Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 5

message: § One paragraph of the current article has two kinds of problem:
:One theory, presented by Susan Blackmore, is that homosexuality is largely genetic in origin. The question of how homosexuals counterintuitively replicated their genes, given that homosexual sex does not result in reproduction, can be answered by the theory that social dogma prompted individuals with homosexual genes to behave heterosexually and thus reproduce. This theory goes on to predict that homosexuality will be less common in the future because, as we  enter the information age, homosexuality will become more widely known and accepted, and therefore individuals with homosexual genes will feel less inclined to behave heterosexually and will thus reproduce less frequently. This particular interpretation is deeply unsatisfying - if gay-gened people learn to behave heterosexually through social means then presumably straght-gened people can learn to engage in homosexuality and there is no need for a gay gene whatsoever.
* It speakes of a "gay gene" as though some humans have a gene that other humans lack. If one person has blue eyes and another person has brown eyes, it is not because they have different genes. Instead, they have different versions of the same genes, the "eye color genes." When there is more than one form of the same gene, the different versions are called alleles.
* It is not clear whose critique is given in the last sentence. Judging by the way it is written, it appears to express the point of view of the contributor to Wikipedia who wrote that paragraph. If it does repeat the opinion of a researcher in the field, then the source of this opinion should be cited. 
§ Wherever it came from, it might better be omitted since it is logically flawed. That social expectations can influence gay individuals to copulate with females is well known. It isn't that somebody has convinced gay individuals that heterosexual intercourse is intensely satisfying to the gay individuals. "Try it, you'll like it," works out favorably sometimes, even with pokeberry icecream. But it is much more accurate to say, "Try it, you may like it." And that works both for people who previously have only had homosexual experiences and people who previously have had only hetersexual experiences. What determines future behavior, all other things such as opportunity being equal, is how much the person likes it. The passage quoted above says, "if gay-gened people learn to behave heterosexually" when it should say, "if gay-gened people are constrained to behave heterosexually," or at least "are influenced to behave heterosexually." Neither what the person in question prefers to do, nor what the person needs to be constrained or otherwise influenced to do, is likely to be an uncaused event or condition. Whether the cause of the preference is genetic or of some other character can only be found by examining the causes of the preference. The presence or absence of a "gay gene" will be determined by matching preferences with alleles, not by examining the forced behavior of individuals. P0M 06:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whose critique? 

message: Last night I noticed vandalism that included inserting claims that "it all started with [john doe]". I tried several times to revert, and the changes that I made to get rid of "john doe" seemed to stick, but in the identity of the anonymous contributor.  Now this page appears to be protected.  If someone has protected it, shouldn't a notice to that effect have been added? P0M 21:55, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has this article been protected 

message: I see that one or two people have been busy making major changes to this and a related article, and that someone else has reverted those changes. I think that reversion was the appropriate thing to do because the edits really were not well considered, and involve many problems that might have been avoided by studying the original articles carefully and trying to understand why they have gradually assumed their present forms over the last couple of years.  The edits probably were well intended (I took the time to look at some of the "user contribution" stuff). I can understand being irritated by them because they caused some inconvenience to the people who have been improving these articles and reverting the frequent incidences of vandalism. However, if somebody does something in a well-intentioned way it probably would be better to put the reasons for reversion in the talk page where they can be stated fully and clearly. For one thing, much like answering machine messages, the cramped circumstances of communicating provided by the edit summary almost guarantee that the comment will appear curt and unfriendly.  
Since the new contributors have not registered yet, it becomes a catch as catch can situation when one tries to communicate with them. If the person who made the extensive edits to the Homosexuality article happens upon this discussion page, s/he can communicate with the rest of us here. For the moment I will just say that I would have reverted the article myself if I had seen it first because the changed text involved some simplistic judgments that represent the points of view of some people who write on the subject, but are far from being things that can be regarded as "matters of fact." For instance, the assertion was made that homosexuality is determined by genetic inheritance. While there may be hereditary factors that predispose to homosexuality, the same contributor mentioned whole populations that are described by researchers as engaging in homosexual behavior as an activity that is socio-normal to members of those communities. There is no point of my going through the now-reverted text point by point without knowing whether the person who stated those views will ever read this discussion page, and I don't have time to go back to the history page and copy out the problematical statements anyway.
In short, getting your stuff reverted is enough psychic trauma for a new contributor to absorb at one time, so let's try to just say something like, "Reverted to version by John Doe. Please see discussion page."  P0M 07:05, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent problematical changes 

message: § As it currently stands, the article says: 
:"Throughout most of written history, same-sex relations were not restricted to the exclusively homosexual but were engaged in by a large proportion of the male population." 
There are several serious problems with this formulation:
* By mentioning written history, the article implies that looking into the history one could find reflections of the practice of homosexual relationships in the daily lives of "a large proportion" of ordinary people and important leaders. But history books usually report the exceptions, the scandals that bring down governments, etc., and demographies that detail the sexual practices of the people of a given nature are not common before the 20th century. Only ons (or two?) English kings was known for preferring his male sexual partners to his wife, and in China (which has the most exhaustive archives of government records, summaries of government records, and more formal histories) one does not find references that suggest homosexual relations on the part of rulers after about 200 B.C. Earlier than that it was not unusual to see mention of king so-and-so's male favorite. In the Shi Shuo Xin Yu, a record of the goings on of two members of the group called the "seven sages of the bamboo grove" indicates that their sexual behavior was regarded as unusual enough to merit a kind of "delighted with naughtiness" mention.  Anyway, if the business about written history has any merit at all it would need to be made to state clearly what years, decades, or centuries were not times when homosexuality was widespread -- and why.
* What does "engaged in" really mean here? Does it mean something like what Kinsey found? -- that a high percentage of people would at least admit to having tried it once or twice? Or does it mean that a high percentage of men (and women?) were happily engaging in same-sex relationships? Or does it mean that from the point of view of religious authorities an astoundingly large percentage (say 5 or 20%) were breaking the rules?  
§ So what is the real evidence? Is it historical? How about some citations. Is it evidence found in cultural artifacts like statues, novels, poems, etc.? What does it say about the likelihood that someone would try it casually, do it when nothing better was available, maintain a long-term relationship alongside a heterosexual relationship, or maintain a long-term relationship and avoid heterosexual contacts? As it stands, the passage practically begs for attack as a biased report favoring homosexual lifestyles when the goal of a good article should be to accurately and comprehensibly reflect what actually has gone on. P0M 14:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement in need of proof 

message: I reverted a bunch of edits to clear vandalism and very strange edits to the References section. But I accidentally reverted most of Ludwigvan beethoven's edits. They seemed POV and needed massive cleanup, so I can't easily fix it. Could someone take a look?
If you would please sign your postings it would make things easier for everyone. 金 (Kim) 04:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: I've replaced the sentence:
:"Some people identify themselves as homosexual even though they may engage in sexual activity with both men and women (whether occasionally or regularly)."
by:
:"The term homosexuality is also occasionally applied to sexual activity between members of the same sex."
Reasons:
#I think it's irrelevant for the intro how some people identify. The intro should explain how the term homosexuality is commonly defined and understood. If someone says he or she is homosexual, I understand that as "he or she is sexually inclined exclusively, or almost exclusively, to his or her own sex". A different use seems rather idiosyncratic to me.
#When, for example, the Wikipedia article about Paragraph 175 says that it "made male homosexuality a crime", then homosexuality is here, of course, understood as denoting same-sex sexual activity, not a sexual orientation. This part of the definition definitely belongs in the introduction. --Amys 04:37, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Ok, ok - who broked the article? Barneyboo 14:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: uh oh :| I was the last one who edited it... What now? Sietse 14:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Phew :) It seems to be fixed. Sietse 15:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken?