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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Similar debates surround other sexuality articles. I offered some edits and ran into somewhat related disagreements on content. It was suggested I post a draft and that's the method that worked. One editor suggested that what I wrote about one sexual orientation, asexuality, might better fit the general sexual orientation article.
Here's what happened, in short:
1. The problem was partly about content, not entirely unlike the disagreement you're finding here, and that, because of my adding content, I had made the lede (lead) too long.
2. I copied the then-current revision of the article.
3. I took my copy offline.
4. I drafted a fairly bold and massive reorganization of the entire article including a trimmed lede and I preserved content regardless of dispute. I decided that disputes about content would be handled another time, if at all. I didn't do it part by part; I did the whole article in one sweep, so people could see what it would likely look like in the end.
5. I wrote in boldface at the top of the draft a statement that this proposal was only about reorganization and not about content per se.
6. I posted the draft as a draft in an editable format like that of an article in WP. It was not a scanned image. A scanned image basically cannot be edited in WP by most editors.
7. I posted an invitation to edit the draft and, impliedly, to comment on it.
8. No one replied at the time or soon after.
9. The only edits to the draft were by me. Nothing stopped any other editor but no one else chose to edit it.
10. I posted an announcement that I was going to revise the article in accordance with the draft.
11. No reply.
12. I translated, offline, my proposal into a set of steps I could apply to the live article. It was a list of headings to create or revise, words to cut or add, paragraphs to move, and so on, in order of appearance from the beginning of the article to the end. That was intended to preserve any recent content edits by anyone, because as I carried out steps I would see if the premise of an edit was no longer present.
13. I edited the live article consistently with the draft, followed by my editing four more times the same day (Apr. 17, 2010). I preserved other editors' content changes that occurred between when I had copied the article before drafting the reorganization and when I edited the live article. I positioned any such changes in accordance with the new reorganization.
14. I posted a talk-page announcement that I had done so.
15. The response was praise by one editor and a few smaller edits by that editor the same day (Apr. 17).
16. I restored one edit, with an explanation, and left the other edits intact.
17. My one restoration was not reverted or criticized.
18. The article as a whole has had few or no changes since then that appear to be criticisms of the reorganization. (It has had edits motivated by other purposes.) The reorganization has essentially stabilized, so it appears it reflects general, albeit silent, consensus on the reorganization. It's been roughly two months since then.
I think editors seeing what I was actually proposing -- an article draft, not just a plan -- resolved many of the concerns about what I intended to do but hadn't shown yet. Sexuality is a subject about which many people have been seriously burned. Homicide, suicide, incarceration, forced treatment, impoverishment, and AIDS research foot-draggings have occurred widely over sexual orientation; entire national governments have decreed what we consider sexual orientation and what they call deviation or worse a matter for long incarceration and death penalties; I don't know if those events have happened among WP editors but it's likely that, with WP editors being very numerous, some editors know people who have been punished in these ways for these reasons. There was an apparent warning to one editor for his harsh attitude, with a possibility of the editor being banned, but I defended that editor's presence even though we had disagreed strongly because, I pointed out, in this field there is no shortage of people who feel just as strongly. Many people have been lied to about sexuality issues and reasonably fear that editors (such as you and me) will lie about their future plans for the editing of articles. Thus, posting a plan for a draft is not nearly as credible as posting a draft, and posting a draft is preferable to editing live when changes are likely to be controverted and waiting a little is harmless and lets you consider responses.
Most sandboxes, however, may not be the best place, because, as I understand it, they're temporary. See a Wikipedia description of the sandbox and another one. But posting a draft with the talk page makes it permanent and accessible to all editors and the general public and yet does not insert anything into the live articles (the main namespace), so it's a safe place for proposals. You posted a plan. Posting a draft of the article would be even more helpful.
For anyone else who wants to know how, here's how to post a draft with the talk page. Or you can make one in your user space. (Or both, if apropos.)
Few people get involved in online debates about any single issue, in my experience. Yet those few are apparently sufficient to establish consensus in any direction. More can weigh in if necessary, but I suspect the many watch to see if the few resolve it. That's because Wikipedia's system is less about voting and more about reasons. I was the original author of an article in another field and about three months later the article was nominated for deletion. I defended it but I was in the minority, if voting counted, and some of the charges against my work were excessive. I requested details to back some of the charges (e.g., on copyediting supposedly wanted); those simple requests resolved some of them. I made some changes that I thought were reasonable, either because they were good or because not doing so wasn't worth defending, but mostly I defended what was there. The debate was extended, and not by me. We debated some more. The result was a determination that there was no consensus for deletion because there was no evidence that I hadn't done what I was supposed to do, and the article is still up. I sometimes do more edits to that article. It was annoying and time-consuming to defend the article, but the result is a contribution to WP, in my opinion a solid contribution, and most of my edits across all of WP do not get challenged like that.
Nick Levinson ( talk) 19:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The terms above are used in a way that takes the reader's understanding for granted. I don't think readers can be presumed to understand these terms, especially in an article whose primary purpose is describing homosexuality. They should either be defined as terms or eliminated in favour of a clear explanation inserted into the text where the terms currently appear. I'd favour the latter approach, as each term is used only once or twice in the entire article. I'd do the editing myself, but I'm not familiar with these terms in this context: are they anthropological? Ross Fraser ( talk) 06:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
wikepedia statements this write up (HOMOSEXUALITY) contains affirmations and contradictions and illogical statements. RFeference statment to research, not including or stating the research source itself. Denial of research, or statement of no research made not stated. This article is geared to mislead and seem inclined to propagate ideolog agenda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.36.48 ( talk) 21:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
An editor recently deleted the following as unknowable:
The vast majority of gay and lesbian individuals lead happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and productive lives.
I would argue that this is knowable, but I don't have a source, so I don't want to put it back. It's knowable if scientific surveys of self-reporters and observers (such as family and neighbors) or if standard calibrated scientific tests of factors that, outside of sexuality, are accepted as indicators of happiness, health, adjustment, and productivity produce scores that don't vary significantly or consistently between L/G people and heterosexuals. That requires agreeing on much of psychology, e.g., what constitutes happiness, but many do agree, so, if the tests are valid elsewhere, they can be valid here. (Of course, they won't be valid if they include a bias against being L/G, but the field has matured enough to be able to identify such biases and take them out.)
Does anyone remember where the statement came from? I have not gone through the article's revision history. (I wonder if it might be the California amici brief.) If you know, please add a source and, if editorially appropriate, restore the statement.
Nick Levinson ( talk) 02:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like it comes from the APA policy page: http://www.apa.org/news/press/statements/index.aspx 76.119.237.34 ( talk) 03:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit of an odd statement though isn't it? It infers an assumption that a homosexual relationship was any less valid than a heterosexual one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.22.226 ( talk) 10:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
This needs a tiny context, like, "Where it is legal...". I strongly doubt the statement is true for Iran or a number of similar countries. Thankfully, this happened and this, so the statement is probably true for the majority of Earth's population, even though APA probably did not ponder on that, and made a statement from the US-only perspective. 85.204.164.26 ( talk) 08:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Basically I just added a section below the psychology section called Genetics. I thought maybe I should put it within the psychology or Etiology section but I think this section is large and important enough to stand on its own. Let me know if you think this post is one sided or unfair because of the conclusion, I believe the science used is accurate. Here is what the post states I will outline it here.
A.) Do scientists believe in the direct sexual selection of physical traits. (Is there a gene that makes a person attracted to blue eyes, are we attracted to specific genes?)
B.) If you agree that the current scientific understanding of human attraction rejects such direct forms of attraction... though the Theory of Evolution used to purport racial/genetic attraction.
C.)There cannot be a specific gene, a 'gay gene', causing attraction to male or female body parts. (If we can't be genetically attracted to blue eyes, we can't be genetically attracted to penes or vulvae. )
D.)If we agree on these then we are forced to claim against direct genetic causes for sexual orientation.
Obviously this is clearly a controversial position, I am aware homosexuals may claim to not be only physically attracted; but nonsexual homosexuality may be a hard sell (simply speaking lots of men hug and kiss; in different cultures). But I believe this post is good science and therefore belongs on the Wikipedia Homosexuality page. If you agree that this argument is good and fair science, please defend it from vandalism or attempts at censoring. I am not saying I expect such a thing but it is a possibility. I believe I have all my refs and citations in order. I am dyslexic so check my grammar and spelling please. I did use spell check though.-- Nishauncom ( talk) 03:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
As for genetics there have been few propositions to explain a direct genetic source for homosexuality. Though the 'gay gene' is a common belief in society at large. A popular statement among the LGBT is they feel they have been gay since or before they were born. The problem with this view is mainly an argument of genetics and sexual selection. The mainstream belief among those who study the field of evolution and sexual selection is there are no direct genetic causes of sexual attraction. It was postulated when evolution was in its infancy that sexual attraction and attraction towards different physical traits was a result of naturally occurring biological forces. These forces led humans and animals to recognize and select specific attributes within a prospected partner, this can be referred to as a direct sexual selection. Such a concept could even be considered a sub plot of evolution, as direct sexual selection was figuratively and "...the preservation of favored races," [1] was literally the subtitle of Darwin's most popular book. Some may argue that because Darwin was an advocate of monogenesis he may not have been as racially motivated as some of his contemporaries and critics, it is also possible that such a position was simply because a belief in common origins is 'necessary' for evolution; such 'racial' beliefs are no longer prevalent within proponents of the Theory of Evolution. [2] As a point of fact, we must consider that attraction in humans and animals only occurs indirectly.
As Jerry Coyne argues:
“ | Suppose, for example, that members of a species had evolved a visual preference for red color because that preference helped them locate ripe fruits and berries. If a mutant male appeared with a patch of red on his breast, he might be preferred by females simply because of this preexisting preference...females derive neither direct nor indirect benefits from choosing a particular male. | ” |
— Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution is True, p.167 |
A physical trait, such as blue eyes, is no longer considered a basic argument of physical and then genetic superiority, (and therefore worth reproducing through sexual selection.) Such attraction is considered an indirect measure of 'beauty', [3] meaning the color blue may simply be an attraction to the literal color on the basis of the sky or recognition of water, in humans. So when the blue eye color if found through the process of mutation, though technically a useless trait, it may inadvertently reproduce; because of previously stated attraction. Many have argued that when dealing with humans no form of sexual selection occurs, because of the inner workings of human society, social evolution, realities such as arranged marriages and non-extreme environments or religion prevent any natural selecting; and even canceling out the evolutionary processes in human beings altogether. [1] This implies that we should not look to genetic sources for any of our attractions. The basic consensus is creatures whether human or not have no ability to directly detect the genetic makeup of another individual and formulate a decision of attraction or rejection. As an argument of sexual selection it would then be impossible for a human being or any creature to be attracted to the genetic make up (in this case male or female) of another individual, this would prevent a gene for sexual orientation and therefore prevent genetic homosexuality. This leads to the conclusion that only psychological sources
(Once again two specific claims 2 specific references. I agree the conclusion is not found anywhere else, which implies OR or POV but the points and claims are in fact available elsewhere. Technically three claims, I also wanted to remind listeners that genetic sexual attraction used to be a direct part of the Theory of Evolution,therefore I referenced the subtitle of Darwins book.) -- Nishauncom ( talk) 19:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The basic problem with your POV claim is there is only one argument/ question/ claim presented. (Does the scientific community believe in attraction to specific genes.) Therefore from an argument perspective that is the main thing that needs to be proven / cited / referenced. It may be harder for me to find others who have analyzed these facts and come to the conclusion that a 'gay gene' cannot exist, I assume that is what you mean by OR I checked the page and that is the only rule I seem to be breaking, in my post I seem to be analyzing the fact I presented then I come to a conclusion.
Remember no one help me, I guess I have to do this myself for some reason, huh?-- Nishauncom ( talk) 01:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Some editors have decided to include the following text about including homosexuality in the DSM:
Does anyone here think that "sissyphobia" is worth mentioning in this article? The book that proposed it does not seem to be particularly notable, so I've proposed that article for deletion, but maybe something can be said here about this. Note that this "phobia" doesn't have anything to do with homophobia, although it's linked from there, because this supposed "phobia" is exhibited by gay men that don't like effeminate partners, I gather. Maybe something could be said in the social construct section here or perhaps in Queer theory, not necessarily using this neologism? I confess, I haven't read the latter article. Tijfo098 ( talk) 07:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It really is. This article should be quick-failed. I'm astonished that Destinero nominated it. -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I am a graduate student working on the Wikimedia Public Policy Initiative and I am working on expanding the History section for the Middle East in particular. I noticed that it is lacking in citations and could be expanded to be more thorough in general. I have a a draft/outline in my Sandbox that I am developing. As my focus is specifically the Middle East, I intend on splitting the current section "Middle East, South & Central Asia" into two parts, as my sources do not address Central and South Asia in particular.
I am also new to Wikipedia, so any comments would be more than welcome, here or on my talk page.
ParisianTaupe ( talk) 21:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
"Homosexual behavior in animals is also widely encountered" sais the article... how can that be when the same article admits only 1500 species do have homosexual behavior in almost 3.000.000 to 30.000.000 species? is 0,00008% "widely"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.132.29.238 ( talk) 21:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
This is an important topic that probably warrants its own page, given the complexity of the arguments and information ParisianTaupe wishes to convey. We talked about where his own page might fit within the larger subject on Wikipedia and about the challenges of fitting his contribution into the existing framework. I suggested that it might be easier to focus on the ways in which homosexuality has been viewed over time since it's somewhat difficult to define terms in order to do the research from the contemporary perspective. Ismee ( talk) 21:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Ismee
I wanted to add a link to exit poll under the Demographics section, but couldn't because I'm a noob and this article is protected. Thanks. 98.154.177.118 ( talk) 07:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)some guy
Why would you want a link to exit poll? HiLo48 ( talk) 07:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
This article violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View Policy, probably the most important rule. It does not even meet Wikipedia's requirements or rules, neither does it reflect a global view on the subject in most sections, outdated, not one single negative thing about it, and some other issues. We strongly disagree with the article! And request an immediate edit with fair representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XxDestinyxX ( talk • contribs)
hi could someone link to this wikipedia page at the bottom of the homosexuality page. it helped me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.247.38 ( talk) 00:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me why zero negative aspects of homosexual activty are cited in the article? There are a myriad of negative effects of homosexual activity (i.e. diseases, etc.) that are completely ignored. Is there a reason why this article is pretending that homosexuality is completely normal and healthy? ΙΧΘΥΣ ( talk) 04:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)ou
Garik, it is evident that ΙΧΘΥΣ is interested in misusing Wikipedia to promulgate his or her Christianist POV, and it is also evident that your own good intent accords with Wikipedia policy. Nevertheless, perhaps unintentionally, you've made a substantial error. Homosexuality is not a "sexual preference", it is a sexual orientation. The "sexual preference" terminology, in context of an article or discussion such as this present one, is favoured by those who espouse the scientifically-untenable POV that everyone is inherently heterosexual and homosexuality is a lifestyle or behavioural choice made by broken, damaged, insufficiently-prayerful heterosexual persons. In reality, one's sexual preference is nothing more or less than what specific things one likes to do in bed (or wherever). Please mind the difference and use the valid term, thanks. — Scheinwerfermann T· C00:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Statement as "the female subjects (both gay and straight women) became sexually aroused when they viewed heterosexual as well as lesbian erotic films. Among the male subjects, however, the straight men were turned on only by erotic films with women, the gay ones by those with men" is untrue. Female participants only as a whole were on average more or less equally aroused, but particular participants were all over the scale. At the same time, there were men equally aroused by both types of porn and even two gay men in that very small study group who were more aroused by lesbian porn. Here's a link to that study (participants responses on page 4): http://www.indiana.edu/~sexlab/files/pubs/chiversetal2004.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.16.109.226 ( talk) 11:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: -- Cirt ( talk) 05:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Following this notice at Cirt's talk page, I shall take over this review. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: Fixed three and unlinked ubiquity as there is no Wikipedia article on that. Perhaps a link to Wiktionary instead? [8] Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Linkrot: 1 repaired and 13 tagged. Some of these have been dead since before the article was delisted. [9] Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Please add {{Link FA|pt}}
Jaideraf ( talk) 10:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It is perhaps inevitable that homosexuals and their hetero advocates feel impelled if not downright "honor bound" to trumpet such turgid POV manifestos. Nonetheless it is intolerable and offensive to the thinking mind that this pathetic section should be presented as undisputed and indeed indisputable objective truth. This section is self-evidently strident sermonization, engendered by the forced triumphalism that the exhibitionistic mind mistakes for the force of honest conviction. There are forums where such chest-thumping by the "pro-gay" is acceptable and one suspects, fiercely demanded. In an encyclopedia not exclusively sponsored by the the myriad homosexual advocacy groups, only objective informationItalic text may appaear. I THUS FEEL COMPELLED TO REMOVE THIS BLABBER. Soz101 ( talk) 10:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 21/GA2
{{ edit semi-protected}}
In the United Kingdom employment discrimination has been expanded and it is now illegal to discriminate against any employee because he or she is homosexual. This was made possible by the Equality Act 2010. The Act furthers right to LGBT individuals and not only makes it illegal to directly discriminate against them but also indirectly and associative discrimination. It is seen as one of the most advanced pieces of legislation in western Europe. Fletch1989 ( talk) 10:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
As you can see from this diff, I have reverted an addition by Urod ( talk · contribs) in which it was (ungrammatically) asserted that homosexuals live twenty to thirty years less than the general population. Support for this assertion was two "studies" by Paul Cameron, whose grossly biased propaganda has been roundly denounced by numerous legitimate scientists, analysts, and scientific research bodies as methodologically flawed, ideologically rather than scientifically based, distorted and selective with respect to facts, and devoid of veracity. See for example here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Cameron's " Family Research Institute" is a SPLC designated hate group, see here. It may be legitimate to include assertions in this article related to lifespan, but they will need to be robustly supported by reliable sources, and Cameron doesn't count as such. — Scheinwerfermann T· C03:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
SLPC. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/100325 Overseer19XX ( talk) 12:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
REALLY? LOL. seriously, this is the most panderng thing i have read. women get raped and killed daily, mass murder occurs on those who are innocent. beltway sniper, son of sam, unibomber, 9/11, Connecticut home invasion murders, those are notorious. what we have here is just one more murder, out of 10's of thousands world wide every year. people die on a daily basis over money, as little as $20 in most occasions. people are killed for their faith, daily, worldwide. homosexuals were hung by noose in iran, with footage of the hanging, and someone has the audacity to say on their own that this is "is one of the most notorious incidents in the U.S." sorry, no. it has no more significance, or notability, then any others. please remove this independent authors thoughts. Overseer19XX ( talk) 12:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This article tends to be subjective, since it's missing (scholarly) arguments to oppose homosexuality. More views from other perspectives should be added. Though there are some mentions, no specific opinions are presented with their relevant references. Also, distinction between homophobia and this criticism should be visible. Otherwise, this article would not seem to be neutral. Both sides should be clear from reading this. Whether it is religious view or (an)other scientific view, the major ones should be involved to convey the full picture. I was looking for this polarized interpretation but did not find it here. However, they exist on other sites, easy to find. Moreover, there seem to be some excuses for not including these variations - but then this article is incomplete and could mislead in certain aspects. Though I am not wiki expert and maybe I am writing to a wrong place without userId, dear administrator, please, place this to the correct place so that this can be acted on. Thank you, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.246.57 ( talk • contribs)
This article is awful. No amount of attempted witty repartee or sweeping generalizations about gay people in general will change that. Admit the article is terrible and fix it. Use excellent sources. Websites addressing the sociology of homosexuality, or homosexuality in scientific terms hosted at religious sites are not excellent by any stretch of the definition. And surely there is a better way to address anon IPs who are obviously conservative Christians mostly ignorant of Wikipedia policies (which are employed in this article haphazardly, to say the least). -- Moni3 ( talk) 11:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC) (a "rigid homosexual" with no faith in sodomy)
My point, Moni3, is that if the state of this article bothers you so very very much, you ought to pick up a goddamn mop and bucket and set to work instead of bitching about how nobody's picking up a goddamn mop and bucket and setting to work. — Scheinwerfermann T· C23:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I have made some minor changes to the wordings of some sentences in order to reduce any bias within the article. These changes are not designed to encourage any prejudice for or against homosexuality.
Thank you for correcting the positioning of my post in the 'talk section,' I am new to this and still learning how it all works. The reason for my changes is this article almost seems to read as an advertisement in favour of homosexuality - rather than simply detailing what the condition is and its effects. You describe my contributions as 'POV Rubbish' but I fail to see where I have said anything which opposes those who fall within this group... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwesternhog ( talk • contribs) 01:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Unless somebody can come up with any scientific evidence for this one then I don't see why it's in here. Freud's views on homosexuality can go in the section on historical views, but if he didn't do peer reviewed scientific research on it, it has no place in the modern scientific views on etiology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.57.33 ( talk) 19:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
In the subsection History: Europe it is asserted that "all the [Roman] emperors with the exception of Claudius took male lovers". The passage has no citation, which we would expect it to have if there existed some reliable source that supported this sweeping assertion. Perhaps this is because no such reliable source exists? There were dozens of Roman emperors over hundreds of years, and I can think of several off of the top of my head who were never known to have had homosexual relationships. In fact, the article goes on to contradict itself by mentioning a couple of sentences later that the emperors Theodosius and Justinian decreed that homosexuals be punished with death.
Basically, I think that the sentence should be removed, or at least reworked with a more specific (and honest) statement and citation of reliable sources. Volkodlak ( talk) 14:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Under "Etymology", the first sub-category is "Synonyms". The text then proceeds to list words which are most definitely not synonyms - homoerotic, metrosexual, etc. The phrase you're after is "Related Terms". MycroftRH ( talk) 03:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence of the sub-category should be deleted; "Homosexual behavior in animals ... pair bonding, and parenting." There has been no citation for the longest time. It is therefore unreliable. The last sentence of the sub-category should also be deleted; "the animal kingdom ... been willing to accept." This link has been also been dead for the longest time.
This being said, the whole "Homosexual behavior in animals" sub-category should be removed and re-posted in the Animal sexual behaviour category sice it is a suitable one for the subject matter (unless we want to post a "Homosexual behavior in humans" sub-category there??). Эдуард Шерешевский ( talk) 00:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I can understand that this article is controversial, but, we should not put up "counters" because of it. I think that an article should be written without elements that act as "counters" since these are the factors that influence people's decisions (or persuades them). If people argue that homosexuality is unnatural we should not add counters like "Homosexual behavior in animals" to counter their thoughts (for some it is right, for others, it is wrong(just like a lot of other things in the world)).
This being said, if the "Homosexual behavior in animals" sub-category has been written to counter peoples believes, this article does not have a neutral POV. It should be deleted since we wouldn't want "counters" in every article on Wikipedia (to influence people), right? I also believe that the "Homosexual behavior in animals" sub-category has a much better place in the Animal sexual behaviour article. Эдуард Шерешевский ( talk)
Ok. Thank you very much. Now I understand the "balance of the article" ideology. Just one thing what does "...those, from many backgrounds.." have to do with anything? Эдуард Шерешевский ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC).
Something else has come to my attention. To start off with, 6 out of 7 of the so-called reliable references for the sub-category [ behavior in animals] are passage and excerpt from a biologist named Bruce Bagemihl. This biologist is also homosexual and he is also a gay rights activist. This does not sound to me like this article is reliably- supported and certainly does not represent a Neutral Point Of View. Check out my wall for a current discussion about this matter. Эдуард/Edward 20:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
We should stay on topic and discuss the NPOV instead of inventing things and calling me a bigot. I believe that I have a valid point. Both sources in the intro paragraph claiming that homosexuality is widely encountered in the animal kingdom. These sources are A: A book written by Bruce Bagemihl and B: a magazine LGBT-interest magazine called The Advocate. * WP:NEWSORG states; When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others. When using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the author, and not to assert it as fact. The writer is a critical aspect in the identification of reliable sources. If an article is only based on books that he has written and news statements he has given, the English Wikipedia policy is being ignored. Эдуард/Edward 21:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I do not agree with your false accusation and your last statement. This is a relevant topic for many and an important one. This article should only represent reliable sources to prevent a POV from being in an article. What are the normal procedures in addressing a situation like this one, where the sources are actually just one? Эдуард/Edward 22:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request ( Disagreement over whether cited sources support that homosexual behaviour is widely or is sometimes observed in animals; dispute over whether author cited are RS given that he is gay. ): |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Homosexuality and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
One possible solution to this impasse maybe to state that homosexual behavior has been observed without putting a qualifier on it. Content should remain in article with appropriate flag regarding lack of a reliable reference, and removed with consensus if appropriate time has passed without it having a reliable reference. Questions regarding the validity of the references belong in WP:RSN and a new discussion should be started there post haste.— RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you for your opinion. It does seem like the best option. Just to clarify, this is not a dispute because the author is gay. This problem links to the fact that "widely" is not the best term to be used here and that every citation linked back to the same author during that time period. Эдуард/Edward 03:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
If we are going to allow animal references here, perhaps we should make the reference neutral? Perhaps: "Homosexual behavior has been rarely observed" seeing as how it has been observed in up to 1500 species, out of how many millions? Overseer19XX ( talk) 18:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a loss of focus with the original issue here, which is still a problem in the sub-article concerning homosexuality in animals, whether or not the article as a whole would benefit from an overhaul, which I do believe it would, as it sounds biased in some ways (for instance I skim read the article on my way to the animal section and saw the foot-noted statement "homosexuality is a normal and positive variation in human sexual orientation" no less than four times through the entire article, and at a skim read. Once this premise is established it should not be oft repeated as it removes the appearance of neutral POV, and takes on a tone of an argument instead of fact-based research. Anyway, as to the animal kingdom section, to re-state and re-observe, as someone new to the "debate," I read the article and was interested in the sources, as multiple seemed to be cited. Yet, when I went to all the links, there is ultimately only one source for the entire article, the alleged observations of one man, Bruce Bagemihl , as the citations here on Wikipedia in that article lead only to his work or articles discussing his work or reviewing it. No other scientist's observations are cited in this article, which make it of questionable veracity. I've seen claims in the discussion page that there is excellent research confirming the work of Bruce Bagemihl. Then let's see it, by citing in this article and removing citations to reviews of this man's work, or articles in periodicals based on it. We should have citations to his original work, and the original work of other scientists whose findings corroborate those of Bruce Bagemihl. When "most" people (at least in my limited experience) read a Wikipedia article, they see multiple citations as a sign of multiple corroborative sources, and take this at face value without researching them, particularly when there are no flag headings at the top of the page or the sub-article mentioning a need for more sources. In short, even if all the assertions were 100% accurate, this sub-article is misleading because only one source is directly and indirectly cited multiple times, giving the impression of it having a neutral POV and being well-sourced, which is not the case at this point in time.
It is also interesting to note that while the sub-article has been heavily defended here by some, even though it is based on the cited work of one man, at least one of said persons scrubbed an addition to the page (read two discussion topics down concerning lifespan) because it was based on the work of one man....so why not have some consistency here and delete all assertions that have only one cited source, or leave both; but the one-sided handling has been noted. To quote from below: "Nope. Just because one whackadoodle wingnut says it, doesn't make it so." and that the statement in question might be true but must be "robustly supported by reliable sources." Yet, the Animal Sexuality sub-article stands with one ultimate source, and who determines who is and who is not a "whackadoodle wingnut?" There is definite questionability here concerning Neutral Point of View, as we let fly an article claiming homosexuality is widely observed in the animal kingdom, based on one source who is gay, while dismissing an argument concerning shortened lifespan for active homosexuals by another man who is not gay, and dismissed as an unreliable source. It certainly appears to be bias, considering the defense tactics used on the one hand, and personal dismissive slander jargon used on the other. - Black Fox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.57.167.125 ( talk) 23:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
<--Begin request--> United States (see Don't ask, don't tell) technically permits gay and lesbian people to serve, but only in secrecy and celibacy.
doesn't this need to be change in accordance of the repeal of don't ask don' tell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugottoknowme ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It is important to note that the policy has been repealed at the political level in Washington but the policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell is still in full force and effect in the Department of Defense military branches, pending the on-going review of the Joint Chiefs concerning the proper and safe implementation of a repeal. Hence, while the Armed Forces branches have begun sensitivity training at all levels, each of these training modules ends with a re-stressing of the fact that the former policy of Don't Ask Don't tell is still in full effect. - Black Fox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.57.167.125 ( talk) 23:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay this'll likely start a flame, but why's there nothing about people being cured\freed\turning their back on homosexuality? There's stuff about coming out of the closet, not precisely converting to homosexuality I realise, but why not the reverse? And no I'm not saying everyone's straight and that some are just confused but it's an area that's missing. 203.25.1.208 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC).
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Two things. In the second paragraph of the lede, could someone change "voluntarily-chosen behavior" to "voluntarily chosen behavior", or better yet, just "voluntary behavorior". Second, in the third paragraph there are eleven citations for one fact. While it's certainly good to have that many, it seems like overkill. Could they perhaps all be grouped into one citation, as explained here? 68.54.4.162 ( talk) 18:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Not done: {{
edit protected}}
is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.--
Breawycker (
talk to me!) 00:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to notify editors on this related page that there are number of discussions (most recently this one) ongoing at Talk:Ex-gay movement which may be of interest to editors of this article. --~ Knowzilla (Talk) 08:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Azzy777 (
talk) 01:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The false claim that there is no scientific evidence to suggest homosexuals are more promiscuos is also not referenced. There is abundant peer reviewed evidence.
A 2004 article by Michael Foust states:
“ A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city's homosexual male population. According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area's homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found.
As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland -- known as Chicago's "gay center" -- have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said.
The three-year study on the sexual habits of Chicago's citizens will appear in the upcoming book, "The Sexual Organization of The City" (University of Chicago Press), due out this spring.[76]
”
In September of 2006, the Agape Press reported the following regarding homosexuality and promiscuity:
“ A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300. Unprotected homosexual sex is also a concern among health professionals. A survey in Ireland by the Gay Men's Health Project found that almost half of homosexuals said they were having unprotected sex....
The fact that many homosexuals appear to live their lives in sexual overdrive does not seem to concern leaders in the movement. In an editorial from the same issue (August 15) in which the survey results were published, The Advocate said: "[Homosexuals] have been proud leaders in the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s, and we have rejected attempts by conservatives to demonize that part of who we are."[77]
”
In November of 2007 the news organization One News Now reported the following regarding Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth remarks about the spead of AIDS via male homosexual promiscuity and a conference on AIDS featuring Pastor Rick Warren and Senator Hillary Clinton:
“ Pro-family activist Peter LaBarbera says he shares Pastor Warren's desire to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS but wonders what solutions a politician who is an ardent supporter of the homosexual agenda has to offer in combating the disease. "He says that he's a co-belligerent with people who he disagrees with on other issues," notes LaBarbera, "[so] I guess the question would be: does he disagree strongly with Hillary Clinton's approach to homosexuality and even the AIDS crisis?" Although he admits he is skeptical of what solutions a defender of the homosexual lifestyle like Clinton has to offer churches for fighting the HIV/AIDS crisis, the activist is calling on Warren and Clinton to use the upcoming summit to tackle the problem of homosexual promiscuity, which often results in HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.
"We have homosexual bath houses operating in major cities across this nation," LaBarbera notes. "These are places where men go for anonymous sexual liaisons with other men. They're bringing the HIV virus back to innocent women, because some of these men do not identify as 'gay' and they're even married. So what about that aspect of the AIDS crisis?"[78]
”
Another study involving male homosexuality examined the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexual men and was published in the Journal of Sex Research in 1997.[79] This study of male homosexuality found that 2.7 percent of these men claimed to have had sex with one partner only. [80]
The David P. McWhirter, M.D., and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., Ph.D. study reported in their 1984 work The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop stated that in regards to relationships involving male homosexuality that "all couples with a relationship lasting more than 5 years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships."[81]
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. You will need to find
reliable sources to support your proposal; the dogmatic religionists like Michael Foust and Peter LaBarbara and right-wing advocacy sites like OneNewsNow you're presently using to support your assertion don't qualify. —
Scheinwerfermann
T·
C01:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Does anyone have a source for this? It's been bugging me for a little while. There are plenty of sources for homosexuality not being a choice, but I don't see any that explicitly support the claim that some religious sects and ex-gay organizations say that it is. And I haven't managed to find any reliable ones of my own either. I don't doubt that some organisations do characterise it that way, but we need a source for it. Anyone? garik ( talk) 13:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change, "while others assert that only the sexual act is a sin.[who?]," to something in the way of, "The Catholic Church states that only the sexual act itself is a sin......." and add the below link as a citation
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm (number 2357)
Thank you for your time
strages ( talk) 19:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I have just reverted relatively recent edits to the introduction that removed a neutral, factual statement about religious interpretation of homosexuality and replaced it with a denigrating bit intended to paint religious POV as ignorant and disproven "...in spite". I do not think it is appropriate to include editorial meant to discolor a valid, relevant, and important part of understanding the external world's conception of sexual orientation.
I was disappointed to see that while this was changed to the bad version "unilaterally" initially, a user who'd reverted from the bad version was undone because the changes were "made unilaterally without consensus". An obvious attempt to keep the neutral form, which apparently bothers some people because it suggests that some resistance to popular theories about homosexuality exists, of the article offline.
I was further disappointed to see the characterization of NARTH as an "ex-gay organization". NARTH does not address homosexuality from a dogmatic perspective and its only crime is offering an opinion divergent from that of the APA regarding homosexuality. NARTH is not an association of formerly homosexual individuals but an association of professional therapists that share scholarly findings on the treatment of homosexuality. Surely we are allowed to mention them as a professional organization despite their disagreement with popular and/or APA-accepted theory. cooki e caper ( talk / contribs) 07:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill protest.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
As I understand it, the reason this article begins "Homosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender" is that someone whose sex is female could be in a homosexual relationship with someone whose sex was male, provided they shared the same gender. I realise that this distinction is not straightforward to many people (and, as a linguist, I'm aware that the term is used in a different sense in linguistics). There may, indeed, be a better way of making the distinction clear in this article—although I'm not entirely sure I see how, without linking to the articles, as is already done here. However, before any change is made, it should be discussed here. garik ( talk) 03:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
kcylsnavS, you've made your point "one last time" and now you are repeating yourself. Unless you can come up with substantial, reliable sources to support your point of view—which so far you have not—it is probably time for you to realise consensus is not going your way, and let it drop. Please, thank you, and you're welcome. — Scheinwerfermann T· C15:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
“ | Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is biologically determined, not chosen, cannot really be changed, that prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people causes psychological harm,[3] and that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects." | ” |
Depending on the context, the discriminating characteristics vary from sex to social role to gender identity. Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word "gender" to refer to anything but grammatical categories. [1] [2] However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, like feminist literature, [3] and in documents written by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), [4] but in most contexts, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has expanded to include "sex" or even to replace the latter word. [1] [2]
The "[citation needed]" added to the Legality section on 9.1.1.2 European Union should be replaced with a proper reference to article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. If would do it myself if the page wasn't lockeed. G913 ( talk) 20:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell none of this article addresses opposition to homosexuality aside from the "politics" and "religion" sections in very brief mention. I do not think there is enough criticism of the behavior to warrant an entire page, like the "opposition to the legalization of abortion" and anti-same-sex marriage pages. However, a more significant blurb should probably be outlined, presumably summarizing argumentation done by contemporary writers (I'd be willing to contribute some of that, in the form of some work from Finnis and Beckwith, should this edit be approved of). 198.151.130.143 ( talk) 09:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC) DDiaz
Noam Chomsky? Secs. "Heterosexism and homophobia" and "Violence against gay and lesbian people" are arguments in contra quite sufficient, without adding paragraphs of homophobic nonsense just to show "the other side" of the story. Shame for even suggesting such a thing, IP - and actually citing the KKK as an example of a fair-minded oppositional view! Djathink imacowboy 08:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The map's colors are wrong. Light colors usually indicate freedom, while darker colors indicate lack or loss of same. I would suggest for the map a range of colors starting with White for the most liberated countries, i.e. those that have legalised gay marriage, and going to Black for the most anti-gay ones, i.e. those who punish homosexuality with death. - The Gnome ( talk) 10:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
As in the section above, NARTH is not fully recognized as a professional group because it holds unpopular opinions. Additionally, attempts are made to grossly editorialize around discussion of religion. See above discussion. Posting as an RfC to break the block of standard editors here. cooki e caper ( talk / contribs) 12:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
“ | It is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Prejudice against homosexual and bisexual people, by contrast, has been shown to have such effects.[3] In spite of this, some religious sects and "ex-gay" organizations hold the view that homosexual activity is a sinful or dysfunctional behavior. Contrary to mainstream scientific understanding, some of these sects and organizations characterize it as a "choice".[4] | ” |
I suggest the following rewrite:
“ | It is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Some religions and theological interpretation holds that homosexual orientation or activity is sinful or dysfunctional, and there exist "ex-gay" organizations which seek to bring homosexual people back to heterosexual orientation and behaviour. Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm.[3] Mainstream scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is fixed by adulthood although some maintain that homosexuality is a free choice.[4] | ” |
Just a quick draft but I do think the lede could do with a bit of NPOV attention. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 11:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
How about this, in which I've reworked the "back to…" language, added two apposite links, and moved the crucial "Mainstream scientific understanding…" text closer to the top:
“ | It is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Mainstream scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is fixed by adulthood, although some maintain that homosexuality is a free choice.[4] Some religious and theological perspectives hold that homosexual orientation or activity is sinful or dysfunctional, and there exist " ex-gay" and conversion therapy organizations which seek to change homosexuals into heterosexuals or at least to cease homosexual behaviour. Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm.[3] | ” |
— Scheinwerfermann T· C17:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Okeh, how 'bout this:
“ | Mainstream scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is fixed by adulthood, is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people, however, has been shown to cause psychological harm.[4] Some religious and theological perspectives hold that homosexual orientation or activity is sinful or dysfunctional, and some contend that homosexuality is a free choice.[4] | ” |
— Scheinwerfermann T· C19:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
We need to convey the facts accurately, but we need to do so with tight, flowing text that doesn't trip the reader or hit him/her over the head. We also should try to avoid setting ourselves up for squabbles and edit wars based on the perception of POV bias, such as is caused by words like "incorrectly". Let's try some copyediting:
“ | Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is biologically determined, not chosen, cannot really be changed, that prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people causes psychological harm,[3] and that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Nevertheless, some religious and theological perspectives consider homosexual orientation or activity to be sinful or dysfunctional, and some contend that homosexuality is a voluntarily chosen lifestyle.[4]" | ” |
— Scheinwerfermann T· C19:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
“ | Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is biologically determined, not chosen, cannot truly be changed, that prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people causes psychological harm,[3] and that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. | ” |
Maybe this is wiki-ignorance on my part, but as well-written as Scheinwerfermann's suggestions are, I have a question about "some contend that homosexuality is a free choice." Specifically, the word "some." Every time I see that on a wiki article, someone has added the "who?" template. Also, although I'm sure there are individuals who contend it's a free choice on non-religious grounds, the primary force behind that line of thinking is religious. Religious objection to homosexuality is mainstream enough that I think it belongs in the lede; conversion concepts and organizations, on the other hand, are NOT mainstream enough to warrant mention in the lede, I think. Mreleganza ( talk) 21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been a bit WP:BOLD and have altered the section in question: [13]. -- Scientiom ( talk) 18:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
“ | Mainstream scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is fixed by adulthood, is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people, however, has been shown to cause psychological harm.[4] Some religious and theological perspectives hold that homosexual orientation or activity is sinful or dysfunctional, and some contend that homosexuality is a free choice.[4] | ” |
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientist to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
“ | Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment. [5] [6] Although some religious sects and "ex-gay" organizations hold the view that homosexual activity is a sinful or dysfunctional behavior, [7] researchers contend that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a normal variation of human sexual orientation. [5] Though not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. [8] | ” |
“ | Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment. [5] [9] Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior, [7] researchers state that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality. [5] Though not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. [8] | ” |
One final wording change proposal for clarity (and adding Scientiom's proposed change into this as well):
“ | Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment. [5] [10] Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior, [7] research and studies show that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality. [5] Though homosexuality is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. [8] | ” |
That prevents any possibly ambiguity as to whether the "Though..." sentence is referring to "prejudice and discrimination" in both parts of it by clarifying that the "Though..." section refers to homosexuality, while the ending is referring to prejudice and discrimination. More wordy, but less chance of misinterpretation. Thoughts? Best,
ROBERTMFROMLI |
TK/
CN 19:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22. Re: "but rather..."
My comment was in regards to Scientom's comment: "..."but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment" should be removed as understanding on what determines sexual orientation is rapidly shifting with an increasing amount of studies pointing to an exclusively biological cause..." (italics to show that was the "but rather" I was indicating).
I've got no problem with the current wording, as it's supported by the sources. Scientom brings up a good point though that such perspectives are changing (which is what I was responding to), and I was trying to say I've also got no problems with the line being changed to reflect that, as long as we had reliable sources to indicate such. Inotherwords: happy either way, as long as if we pick Scientom's proposal, we've got the sources to back it (which from the efforts so far, I probably didn't need to say). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/ CN 17:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
“ | Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment. [5] [11] Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior, [7] research and studies show that homosexuality is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality. [5] Though homosexuality is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. [8] | ” |
Question: Are we inferring (or using) the term "biology" to include genetics? And by "we", I mean the sources we've taken those terms from? If not (ie: the sources aren't discussing genetics and research in that area - instead limiting to more simple biology), then perhaps that's the area where recent research (and changes to this section) can come into play? If not, then for lack of being able to think up anything that better portrays it, I'm all for "complex... biological and environmental..." as the wording. Otherwise (if supported by current cites or new ones), I'd propose "complex... biological, genetic and evironmental..." as new wording. Thoughts? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/ CN 00:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
“ | Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of genetics, biology and environment. [5] [12] Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior, [7] research and studies show that homosexuality is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality. [5] Though homosexuality is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. [8] | ” |
I think this one?
“ | Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of genetics, biology and environment. [5] [13] Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior, [7] research and studies show that homosexuality is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality. [5] Though homosexuality is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. [8] | ” |
I agree on what you say about adding "genetics..." - except for the layman who may not realize the overlap... I can either remove it (and we can consider adding it back later), or I can leave it in (and we can consider removing it later). Suggestions? -Rob
ROBERTMFROMLI |
TK/
CN 19:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Best, Rob
ROBERTMFROMLI |
TK/
CN 20:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
" Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behaviour,[4] research and studies show that homosexuality is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality." Studies are not capable of identifying what is moral or "positive" such a thing as this is not possible and as it is worded here it seems to say that research has found homosexuality unsinful which would be even less possible as a divine diety defines what is sinful and cannot be determined by any natural means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.2.225 ( talk) 00:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Every article and every subject has its own peculiarities, and therefore it is not wise to fix rules applicable to all. Nevertheless it seems to me a normal order to have the "history" section at the beginning, as it supplies an introductory information about what has been the "evolution" of the subject till now. In the present instance, I think that it would be useful to have it in this position. I may be wrong, though, in which case would appreciate to hear the diverging opinions.-- Auró ( talk) 20:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The Kinsey scale is clearly misplaced, but it is an important topic, and I am still not familiar enough with this page/subject as to propose some better treatment. Maybe later on.-- Auró ( talk) 23:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
haig
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).apahelp
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
apa2009
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Similar debates surround other sexuality articles. I offered some edits and ran into somewhat related disagreements on content. It was suggested I post a draft and that's the method that worked. One editor suggested that what I wrote about one sexual orientation, asexuality, might better fit the general sexual orientation article.
Here's what happened, in short:
1. The problem was partly about content, not entirely unlike the disagreement you're finding here, and that, because of my adding content, I had made the lede (lead) too long.
2. I copied the then-current revision of the article.
3. I took my copy offline.
4. I drafted a fairly bold and massive reorganization of the entire article including a trimmed lede and I preserved content regardless of dispute. I decided that disputes about content would be handled another time, if at all. I didn't do it part by part; I did the whole article in one sweep, so people could see what it would likely look like in the end.
5. I wrote in boldface at the top of the draft a statement that this proposal was only about reorganization and not about content per se.
6. I posted the draft as a draft in an editable format like that of an article in WP. It was not a scanned image. A scanned image basically cannot be edited in WP by most editors.
7. I posted an invitation to edit the draft and, impliedly, to comment on it.
8. No one replied at the time or soon after.
9. The only edits to the draft were by me. Nothing stopped any other editor but no one else chose to edit it.
10. I posted an announcement that I was going to revise the article in accordance with the draft.
11. No reply.
12. I translated, offline, my proposal into a set of steps I could apply to the live article. It was a list of headings to create or revise, words to cut or add, paragraphs to move, and so on, in order of appearance from the beginning of the article to the end. That was intended to preserve any recent content edits by anyone, because as I carried out steps I would see if the premise of an edit was no longer present.
13. I edited the live article consistently with the draft, followed by my editing four more times the same day (Apr. 17, 2010). I preserved other editors' content changes that occurred between when I had copied the article before drafting the reorganization and when I edited the live article. I positioned any such changes in accordance with the new reorganization.
14. I posted a talk-page announcement that I had done so.
15. The response was praise by one editor and a few smaller edits by that editor the same day (Apr. 17).
16. I restored one edit, with an explanation, and left the other edits intact.
17. My one restoration was not reverted or criticized.
18. The article as a whole has had few or no changes since then that appear to be criticisms of the reorganization. (It has had edits motivated by other purposes.) The reorganization has essentially stabilized, so it appears it reflects general, albeit silent, consensus on the reorganization. It's been roughly two months since then.
I think editors seeing what I was actually proposing -- an article draft, not just a plan -- resolved many of the concerns about what I intended to do but hadn't shown yet. Sexuality is a subject about which many people have been seriously burned. Homicide, suicide, incarceration, forced treatment, impoverishment, and AIDS research foot-draggings have occurred widely over sexual orientation; entire national governments have decreed what we consider sexual orientation and what they call deviation or worse a matter for long incarceration and death penalties; I don't know if those events have happened among WP editors but it's likely that, with WP editors being very numerous, some editors know people who have been punished in these ways for these reasons. There was an apparent warning to one editor for his harsh attitude, with a possibility of the editor being banned, but I defended that editor's presence even though we had disagreed strongly because, I pointed out, in this field there is no shortage of people who feel just as strongly. Many people have been lied to about sexuality issues and reasonably fear that editors (such as you and me) will lie about their future plans for the editing of articles. Thus, posting a plan for a draft is not nearly as credible as posting a draft, and posting a draft is preferable to editing live when changes are likely to be controverted and waiting a little is harmless and lets you consider responses.
Most sandboxes, however, may not be the best place, because, as I understand it, they're temporary. See a Wikipedia description of the sandbox and another one. But posting a draft with the talk page makes it permanent and accessible to all editors and the general public and yet does not insert anything into the live articles (the main namespace), so it's a safe place for proposals. You posted a plan. Posting a draft of the article would be even more helpful.
For anyone else who wants to know how, here's how to post a draft with the talk page. Or you can make one in your user space. (Or both, if apropos.)
Few people get involved in online debates about any single issue, in my experience. Yet those few are apparently sufficient to establish consensus in any direction. More can weigh in if necessary, but I suspect the many watch to see if the few resolve it. That's because Wikipedia's system is less about voting and more about reasons. I was the original author of an article in another field and about three months later the article was nominated for deletion. I defended it but I was in the minority, if voting counted, and some of the charges against my work were excessive. I requested details to back some of the charges (e.g., on copyediting supposedly wanted); those simple requests resolved some of them. I made some changes that I thought were reasonable, either because they were good or because not doing so wasn't worth defending, but mostly I defended what was there. The debate was extended, and not by me. We debated some more. The result was a determination that there was no consensus for deletion because there was no evidence that I hadn't done what I was supposed to do, and the article is still up. I sometimes do more edits to that article. It was annoying and time-consuming to defend the article, but the result is a contribution to WP, in my opinion a solid contribution, and most of my edits across all of WP do not get challenged like that.
Nick Levinson ( talk) 19:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The terms above are used in a way that takes the reader's understanding for granted. I don't think readers can be presumed to understand these terms, especially in an article whose primary purpose is describing homosexuality. They should either be defined as terms or eliminated in favour of a clear explanation inserted into the text where the terms currently appear. I'd favour the latter approach, as each term is used only once or twice in the entire article. I'd do the editing myself, but I'm not familiar with these terms in this context: are they anthropological? Ross Fraser ( talk) 06:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
wikepedia statements this write up (HOMOSEXUALITY) contains affirmations and contradictions and illogical statements. RFeference statment to research, not including or stating the research source itself. Denial of research, or statement of no research made not stated. This article is geared to mislead and seem inclined to propagate ideolog agenda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.36.48 ( talk) 21:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
An editor recently deleted the following as unknowable:
The vast majority of gay and lesbian individuals lead happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and productive lives.
I would argue that this is knowable, but I don't have a source, so I don't want to put it back. It's knowable if scientific surveys of self-reporters and observers (such as family and neighbors) or if standard calibrated scientific tests of factors that, outside of sexuality, are accepted as indicators of happiness, health, adjustment, and productivity produce scores that don't vary significantly or consistently between L/G people and heterosexuals. That requires agreeing on much of psychology, e.g., what constitutes happiness, but many do agree, so, if the tests are valid elsewhere, they can be valid here. (Of course, they won't be valid if they include a bias against being L/G, but the field has matured enough to be able to identify such biases and take them out.)
Does anyone remember where the statement came from? I have not gone through the article's revision history. (I wonder if it might be the California amici brief.) If you know, please add a source and, if editorially appropriate, restore the statement.
Nick Levinson ( talk) 02:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like it comes from the APA policy page: http://www.apa.org/news/press/statements/index.aspx 76.119.237.34 ( talk) 03:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit of an odd statement though isn't it? It infers an assumption that a homosexual relationship was any less valid than a heterosexual one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.22.226 ( talk) 10:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
This needs a tiny context, like, "Where it is legal...". I strongly doubt the statement is true for Iran or a number of similar countries. Thankfully, this happened and this, so the statement is probably true for the majority of Earth's population, even though APA probably did not ponder on that, and made a statement from the US-only perspective. 85.204.164.26 ( talk) 08:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Basically I just added a section below the psychology section called Genetics. I thought maybe I should put it within the psychology or Etiology section but I think this section is large and important enough to stand on its own. Let me know if you think this post is one sided or unfair because of the conclusion, I believe the science used is accurate. Here is what the post states I will outline it here.
A.) Do scientists believe in the direct sexual selection of physical traits. (Is there a gene that makes a person attracted to blue eyes, are we attracted to specific genes?)
B.) If you agree that the current scientific understanding of human attraction rejects such direct forms of attraction... though the Theory of Evolution used to purport racial/genetic attraction.
C.)There cannot be a specific gene, a 'gay gene', causing attraction to male or female body parts. (If we can't be genetically attracted to blue eyes, we can't be genetically attracted to penes or vulvae. )
D.)If we agree on these then we are forced to claim against direct genetic causes for sexual orientation.
Obviously this is clearly a controversial position, I am aware homosexuals may claim to not be only physically attracted; but nonsexual homosexuality may be a hard sell (simply speaking lots of men hug and kiss; in different cultures). But I believe this post is good science and therefore belongs on the Wikipedia Homosexuality page. If you agree that this argument is good and fair science, please defend it from vandalism or attempts at censoring. I am not saying I expect such a thing but it is a possibility. I believe I have all my refs and citations in order. I am dyslexic so check my grammar and spelling please. I did use spell check though.-- Nishauncom ( talk) 03:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
As for genetics there have been few propositions to explain a direct genetic source for homosexuality. Though the 'gay gene' is a common belief in society at large. A popular statement among the LGBT is they feel they have been gay since or before they were born. The problem with this view is mainly an argument of genetics and sexual selection. The mainstream belief among those who study the field of evolution and sexual selection is there are no direct genetic causes of sexual attraction. It was postulated when evolution was in its infancy that sexual attraction and attraction towards different physical traits was a result of naturally occurring biological forces. These forces led humans and animals to recognize and select specific attributes within a prospected partner, this can be referred to as a direct sexual selection. Such a concept could even be considered a sub plot of evolution, as direct sexual selection was figuratively and "...the preservation of favored races," [1] was literally the subtitle of Darwin's most popular book. Some may argue that because Darwin was an advocate of monogenesis he may not have been as racially motivated as some of his contemporaries and critics, it is also possible that such a position was simply because a belief in common origins is 'necessary' for evolution; such 'racial' beliefs are no longer prevalent within proponents of the Theory of Evolution. [2] As a point of fact, we must consider that attraction in humans and animals only occurs indirectly.
As Jerry Coyne argues:
“ | Suppose, for example, that members of a species had evolved a visual preference for red color because that preference helped them locate ripe fruits and berries. If a mutant male appeared with a patch of red on his breast, he might be preferred by females simply because of this preexisting preference...females derive neither direct nor indirect benefits from choosing a particular male. | ” |
— Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution is True, p.167 |
A physical trait, such as blue eyes, is no longer considered a basic argument of physical and then genetic superiority, (and therefore worth reproducing through sexual selection.) Such attraction is considered an indirect measure of 'beauty', [3] meaning the color blue may simply be an attraction to the literal color on the basis of the sky or recognition of water, in humans. So when the blue eye color if found through the process of mutation, though technically a useless trait, it may inadvertently reproduce; because of previously stated attraction. Many have argued that when dealing with humans no form of sexual selection occurs, because of the inner workings of human society, social evolution, realities such as arranged marriages and non-extreme environments or religion prevent any natural selecting; and even canceling out the evolutionary processes in human beings altogether. [1] This implies that we should not look to genetic sources for any of our attractions. The basic consensus is creatures whether human or not have no ability to directly detect the genetic makeup of another individual and formulate a decision of attraction or rejection. As an argument of sexual selection it would then be impossible for a human being or any creature to be attracted to the genetic make up (in this case male or female) of another individual, this would prevent a gene for sexual orientation and therefore prevent genetic homosexuality. This leads to the conclusion that only psychological sources
(Once again two specific claims 2 specific references. I agree the conclusion is not found anywhere else, which implies OR or POV but the points and claims are in fact available elsewhere. Technically three claims, I also wanted to remind listeners that genetic sexual attraction used to be a direct part of the Theory of Evolution,therefore I referenced the subtitle of Darwins book.) -- Nishauncom ( talk) 19:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The basic problem with your POV claim is there is only one argument/ question/ claim presented. (Does the scientific community believe in attraction to specific genes.) Therefore from an argument perspective that is the main thing that needs to be proven / cited / referenced. It may be harder for me to find others who have analyzed these facts and come to the conclusion that a 'gay gene' cannot exist, I assume that is what you mean by OR I checked the page and that is the only rule I seem to be breaking, in my post I seem to be analyzing the fact I presented then I come to a conclusion.
Remember no one help me, I guess I have to do this myself for some reason, huh?-- Nishauncom ( talk) 01:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Some editors have decided to include the following text about including homosexuality in the DSM:
Does anyone here think that "sissyphobia" is worth mentioning in this article? The book that proposed it does not seem to be particularly notable, so I've proposed that article for deletion, but maybe something can be said here about this. Note that this "phobia" doesn't have anything to do with homophobia, although it's linked from there, because this supposed "phobia" is exhibited by gay men that don't like effeminate partners, I gather. Maybe something could be said in the social construct section here or perhaps in Queer theory, not necessarily using this neologism? I confess, I haven't read the latter article. Tijfo098 ( talk) 07:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It really is. This article should be quick-failed. I'm astonished that Destinero nominated it. -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I am a graduate student working on the Wikimedia Public Policy Initiative and I am working on expanding the History section for the Middle East in particular. I noticed that it is lacking in citations and could be expanded to be more thorough in general. I have a a draft/outline in my Sandbox that I am developing. As my focus is specifically the Middle East, I intend on splitting the current section "Middle East, South & Central Asia" into two parts, as my sources do not address Central and South Asia in particular.
I am also new to Wikipedia, so any comments would be more than welcome, here or on my talk page.
ParisianTaupe ( talk) 21:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
"Homosexual behavior in animals is also widely encountered" sais the article... how can that be when the same article admits only 1500 species do have homosexual behavior in almost 3.000.000 to 30.000.000 species? is 0,00008% "widely"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.132.29.238 ( talk) 21:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
This is an important topic that probably warrants its own page, given the complexity of the arguments and information ParisianTaupe wishes to convey. We talked about where his own page might fit within the larger subject on Wikipedia and about the challenges of fitting his contribution into the existing framework. I suggested that it might be easier to focus on the ways in which homosexuality has been viewed over time since it's somewhat difficult to define terms in order to do the research from the contemporary perspective. Ismee ( talk) 21:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Ismee
I wanted to add a link to exit poll under the Demographics section, but couldn't because I'm a noob and this article is protected. Thanks. 98.154.177.118 ( talk) 07:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)some guy
Why would you want a link to exit poll? HiLo48 ( talk) 07:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
This article violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View Policy, probably the most important rule. It does not even meet Wikipedia's requirements or rules, neither does it reflect a global view on the subject in most sections, outdated, not one single negative thing about it, and some other issues. We strongly disagree with the article! And request an immediate edit with fair representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XxDestinyxX ( talk • contribs)
hi could someone link to this wikipedia page at the bottom of the homosexuality page. it helped me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.247.38 ( talk) 00:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me why zero negative aspects of homosexual activty are cited in the article? There are a myriad of negative effects of homosexual activity (i.e. diseases, etc.) that are completely ignored. Is there a reason why this article is pretending that homosexuality is completely normal and healthy? ΙΧΘΥΣ ( talk) 04:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)ou
Garik, it is evident that ΙΧΘΥΣ is interested in misusing Wikipedia to promulgate his or her Christianist POV, and it is also evident that your own good intent accords with Wikipedia policy. Nevertheless, perhaps unintentionally, you've made a substantial error. Homosexuality is not a "sexual preference", it is a sexual orientation. The "sexual preference" terminology, in context of an article or discussion such as this present one, is favoured by those who espouse the scientifically-untenable POV that everyone is inherently heterosexual and homosexuality is a lifestyle or behavioural choice made by broken, damaged, insufficiently-prayerful heterosexual persons. In reality, one's sexual preference is nothing more or less than what specific things one likes to do in bed (or wherever). Please mind the difference and use the valid term, thanks. — Scheinwerfermann T· C00:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Statement as "the female subjects (both gay and straight women) became sexually aroused when they viewed heterosexual as well as lesbian erotic films. Among the male subjects, however, the straight men were turned on only by erotic films with women, the gay ones by those with men" is untrue. Female participants only as a whole were on average more or less equally aroused, but particular participants were all over the scale. At the same time, there were men equally aroused by both types of porn and even two gay men in that very small study group who were more aroused by lesbian porn. Here's a link to that study (participants responses on page 4): http://www.indiana.edu/~sexlab/files/pubs/chiversetal2004.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.16.109.226 ( talk) 11:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: -- Cirt ( talk) 05:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Following this notice at Cirt's talk page, I shall take over this review. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: Fixed three and unlinked ubiquity as there is no Wikipedia article on that. Perhaps a link to Wiktionary instead? [8] Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Linkrot: 1 repaired and 13 tagged. Some of these have been dead since before the article was delisted. [9] Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Please add {{Link FA|pt}}
Jaideraf ( talk) 10:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It is perhaps inevitable that homosexuals and their hetero advocates feel impelled if not downright "honor bound" to trumpet such turgid POV manifestos. Nonetheless it is intolerable and offensive to the thinking mind that this pathetic section should be presented as undisputed and indeed indisputable objective truth. This section is self-evidently strident sermonization, engendered by the forced triumphalism that the exhibitionistic mind mistakes for the force of honest conviction. There are forums where such chest-thumping by the "pro-gay" is acceptable and one suspects, fiercely demanded. In an encyclopedia not exclusively sponsored by the the myriad homosexual advocacy groups, only objective informationItalic text may appaear. I THUS FEEL COMPELLED TO REMOVE THIS BLABBER. Soz101 ( talk) 10:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 21/GA2
{{ edit semi-protected}}
In the United Kingdom employment discrimination has been expanded and it is now illegal to discriminate against any employee because he or she is homosexual. This was made possible by the Equality Act 2010. The Act furthers right to LGBT individuals and not only makes it illegal to directly discriminate against them but also indirectly and associative discrimination. It is seen as one of the most advanced pieces of legislation in western Europe. Fletch1989 ( talk) 10:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
As you can see from this diff, I have reverted an addition by Urod ( talk · contribs) in which it was (ungrammatically) asserted that homosexuals live twenty to thirty years less than the general population. Support for this assertion was two "studies" by Paul Cameron, whose grossly biased propaganda has been roundly denounced by numerous legitimate scientists, analysts, and scientific research bodies as methodologically flawed, ideologically rather than scientifically based, distorted and selective with respect to facts, and devoid of veracity. See for example here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Cameron's " Family Research Institute" is a SPLC designated hate group, see here. It may be legitimate to include assertions in this article related to lifespan, but they will need to be robustly supported by reliable sources, and Cameron doesn't count as such. — Scheinwerfermann T· C03:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
SLPC. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/100325 Overseer19XX ( talk) 12:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
REALLY? LOL. seriously, this is the most panderng thing i have read. women get raped and killed daily, mass murder occurs on those who are innocent. beltway sniper, son of sam, unibomber, 9/11, Connecticut home invasion murders, those are notorious. what we have here is just one more murder, out of 10's of thousands world wide every year. people die on a daily basis over money, as little as $20 in most occasions. people are killed for their faith, daily, worldwide. homosexuals were hung by noose in iran, with footage of the hanging, and someone has the audacity to say on their own that this is "is one of the most notorious incidents in the U.S." sorry, no. it has no more significance, or notability, then any others. please remove this independent authors thoughts. Overseer19XX ( talk) 12:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This article tends to be subjective, since it's missing (scholarly) arguments to oppose homosexuality. More views from other perspectives should be added. Though there are some mentions, no specific opinions are presented with their relevant references. Also, distinction between homophobia and this criticism should be visible. Otherwise, this article would not seem to be neutral. Both sides should be clear from reading this. Whether it is religious view or (an)other scientific view, the major ones should be involved to convey the full picture. I was looking for this polarized interpretation but did not find it here. However, they exist on other sites, easy to find. Moreover, there seem to be some excuses for not including these variations - but then this article is incomplete and could mislead in certain aspects. Though I am not wiki expert and maybe I am writing to a wrong place without userId, dear administrator, please, place this to the correct place so that this can be acted on. Thank you, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.246.57 ( talk • contribs)
This article is awful. No amount of attempted witty repartee or sweeping generalizations about gay people in general will change that. Admit the article is terrible and fix it. Use excellent sources. Websites addressing the sociology of homosexuality, or homosexuality in scientific terms hosted at religious sites are not excellent by any stretch of the definition. And surely there is a better way to address anon IPs who are obviously conservative Christians mostly ignorant of Wikipedia policies (which are employed in this article haphazardly, to say the least). -- Moni3 ( talk) 11:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC) (a "rigid homosexual" with no faith in sodomy)
My point, Moni3, is that if the state of this article bothers you so very very much, you ought to pick up a goddamn mop and bucket and set to work instead of bitching about how nobody's picking up a goddamn mop and bucket and setting to work. — Scheinwerfermann T· C23:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I have made some minor changes to the wordings of some sentences in order to reduce any bias within the article. These changes are not designed to encourage any prejudice for or against homosexuality.
Thank you for correcting the positioning of my post in the 'talk section,' I am new to this and still learning how it all works. The reason for my changes is this article almost seems to read as an advertisement in favour of homosexuality - rather than simply detailing what the condition is and its effects. You describe my contributions as 'POV Rubbish' but I fail to see where I have said anything which opposes those who fall within this group... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwesternhog ( talk • contribs) 01:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Unless somebody can come up with any scientific evidence for this one then I don't see why it's in here. Freud's views on homosexuality can go in the section on historical views, but if he didn't do peer reviewed scientific research on it, it has no place in the modern scientific views on etiology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.57.33 ( talk) 19:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
In the subsection History: Europe it is asserted that "all the [Roman] emperors with the exception of Claudius took male lovers". The passage has no citation, which we would expect it to have if there existed some reliable source that supported this sweeping assertion. Perhaps this is because no such reliable source exists? There were dozens of Roman emperors over hundreds of years, and I can think of several off of the top of my head who were never known to have had homosexual relationships. In fact, the article goes on to contradict itself by mentioning a couple of sentences later that the emperors Theodosius and Justinian decreed that homosexuals be punished with death.
Basically, I think that the sentence should be removed, or at least reworked with a more specific (and honest) statement and citation of reliable sources. Volkodlak ( talk) 14:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Under "Etymology", the first sub-category is "Synonyms". The text then proceeds to list words which are most definitely not synonyms - homoerotic, metrosexual, etc. The phrase you're after is "Related Terms". MycroftRH ( talk) 03:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence of the sub-category should be deleted; "Homosexual behavior in animals ... pair bonding, and parenting." There has been no citation for the longest time. It is therefore unreliable. The last sentence of the sub-category should also be deleted; "the animal kingdom ... been willing to accept." This link has been also been dead for the longest time.
This being said, the whole "Homosexual behavior in animals" sub-category should be removed and re-posted in the Animal sexual behaviour category sice it is a suitable one for the subject matter (unless we want to post a "Homosexual behavior in humans" sub-category there??). Эдуард Шерешевский ( talk) 00:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I can understand that this article is controversial, but, we should not put up "counters" because of it. I think that an article should be written without elements that act as "counters" since these are the factors that influence people's decisions (or persuades them). If people argue that homosexuality is unnatural we should not add counters like "Homosexual behavior in animals" to counter their thoughts (for some it is right, for others, it is wrong(just like a lot of other things in the world)).
This being said, if the "Homosexual behavior in animals" sub-category has been written to counter peoples believes, this article does not have a neutral POV. It should be deleted since we wouldn't want "counters" in every article on Wikipedia (to influence people), right? I also believe that the "Homosexual behavior in animals" sub-category has a much better place in the Animal sexual behaviour article. Эдуард Шерешевский ( talk)
Ok. Thank you very much. Now I understand the "balance of the article" ideology. Just one thing what does "...those, from many backgrounds.." have to do with anything? Эдуард Шерешевский ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC).
Something else has come to my attention. To start off with, 6 out of 7 of the so-called reliable references for the sub-category [ behavior in animals] are passage and excerpt from a biologist named Bruce Bagemihl. This biologist is also homosexual and he is also a gay rights activist. This does not sound to me like this article is reliably- supported and certainly does not represent a Neutral Point Of View. Check out my wall for a current discussion about this matter. Эдуард/Edward 20:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
We should stay on topic and discuss the NPOV instead of inventing things and calling me a bigot. I believe that I have a valid point. Both sources in the intro paragraph claiming that homosexuality is widely encountered in the animal kingdom. These sources are A: A book written by Bruce Bagemihl and B: a magazine LGBT-interest magazine called The Advocate. * WP:NEWSORG states; When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others. When using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the author, and not to assert it as fact. The writer is a critical aspect in the identification of reliable sources. If an article is only based on books that he has written and news statements he has given, the English Wikipedia policy is being ignored. Эдуард/Edward 21:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I do not agree with your false accusation and your last statement. This is a relevant topic for many and an important one. This article should only represent reliable sources to prevent a POV from being in an article. What are the normal procedures in addressing a situation like this one, where the sources are actually just one? Эдуард/Edward 22:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request ( Disagreement over whether cited sources support that homosexual behaviour is widely or is sometimes observed in animals; dispute over whether author cited are RS given that he is gay. ): |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Homosexuality and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
One possible solution to this impasse maybe to state that homosexual behavior has been observed without putting a qualifier on it. Content should remain in article with appropriate flag regarding lack of a reliable reference, and removed with consensus if appropriate time has passed without it having a reliable reference. Questions regarding the validity of the references belong in WP:RSN and a new discussion should be started there post haste.— RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you for your opinion. It does seem like the best option. Just to clarify, this is not a dispute because the author is gay. This problem links to the fact that "widely" is not the best term to be used here and that every citation linked back to the same author during that time period. Эдуард/Edward 03:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
If we are going to allow animal references here, perhaps we should make the reference neutral? Perhaps: "Homosexual behavior has been rarely observed" seeing as how it has been observed in up to 1500 species, out of how many millions? Overseer19XX ( talk) 18:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a loss of focus with the original issue here, which is still a problem in the sub-article concerning homosexuality in animals, whether or not the article as a whole would benefit from an overhaul, which I do believe it would, as it sounds biased in some ways (for instance I skim read the article on my way to the animal section and saw the foot-noted statement "homosexuality is a normal and positive variation in human sexual orientation" no less than four times through the entire article, and at a skim read. Once this premise is established it should not be oft repeated as it removes the appearance of neutral POV, and takes on a tone of an argument instead of fact-based research. Anyway, as to the animal kingdom section, to re-state and re-observe, as someone new to the "debate," I read the article and was interested in the sources, as multiple seemed to be cited. Yet, when I went to all the links, there is ultimately only one source for the entire article, the alleged observations of one man, Bruce Bagemihl , as the citations here on Wikipedia in that article lead only to his work or articles discussing his work or reviewing it. No other scientist's observations are cited in this article, which make it of questionable veracity. I've seen claims in the discussion page that there is excellent research confirming the work of Bruce Bagemihl. Then let's see it, by citing in this article and removing citations to reviews of this man's work, or articles in periodicals based on it. We should have citations to his original work, and the original work of other scientists whose findings corroborate those of Bruce Bagemihl. When "most" people (at least in my limited experience) read a Wikipedia article, they see multiple citations as a sign of multiple corroborative sources, and take this at face value without researching them, particularly when there are no flag headings at the top of the page or the sub-article mentioning a need for more sources. In short, even if all the assertions were 100% accurate, this sub-article is misleading because only one source is directly and indirectly cited multiple times, giving the impression of it having a neutral POV and being well-sourced, which is not the case at this point in time.
It is also interesting to note that while the sub-article has been heavily defended here by some, even though it is based on the cited work of one man, at least one of said persons scrubbed an addition to the page (read two discussion topics down concerning lifespan) because it was based on the work of one man....so why not have some consistency here and delete all assertions that have only one cited source, or leave both; but the one-sided handling has been noted. To quote from below: "Nope. Just because one whackadoodle wingnut says it, doesn't make it so." and that the statement in question might be true but must be "robustly supported by reliable sources." Yet, the Animal Sexuality sub-article stands with one ultimate source, and who determines who is and who is not a "whackadoodle wingnut?" There is definite questionability here concerning Neutral Point of View, as we let fly an article claiming homosexuality is widely observed in the animal kingdom, based on one source who is gay, while dismissing an argument concerning shortened lifespan for active homosexuals by another man who is not gay, and dismissed as an unreliable source. It certainly appears to be bias, considering the defense tactics used on the one hand, and personal dismissive slander jargon used on the other. - Black Fox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.57.167.125 ( talk) 23:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
<--Begin request--> United States (see Don't ask, don't tell) technically permits gay and lesbian people to serve, but only in secrecy and celibacy.
doesn't this need to be change in accordance of the repeal of don't ask don' tell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugottoknowme ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It is important to note that the policy has been repealed at the political level in Washington but the policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell is still in full force and effect in the Department of Defense military branches, pending the on-going review of the Joint Chiefs concerning the proper and safe implementation of a repeal. Hence, while the Armed Forces branches have begun sensitivity training at all levels, each of these training modules ends with a re-stressing of the fact that the former policy of Don't Ask Don't tell is still in full effect. - Black Fox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.57.167.125 ( talk) 23:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay this'll likely start a flame, but why's there nothing about people being cured\freed\turning their back on homosexuality? There's stuff about coming out of the closet, not precisely converting to homosexuality I realise, but why not the reverse? And no I'm not saying everyone's straight and that some are just confused but it's an area that's missing. 203.25.1.208 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC).
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Two things. In the second paragraph of the lede, could someone change "voluntarily-chosen behavior" to "voluntarily chosen behavior", or better yet, just "voluntary behavorior". Second, in the third paragraph there are eleven citations for one fact. While it's certainly good to have that many, it seems like overkill. Could they perhaps all be grouped into one citation, as explained here? 68.54.4.162 ( talk) 18:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Not done: {{
edit protected}}
is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.--
Breawycker (
talk to me!) 00:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to notify editors on this related page that there are number of discussions (most recently this one) ongoing at Talk:Ex-gay movement which may be of interest to editors of this article. --~ Knowzilla (Talk) 08:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Azzy777 (
talk) 01:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The false claim that there is no scientific evidence to suggest homosexuals are more promiscuos is also not referenced. There is abundant peer reviewed evidence.
A 2004 article by Michael Foust states:
“ A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city's homosexual male population. According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area's homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found.
As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland -- known as Chicago's "gay center" -- have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said.
The three-year study on the sexual habits of Chicago's citizens will appear in the upcoming book, "The Sexual Organization of The City" (University of Chicago Press), due out this spring.[76]
”
In September of 2006, the Agape Press reported the following regarding homosexuality and promiscuity:
“ A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300. Unprotected homosexual sex is also a concern among health professionals. A survey in Ireland by the Gay Men's Health Project found that almost half of homosexuals said they were having unprotected sex....
The fact that many homosexuals appear to live their lives in sexual overdrive does not seem to concern leaders in the movement. In an editorial from the same issue (August 15) in which the survey results were published, The Advocate said: "[Homosexuals] have been proud leaders in the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s, and we have rejected attempts by conservatives to demonize that part of who we are."[77]
”
In November of 2007 the news organization One News Now reported the following regarding Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth remarks about the spead of AIDS via male homosexual promiscuity and a conference on AIDS featuring Pastor Rick Warren and Senator Hillary Clinton:
“ Pro-family activist Peter LaBarbera says he shares Pastor Warren's desire to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS but wonders what solutions a politician who is an ardent supporter of the homosexual agenda has to offer in combating the disease. "He says that he's a co-belligerent with people who he disagrees with on other issues," notes LaBarbera, "[so] I guess the question would be: does he disagree strongly with Hillary Clinton's approach to homosexuality and even the AIDS crisis?" Although he admits he is skeptical of what solutions a defender of the homosexual lifestyle like Clinton has to offer churches for fighting the HIV/AIDS crisis, the activist is calling on Warren and Clinton to use the upcoming summit to tackle the problem of homosexual promiscuity, which often results in HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.
"We have homosexual bath houses operating in major cities across this nation," LaBarbera notes. "These are places where men go for anonymous sexual liaisons with other men. They're bringing the HIV virus back to innocent women, because some of these men do not identify as 'gay' and they're even married. So what about that aspect of the AIDS crisis?"[78]
”
Another study involving male homosexuality examined the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexual men and was published in the Journal of Sex Research in 1997.[79] This study of male homosexuality found that 2.7 percent of these men claimed to have had sex with one partner only. [80]
The David P. McWhirter, M.D., and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., Ph.D. study reported in their 1984 work The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop stated that in regards to relationships involving male homosexuality that "all couples with a relationship lasting more than 5 years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships."[81]
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. You will need to find
reliable sources to support your proposal; the dogmatic religionists like Michael Foust and Peter LaBarbara and right-wing advocacy sites like OneNewsNow you're presently using to support your assertion don't qualify. —
Scheinwerfermann
T·
C01:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Does anyone have a source for this? It's been bugging me for a little while. There are plenty of sources for homosexuality not being a choice, but I don't see any that explicitly support the claim that some religious sects and ex-gay organizations say that it is. And I haven't managed to find any reliable ones of my own either. I don't doubt that some organisations do characterise it that way, but we need a source for it. Anyone? garik ( talk) 13:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change, "while others assert that only the sexual act is a sin.[who?]," to something in the way of, "The Catholic Church states that only the sexual act itself is a sin......." and add the below link as a citation
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm (number 2357)
Thank you for your time
strages ( talk) 19:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I have just reverted relatively recent edits to the introduction that removed a neutral, factual statement about religious interpretation of homosexuality and replaced it with a denigrating bit intended to paint religious POV as ignorant and disproven "...in spite". I do not think it is appropriate to include editorial meant to discolor a valid, relevant, and important part of understanding the external world's conception of sexual orientation.
I was disappointed to see that while this was changed to the bad version "unilaterally" initially, a user who'd reverted from the bad version was undone because the changes were "made unilaterally without consensus". An obvious attempt to keep the neutral form, which apparently bothers some people because it suggests that some resistance to popular theories about homosexuality exists, of the article offline.
I was further disappointed to see the characterization of NARTH as an "ex-gay organization". NARTH does not address homosexuality from a dogmatic perspective and its only crime is offering an opinion divergent from that of the APA regarding homosexuality. NARTH is not an association of formerly homosexual individuals but an association of professional therapists that share scholarly findings on the treatment of homosexuality. Surely we are allowed to mention them as a professional organization despite their disagreement with popular and/or APA-accepted theory. cooki e caper ( talk / contribs) 07:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill protest.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
As I understand it, the reason this article begins "Homosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender" is that someone whose sex is female could be in a homosexual relationship with someone whose sex was male, provided they shared the same gender. I realise that this distinction is not straightforward to many people (and, as a linguist, I'm aware that the term is used in a different sense in linguistics). There may, indeed, be a better way of making the distinction clear in this article—although I'm not entirely sure I see how, without linking to the articles, as is already done here. However, before any change is made, it should be discussed here. garik ( talk) 03:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
kcylsnavS, you've made your point "one last time" and now you are repeating yourself. Unless you can come up with substantial, reliable sources to support your point of view—which so far you have not—it is probably time for you to realise consensus is not going your way, and let it drop. Please, thank you, and you're welcome. — Scheinwerfermann T· C15:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
“ | Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is biologically determined, not chosen, cannot really be changed, that prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people causes psychological harm,[3] and that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects." | ” |
Depending on the context, the discriminating characteristics vary from sex to social role to gender identity. Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word "gender" to refer to anything but grammatical categories. [1] [2] However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, like feminist literature, [3] and in documents written by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), [4] but in most contexts, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has expanded to include "sex" or even to replace the latter word. [1] [2]
The "[citation needed]" added to the Legality section on 9.1.1.2 European Union should be replaced with a proper reference to article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. If would do it myself if the page wasn't lockeed. G913 ( talk) 20:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell none of this article addresses opposition to homosexuality aside from the "politics" and "religion" sections in very brief mention. I do not think there is enough criticism of the behavior to warrant an entire page, like the "opposition to the legalization of abortion" and anti-same-sex marriage pages. However, a more significant blurb should probably be outlined, presumably summarizing argumentation done by contemporary writers (I'd be willing to contribute some of that, in the form of some work from Finnis and Beckwith, should this edit be approved of). 198.151.130.143 ( talk) 09:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC) DDiaz
Noam Chomsky? Secs. "Heterosexism and homophobia" and "Violence against gay and lesbian people" are arguments in contra quite sufficient, without adding paragraphs of homophobic nonsense just to show "the other side" of the story. Shame for even suggesting such a thing, IP - and actually citing the KKK as an example of a fair-minded oppositional view! Djathink imacowboy 08:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The map's colors are wrong. Light colors usually indicate freedom, while darker colors indicate lack or loss of same. I would suggest for the map a range of colors starting with White for the most liberated countries, i.e. those that have legalised gay marriage, and going to Black for the most anti-gay ones, i.e. those who punish homosexuality with death. - The Gnome ( talk) 10:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
As in the section above, NARTH is not fully recognized as a professional group because it holds unpopular opinions. Additionally, attempts are made to grossly editorialize around discussion of religion. See above discussion. Posting as an RfC to break the block of standard editors here. cooki e caper ( talk / contribs) 12:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
“ | It is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Prejudice against homosexual and bisexual people, by contrast, has been shown to have such effects.[3] In spite of this, some religious sects and "ex-gay" organizations hold the view that homosexual activity is a sinful or dysfunctional behavior. Contrary to mainstream scientific understanding, some of these sects and organizations characterize it as a "choice".[4] | ” |
I suggest the following rewrite:
“ | It is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Some religions and theological interpretation holds that homosexual orientation or activity is sinful or dysfunctional, and there exist "ex-gay" organizations which seek to bring homosexual people back to heterosexual orientation and behaviour. Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm.[3] Mainstream scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is fixed by adulthood although some maintain that homosexuality is a free choice.[4] | ” |
Just a quick draft but I do think the lede could do with a bit of NPOV attention. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 11:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
How about this, in which I've reworked the "back to…" language, added two apposite links, and moved the crucial "Mainstream scientific understanding…" text closer to the top:
“ | It is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Mainstream scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is fixed by adulthood, although some maintain that homosexuality is a free choice.[4] Some religious and theological perspectives hold that homosexual orientation or activity is sinful or dysfunctional, and there exist " ex-gay" and conversion therapy organizations which seek to change homosexuals into heterosexuals or at least to cease homosexual behaviour. Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm.[3] | ” |
— Scheinwerfermann T· C17:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Okeh, how 'bout this:
“ | Mainstream scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is fixed by adulthood, is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people, however, has been shown to cause psychological harm.[4] Some religious and theological perspectives hold that homosexual orientation or activity is sinful or dysfunctional, and some contend that homosexuality is a free choice.[4] | ” |
— Scheinwerfermann T· C19:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
We need to convey the facts accurately, but we need to do so with tight, flowing text that doesn't trip the reader or hit him/her over the head. We also should try to avoid setting ourselves up for squabbles and edit wars based on the perception of POV bias, such as is caused by words like "incorrectly". Let's try some copyediting:
“ | Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is biologically determined, not chosen, cannot really be changed, that prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people causes psychological harm,[3] and that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Nevertheless, some religious and theological perspectives consider homosexual orientation or activity to be sinful or dysfunctional, and some contend that homosexuality is a voluntarily chosen lifestyle.[4]" | ” |
— Scheinwerfermann T· C19:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
“ | Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is biologically determined, not chosen, cannot truly be changed, that prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people causes psychological harm,[3] and that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. | ” |
Maybe this is wiki-ignorance on my part, but as well-written as Scheinwerfermann's suggestions are, I have a question about "some contend that homosexuality is a free choice." Specifically, the word "some." Every time I see that on a wiki article, someone has added the "who?" template. Also, although I'm sure there are individuals who contend it's a free choice on non-religious grounds, the primary force behind that line of thinking is religious. Religious objection to homosexuality is mainstream enough that I think it belongs in the lede; conversion concepts and organizations, on the other hand, are NOT mainstream enough to warrant mention in the lede, I think. Mreleganza ( talk) 21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been a bit WP:BOLD and have altered the section in question: [13]. -- Scientiom ( talk) 18:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
“ | Mainstream scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is fixed by adulthood, is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people, however, has been shown to cause psychological harm.[4] Some religious and theological perspectives hold that homosexual orientation or activity is sinful or dysfunctional, and some contend that homosexuality is a free choice.[4] | ” |
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientist to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
“ | Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment. [5] [6] Although some religious sects and "ex-gay" organizations hold the view that homosexual activity is a sinful or dysfunctional behavior, [7] researchers contend that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a normal variation of human sexual orientation. [5] Though not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. [8] | ” |
“ | Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment. [5] [9] Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior, [7] researchers state that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality. [5] Though not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. [8] | ” |
One final wording change proposal for clarity (and adding Scientiom's proposed change into this as well):
“ | Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment. [5] [10] Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior, [7] research and studies show that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality. [5] Though homosexuality is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. [8] | ” |
That prevents any possibly ambiguity as to whether the "Though..." sentence is referring to "prejudice and discrimination" in both parts of it by clarifying that the "Though..." section refers to homosexuality, while the ending is referring to prejudice and discrimination. More wordy, but less chance of misinterpretation. Thoughts? Best,
ROBERTMFROMLI |
TK/
CN 19:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22. Re: "but rather..."
My comment was in regards to Scientom's comment: "..."but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment" should be removed as understanding on what determines sexual orientation is rapidly shifting with an increasing amount of studies pointing to an exclusively biological cause..." (italics to show that was the "but rather" I was indicating).
I've got no problem with the current wording, as it's supported by the sources. Scientom brings up a good point though that such perspectives are changing (which is what I was responding to), and I was trying to say I've also got no problems with the line being changed to reflect that, as long as we had reliable sources to indicate such. Inotherwords: happy either way, as long as if we pick Scientom's proposal, we've got the sources to back it (which from the efforts so far, I probably didn't need to say). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/ CN 17:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
“ | Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment. [5] [11] Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior, [7] research and studies show that homosexuality is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality. [5] Though homosexuality is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. [8] | ” |
Question: Are we inferring (or using) the term "biology" to include genetics? And by "we", I mean the sources we've taken those terms from? If not (ie: the sources aren't discussing genetics and research in that area - instead limiting to more simple biology), then perhaps that's the area where recent research (and changes to this section) can come into play? If not, then for lack of being able to think up anything that better portrays it, I'm all for "complex... biological and environmental..." as the wording. Otherwise (if supported by current cites or new ones), I'd propose "complex... biological, genetic and evironmental..." as new wording. Thoughts? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/ CN 00:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
“ | Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of genetics, biology and environment. [5] [12] Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior, [7] research and studies show that homosexuality is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality. [5] Though homosexuality is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. [8] | ” |
I think this one?
“ | Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of genetics, biology and environment. [5] [13] Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior, [7] research and studies show that homosexuality is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality. [5] Though homosexuality is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. [8] | ” |
I agree on what you say about adding "genetics..." - except for the layman who may not realize the overlap... I can either remove it (and we can consider adding it back later), or I can leave it in (and we can consider removing it later). Suggestions? -Rob
ROBERTMFROMLI |
TK/
CN 19:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Best, Rob
ROBERTMFROMLI |
TK/
CN 20:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
" Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behaviour,[4] research and studies show that homosexuality is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality." Studies are not capable of identifying what is moral or "positive" such a thing as this is not possible and as it is worded here it seems to say that research has found homosexuality unsinful which would be even less possible as a divine diety defines what is sinful and cannot be determined by any natural means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.2.225 ( talk) 00:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Every article and every subject has its own peculiarities, and therefore it is not wise to fix rules applicable to all. Nevertheless it seems to me a normal order to have the "history" section at the beginning, as it supplies an introductory information about what has been the "evolution" of the subject till now. In the present instance, I think that it would be useful to have it in this position. I may be wrong, though, in which case would appreciate to hear the diverging opinions.-- Auró ( talk) 20:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The Kinsey scale is clearly misplaced, but it is an important topic, and I am still not familiar enough with this page/subject as to propose some better treatment. Maybe later on.-- Auró ( talk) 23:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
haig
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).apahelp
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
apa2009
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)