed a sentence at the and of paragraph 1 modeled after the matching one at Heterosexuality
-Zeus- u| c 19:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The physical action of homosexual relations is not capable of sexual reproduction among humans without the use of current assisted reproductive technologies. In the future, however, lesbian couples may have their own biological children from eachother, as well as gay men thanks to stem cell research.
Ok. Wording such as this: "In the future, however, gay and lesbian couples may have their own biological children from each other" makes it confusing. This may mean something like this: [6], ie: one of the gay couple can inseminate (natural or via Artificial insemination or IVF) one of the lesbian couple. And four of them raising the kid(s) together. Phoenix of9 ( talk) 20:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
(reset indent) How about "In the future, however, gay couples and lesbian couples may be able to have children that combine the partners' genes, thanks to stem cell research."? Agathman ( talk) 20:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
"The physical action of homosexual relations is not capable of sexual reproduction among humans without the use of current assisted reproductive technologies." - Current assisted reproductive technology allows the physical action of homosexual relations (for example,
anal sex between men) to produce children? Really? –
Steel
20:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
In January 2008, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that same-sex couples have the right to adopt a child.[89][90] In the U.S., LGB people can legally adopt in all states except for Florida.[91] Same sex couples are not capable of sexual reproduction unless they utilize a surrogate or assisted reproductive technology; this may change with stem cell research.[92]
(unindent) Oral sex article: "Although a common misconception,[14] oral sex (by means of fellatio) alone cannot result in pregnancy.". And as I said: "I think it is important to stress that while homosexual sex doesnt lead to reproduction, many homosexual people are biological parents. So why did you delete reliably sourced information?" Phoenix of9 ( talk) 19:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
“ | In British Columbia, Canada, lesbian and bisexual youth has been found to be up to seven times more likely to get pregnant than their heterosexual peers while boys were more likely to cause a pregnancy if they identified as gay or bisexual. [2] A 1981 survey in San Francisco found that homosexuals have only one-fifth as many children as heterosexuals. [3] | ” |
I am reverting this edit for the following reasons:
It is possible that some of the material in this latest edit would be salvageable, with proper sourcing, but I would like to reiterate this one more time: as a general overview article, Homosexuality should not delve into unnecessary detail in any one section. Complaints filed against Health Canada by LGB activists? That's almost certainly too much detail for the health section of this article. The danger of subtle POV creep also remains. Rivertorch ( talk) 04:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding
this edit, which I am reverting:
That a "new line of research" is reportedly beginning is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in this overview article. We really need to stick to established science (i.e., theories or at least well-tested hypotheses), not speculation, however well-meaning and plausible.
Rivertorch (
talk)
01:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
What on Earth does homosexuality have to do with this? You can't correlate a specific sexual orientation with risks and infections that are universal to sexuality itself. Having references that support statistical claims such as "homosexuals are more likely to contract HIV than heterosexuals" does not necessarily merit its inclusion in the article, as these type of claims cannot be presented like some blanket statement over the entire nature of homosexuality itself. The entire notion screams POV. The fact that it was added, and is meticulously maintained, only by editors who huddle together within spheres of religious and ex-gay articles really frightens me. This needs to be brought to the attention of an administrator or someone with a more neutral interest in the subject who can decide its appropriateness. 74.242.121.34 ( talk) 02:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The AIDS, STDs and health issues sections belong in the Human sexual behavior, Gay community, Anal sex, Oral sex and similar articles, not here. Exploding Boy ( talk) 16:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Now that there is a new homosexual orientation page, we need to decide how to get rid of the redundancy between these two pages. I think we all agree that the Theories of causality, Malleability of sexual orientation and Pathological model of homosexuality should be summarized. I have tried to do this and have summarized the information on Talk:Homosexuality/Sandbox. I also think that Coming out and Sexual orientation and the law are specifically about a homosexual orientation and should be summarized, but I am okay if they aren't.
The other thing is that there is a lot of redundant information between this page and same-sex relationships. Things like Same-sex relationships in history, Same-sex couples, Same-sex sexuality, Religious perspectives on same-sex sexuality are pretty much redundant with what is on the homosexuality article. I think we should decide what all we are going to keep and work on the sandbox page until we come to some agreement. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 01:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that every visual example of homosexual art or other media is male oriented? What about putting lesbian historical or artistic visual media somewhere in this article as well, or is this just a man thing? 125.175.84.194 ( talk) 09:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that this article is semi-protected. Would the person who did this please place the required tag on the article. Exploding Boy ( talk) 16:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This section currently uses the acronym "LGB", where simply putting "gay & lesbian" would make more sense. It is not unusual for bisexual people to have opposite sex relationships, as this is part of their orientation. The use of the acronym implies that bisexuals, too, date opposite sex people as a means of cover-up, which would be highly incorrect and may fall under an unintentional case of bisexual erasure by whoever wrote that paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.119.71 ( talk) 00:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Homosexuality is basically the attraction in between the people of the different sexes ,while this kind of things are common and are now welcomed even by the government of many countries ,but it is not that openly discussed in the India due to various social stigmas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.208.36 ( talk) 18:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
After reading the article titled "Homosexuality" I found that it lacked the usual standard of impartiality found on wikipedia. The points put across in the document especially to do with religion were misleading and biased. It has no information about why some religions and countries are morally against homosexuality. It also has no information about the risk of HIV, AIDs and other related STDs and illnesses which are directly linked to homosexuality and that seriously diminish life expectancy and personal health and hygiene
for further discussion on the point please contact me at "doctorjohndavies@googlemail.com" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.66.188 ( talk • contribs)
While the Two-Spirit identity was vastly common throughout the continent, if not universal, to call it the most common form of same-sex relations is presumptuous I would say. It is most likely that most homosexual activity took place within male-male or female-female identities and that the third gender was also expressed but not on the same scale. The Two-Spirit was a "between-gender" identity...neither male nor female but a combination. Homosexual and bisexual men who identified as male likewise not engage in this transgender role but would seek out relationships as men with other men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.249.252 ( talk) 15:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Homosexuality is biologically speaking, a defect which can be cured genetically, isn't it?, is there much dispute about that?. Rodrigue ( talk) 17:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
In a word, no. First homosexuality is not a defect. Homosexuality is, biologically speaking, genetically determined, just like your skin color, hair color or eye color, and can be changed, long term, just as easily. Generally genetic traits cannot be changed, you are born with them. It is theorized that some homosexual behavior or inclination can be environmentally influenced (as opposed to genetically) but this does not speak about it from a biological perspective. Some behavior learned from the environment can be changed through environmental conditioning. But then, why would someone want to do that? It would be like if you learned to write with your left hand, why would you want to force yourself to write with your right hand, and not your left hand? Atom ( talk) 20:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, these kinds of questions are probably best fielded at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous. Atom ( talk) 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Joshua,
The map of the world with the Illegal/Legal information was correct before you changed it. Note the original file on the Wikipedia Commons.
Under the Section that said "Homosexuality Legal" and listed subheadings of "Same-sex marriage" etc..etc... the subheadings, albeit a a bit misleading, were to show areas in which it was not only legal to be homosexual but various stages of "acceptance" among the country (ie: some accept homosexuals to the extent where they are given equal rights of marriage).
Your changes showed that same-sex marriage in, for instance, Saudi Arabia is punishable by death. In actuality, the institute of "same-sex marriage" does not even exist in Saudi Arabia, so how can one be put to death for it? Rather, the map is showing that by BEING homosexual you are put to death. Just as in many countries being discovered to be homosexual can result in prison time.
Just a thought...the map needs to be re-worded, but as it stands now, the "new titling" of "same-sex marriage legal" and "same sex marriage illegal" is incorrect. -- Nsaum75 ( talk) 19:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Joshuajohanson, In actuality, in many islamic countries, if you are homosexual or are suspected to be of homosexual orientation, then you do get the death penalty. If they find you having sex with someone of the same gender, it only makes it that much 'easier' to prove your homosexuality and punish you. -- Nsaum75 ( talk) 02:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The edits by User:Micov on Homosexuality were removed because of a few flaws in presentation; however, the information still seems relevant and backed-up. Any objections to putting them in (in the right place)? Darimoma ( talk) 11:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I came here to look for a list of dates of decriminalization of homosexuality. Wikipedia does not appear to have this, beyond the handful of dates mentioned under "Politics". I cannot help but note that this article is in an abysmal state in terms of encyclopedic tone and neutrality. I am not going to invest time trying to fix this, but can editors please try to observe a minimal semblance of writing neutrally? It is clear, of course, that the "LBGT" articles are mostly written by "LBGT people", but please try to make this circumstance a little bit less painfully obvious. First of all, discussion of legal issues needs to be disentangled from the generic rambling discussion of societal attitudes, "oppression", etc. Assume that the reader is interested in mere facts, not political sermons. The constant implication that the position of the majority is "wrong" raises giant WP:REDFLAGs. You cannot present this as the justified fight of a tiny minority who was "right" all along against evil mainstream society who was "wrong" all along. WP:DUE says that mainstream positions should receive precedence. It is highly dubious to state "the gay community first began to achieve actual, though limited, civil rights". Civil rights are for citizens, not "communities". The "right" here referred to is the single issue of the legality of homosexual acts, which was not a civil right prior to the 1960s, and which is now a civil right in most countries. Etc. Frankly, the entire article would need to be rewritten from scratch to get rid of the inherent bias present in every turn of phrase, and I say this not because I want to see any sort of "anti-gay" view given more precedence, but simply because it hurts to see such blatant violation of Wikipedia core policy. You can state the same facts in neutral language, please try. -- dab (��) 14:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
9 References for the 2-7% homosexuality rate in the intro section seem excessive. 5 at most seems good enough? Inseeisyou ( talk) 07:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
A woefully poor amount of information is included on health hazards. AIDS played a huge role in the history of gay sex, and it is all but completely ignored. This section needs to be expanded. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 01:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This is transparent. I don't think any discussion is needed. Dybryd ( talk) 02:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Were there any women on the Titanic? Of course, have a section on AIDS. But don't pretend it's a "health hazard" either specific to or general to "homosexuality". The modern western gay male perspective tends to overwhelm general coverage of homosexuality on Wikipedia anyway.
This article is not called male homosexuality or modern homosexuality or American homosexuality (or, if you'll pardon a little talk-page POV slippage, non-monogamous homosexuality). I suggest a section called "HIV and AIDS in the gay male community."
[ETA: heh. I just checked the blue link in my list above ... and it's a redirect to this article. Maybe the two things are synonymous after all.]
Dybryd ( talk) 01:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Unless someone can explain why the subsection AIDS and STDs among Western men who have sex with men is beneficial to the article, it should be removed. This article is about homosexuality, not Western homosexual men and certainly not Western homosexual men who have sex with other men. There is an article entitled Men who have sex with men, and that is the appropriate place for such content (although it would need some work before being added there). In fact, there is a link to that article in what has been added here. This is analogous to the Heterosexuality article's going into detail about the increased risk of cervical cancer to straight women who have many children or whose partners are uncircumcised. That would be inappropriate, and so is this. My good faith is substantial and I am hesitant to revert without discussion, but I am detecting some major POV problems with these additions and would like to see an effort at consensus before content so peripheral to the topic of the article is permitted to stay. Rivertorch ( talk) 05:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
My investigation regarding homosexual behavior has led me to many health findings that are not documented in any of these major topics view on this site. That brings into focus who the writters are that score these so called "fndings." It is evident that, although it is not politically correct to identify such findings, I find myself in need to set the record straight and therefore I will identify some of the health hazards associated with this lifestyle. First, it has all kinds of sexually transmitted diseases. There are too many to list. All of which are incurable, but many are uncontrollable, AIDS being the KING of them all. Second, there is a high degree of promiscuity associated to praticipants. It is recorded that 75% of all homosexuals are sexually active with more than 100 to 1,000+ partners in ones lifetime. This is extremely out of the normal for a civilized society. The average heterosexual has just a one, two, or three in his or her respective lifetime. Many of which have only one. Third, all the hurtful practices associated with the act of homosexual behavior. Such as fisting, which tares the rectum of the receiver. And let us not forget "rimming" which creates feces, bacteria in the ingesting male. A medical doctor said that every weekend in San Francisco there are young men that come into the emergency room looking for medical attention due to rectal trama. "It looks like hamburger meat." This is not safe sex! Fourth, is the domestic abues of both men and women homosexuals. Men are 6 to 8 times more likely to be offended by one's parter than heterosexual couples, while even worse are women 8-10 times more likey. Fourth, is the rate of death of the gay community. Men and women are likely to live 20-40 years less than heterosexuls, thirty being the most accurate. No one is talking about this tradegy. Fifth, is the alcoholism, illegal and legal drug abuse associated to the gay lifestyle, most us which is to dim the pain of self abuse.
Now, why have some of these facts not been recorded? "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS." I encourage you to check the facts before you drink the punch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.117.90 ( talk) 06:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I placed a sentence at the and of paragraph 1 modeled after the matching one at Heterosexuality
-Zeus- u| c 19:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The physical action of homosexual relations is not capable of sexual reproduction among humans without the use of current assisted reproductive technologies. In the future, however, lesbian couples may have their own biological children from eachother, as well as gay men thanks to stem cell research.
Ok. Wording such as this: "In the future, however, gay and lesbian couples may have their own biological children from each other" makes it confusing. This may mean something like this: [6], ie: one of the gay couple can inseminate (natural or via Artificial insemination or IVF) one of the lesbian couple. And four of them raising the kid(s) together. Phoenix of9 ( talk) 20:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
(reset indent) How about "In the future, however, gay couples and lesbian couples may be able to have children that combine the partners' genes, thanks to stem cell research."? Agathman ( talk) 20:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
"The physical action of homosexual relations is not capable of sexual reproduction among humans without the use of current assisted reproductive technologies." - Current assisted reproductive technology allows the physical action of homosexual relations (for example,
anal sex between men) to produce children? Really? –
Steel
20:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
In January 2008, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that same-sex couples have the right to adopt a child.[89][90] In the U.S., LGB people can legally adopt in all states except for Florida.[91] Same sex couples are not capable of sexual reproduction unless they utilize a surrogate or assisted reproductive technology; this may change with stem cell research.[92]
(unindent) Oral sex article: "Although a common misconception,[14] oral sex (by means of fellatio) alone cannot result in pregnancy.". And as I said: "I think it is important to stress that while homosexual sex doesnt lead to reproduction, many homosexual people are biological parents. So why did you delete reliably sourced information?" Phoenix of9 ( talk) 19:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
“ | In British Columbia, Canada, lesbian and bisexual youth has been found to be up to seven times more likely to get pregnant than their heterosexual peers while boys were more likely to cause a pregnancy if they identified as gay or bisexual. [2] A 1981 survey in San Francisco found that homosexuals have only one-fifth as many children as heterosexuals. [3] | ” |
I am reverting this edit for the following reasons:
It is possible that some of the material in this latest edit would be salvageable, with proper sourcing, but I would like to reiterate this one more time: as a general overview article, Homosexuality should not delve into unnecessary detail in any one section. Complaints filed against Health Canada by LGB activists? That's almost certainly too much detail for the health section of this article. The danger of subtle POV creep also remains. Rivertorch ( talk) 04:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding
this edit, which I am reverting:
That a "new line of research" is reportedly beginning is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in this overview article. We really need to stick to established science (i.e., theories or at least well-tested hypotheses), not speculation, however well-meaning and plausible.
Rivertorch (
talk)
01:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)