Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 9

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

message: What are these things for?  Hyacinth 04:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite id

message: We seem to have a bit of an edit war going on regarding this image. Edit wars are bad. So, let's discuss. Do note the that image is listed on WP:PUI. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 11:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going to revert, it is stupid, but do not make unsupportable accusations, Tzankai, this fellow has been removing not only the picture but also the links to the articles. I do not have time now to do this but the copyright belongs to the Iranian Student News Agency. 69.118.250.245 16:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then put it on the damned picture page!--Tznkai 16:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gave WP:FU a good readthrough, and while I'm not sure if I understand it all, fair use needs to be heavely justified. According to the ten step processes, it doesn't seem it is fair use. Can someone track down the copyright holders and ask for permission under GDFL? In the meantime, I think this is legitimate dispute. Can we find a replacement image in the meantime?--Tznkai 17:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found the copyright holders: .  The entire site, however, is in Arabic, and I therefore have no idea as how to contact the copyright holder.  If anyone speaks / reads Arabic, please go to this site and attempt to contact the copyright holder. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 18:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That promises to be pain in the ass. Any chance of being able to pipeline the request through a larger news service by chance? --Tznkai 18:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Spitzer's study did not show a 99.98% failure rate, and it is misleading to claim that as the result of the study.  I'm not sure where the figure came from, but one source appears to be the analysis of the study on the religioustolerance.org page.    These are back-of-the-envelope surmises and are not an appropriate way to summarize a scientific study.  The study itself was a very limited one, and within the limits of the study---which is to say, 274 people referred to Spitzer who claimed to have changed their sexual orientation---66% had achieved good heterosexual functioning.  The study itself is not online, but some of the ex-gay ministries have reasonably balanced summaries that can at least be relied on for numbers.  See for instance
I am not sure where that figure came from either. I will remove it. And I also added some context to it that I found on GLAAD, let me know if you have any objections. 70.57.82.114 22:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spitzer edit 

message: The section called "Genetics, hormones, malleability and sexual orientation" posited an unfortunately common false choice about the "origin" of sexual orientation.  That is, there's a nasty bout of biological reductionism running around in our culture; it posits that sexual orientation can either be: (a) Biologically determined; or (b) purely voluntary.  After I tried to add a slight measure of subtlety here, editor 70.57.82.114, took it back out (demanding citations which are not present for any of the other explanatory frameworks presented.
There are other explanatory choices available (and indeed, probably largely correct).  I tried—very compactly—to characterize another dimension as "formative childhood experiences" (though even that is a bit narrower than ideal).  Basically, that stands for a whole range of possible pyschological or psychoanalytic ideas about the formation of sexual identities (and of sexual desires).  Some of this is a nod to Freud, but it's not only Freudians who talk about these approaches.
Just by way of a fairly pat motivating analogy, let me present my standard schtick.  It's pretty damn clear that spoken language (as in which one) is darn near 100% environmental in cause.  The only slight exceptions are the slice of people who don't develop in a way to acquire natural language at all (or to do so fully)—i.e. people with brain damage and the like.  On the other hand, it is definitely not "voluntary" on my part not to wake up tomorrow speaking Mandarin.  Formative experiences made me into a native English speaker.  Likewise, I can equally little decide to wake up tomorrow with a whole different sexual orientation than the one I have today.  Still, I might learn Mandarin eventually, and my sexual orientation might shift over the course of my life (in fact, it has, as has that of about everyone I've ever met or heard about). 
Unfortunately, both homophobes and homophiles have developed something of a conformant ideological presupposition that makes it easier to think only about "biological destiny."  For pro-gay folks biological reductionism means "It's not our choice, it's our genes/hormones/etc".  For anti-gay bigots, biological reductionism means "They can be cured once we find the right drugs, gene treatment, etc."  Both perspectives, while comforting in their childish simplicity, miss the diversity, historicity and complexity of human sexual behavior and desire. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:22, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
:I'm totally behind you if you want to include more info on this sort of view.  I can probably pull up some sources, too, if you need em.  -Seth Mahoney 02:48, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Lulu to my knowledge there is not scientific backing that an exclusively homosexual person can become even somewhat heterosexual. Or am I mistaken? 70.57.82.114 23:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  False dualism 

message: 1. One thing that always struck me as odd about the bio-reductionists is that they've always been convinced that it is conclusively proven that biological explanations are the right ones.  And yet, they rarely agree on exactly which such explanations are actually true:  Maybe it's a gene; maybe it's a virus; maybe it's a hormone level in utero; maybe it's an enlarged brain region; etc.  Finding that any of a dozen biological explanations each have a modicum of supporting evidence isn't the same as "conclusively proven"... and WP should be more neutral. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:52, 2005 August 17 (UTC)
2. Another thing that also strikes me as odd about the bio-reductionists is the false equation biology==invariant.  Obviously, there's no such necessary rule, regardless of the actual malleability of human sexual orientation.  For example, wholly unrelated to my sexual orientation (most likely), I know perfectly well that my testosterone level will change over the course of my lifetime.  Probably it was highest when I was a late adolescent, and it's probably been creeping lower since then (I just say this as a general human pattern, mine has never been measured to my knowledge).  But I also know that the level would be affected if I were to take steroids or other drugs.  It would be affected if I were to start exercising more (or less).  It can be affected by some diseases I might get.  This one is probably somewhat affected by my actual sexual activity (especially amount thereof).  Testerone level is affected by foods I eat (to a moderate degree).  And so on.  Moreover, even proteins or enzymes directly tied to a specific gene can be activated or deactivated by the sorts of factors I list above.  Or brain regions, or other organic features, can also be affected by life histories, and by the mere fact of aging.
In other words, there's nothing about the hypothesis that "sexual orientation is biologically determined" that forces, or even particularly encourages, the conclusion that "sexual orientation is constant over a lifetime."  Those two statements are utterly unrelated, logically.  There's a really simplistic collection of false correlations that some homophiles like to believe: "I was born this way, therefore I'll always be this way!" I can see why it might lend comfort, but it has no implicational weight at all.  Moreover, there's nothing about the "nurture" hypothesis (i.e. formative childhood experiences) that implies anything about malleability.  Some things from childhood stick with my my whole life (phobias maybe, language acquisition, some beliefs probably, etc); other things change more quickly and voluntaristically. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:17, 2005 August 20 (UTC)
::I'm a queer biologist, and as such you'd think I'd support these assertions, but you're right, they are false. There is biological evidence to support that being a gay male does have biological markers in the brain, olfactory senses, etc., but all this proves is that gay males are biologically different than straight males. Bisexual men are still held in contention. There is no "gay gene" discovery, and frankly, I hope they never find one for fear of eugenics. Curiously, there is no such distinction between straight women and lesbians. This is hypothesized to relate to reproduction. What I'm saying is biology proves that gay people exist and that's about it. --Waterspyder 03:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd conclusions of bio-reductionists 

message: I am thinking about adding three sections the the biology area, one paragraph each. 
:I'm happy with the first paragraph, or something close to it.  I think your long discussion of fetal hormone stuff (further below) really would be good for an independent article that could link from here.  On the reparative therapy stuff, that seems to go under the "Humans are all heterosexual" section.  But I already took out a huge discussion there, since linked articles discuss it in detail. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:26, 2005 August 20 (UTC)
Here is a draft:
*One of the most extensively researched hypothesizes on the formation of sexual orientation is the prenatal hormonal theory. It holds that just as exposure to circulating sex hormones determines whether a fetus will be male or female, such exposure dictates sexual orientation. There have been a number of human and animal studies since the 1990s that have consistently found correlation between the two, however while in some animals this theory has been proven to be casual (the cause) in humans it is still the subject of in-depth peer review and at the moment is limited to correlation. 
*Reparative therapy is psychotherapy aimed at the elimination of homosexual attractions and is employed by people who do not think homosexuality is one variation within human sexual orientation, but rather still believes homosexuality is a mental disorder. Transformational ministry indicates the use of religion to eliminate homosexual attractions. While reparative therapy relies on secular theories, transformational ministry takes the approach that the destruction of homosexuality is possible through repentance and faith, usually in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Reparative therapy, conversion therapy and transformational ministry is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. 
70.57.82.114 00:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New paragraphs 

message: Wtf is going on with this article? It seems to have been deleted. I needed to look up some info on research in homosexuality in the 1960's and the whole article is gone. - 8/23/05
:This article is a frequent target of vandals.  In the case you observed it was blanked.  Such vandalism is usually reverted fairly quickly.  See also Wikipedia:Vandalism. 
:If you run into other blank pages, you can visit the history, find the latest non-blank or otherwise non-vandalised version, edit that version and save it with an edit summary such as "rv blanking". MichaelSlone 16:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: :::Reputable psychologists believe that sexual orientation is shaped at an early age in most individuals, with signficant recent evidence indicating that biology, namely genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a considerable role. They also do not believe sexual orientation is voluntarily changeable. 
Why:
:What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?
::In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. 
Feel free to touch it up. 71.32.199.15 07:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  explanation of recent edit 

message: There are claims that Elvis Presley, apart from his relationships with women, had also some relationships with men. See Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley. What do you think about these claims?
:I don't really think it's significant for anyone other than, you know, the dead one with the hair and the rock...Zeppocity 13:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Elvis Presley's homosexual leanings

message: Which US states do not allow consensual sex between unrelated adults?  WritersCramp has changed "all" to "most" in this discussion, indicating that some do not allow it.  Please list them here and provide sources.  Exploding Boy 15:05, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
:He's incorrect... well, he's incorrect from some points of view. From a Federal standpoint, you can have sex with a consenting adult in private. 
:Sadly, there still are states that have such laws (they don't have to remove the laws just because they're unconstitutional, that happens if the law is challenged). Michigan, for example, has a law against "crimes against nature" which includes "gross indecency", in public or private, regardless of sex! 
::They are surely unenforceable now, though, like the miscegenation laws? I don't know for sure (it was me who changed 'most' to 'all'; I simply assumed that Supreme Court decision trumped local law, but I'm an ignorant foreigner, so wouldn't know for sure) Rsynnott 01:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If a state legislature has not repealed a law and if the law has not actually been tested for constitutionality in court, then somebody could get arrested, tried, and convicted under that law. The conviction could then be appealed, and I suppose under some circumstances it might crawl all the way to the Supreme Court.  At that point the law might be found to be unconstitutional, so the prisoner would have to be freed. The process could be be very trying on the person on trial, both in terms of defense expenses and in terms of diversions of personal energy to fighting these charges.  I think usually prosecutors are pretty savvy in not pursuing a case against somebody if tbey figure they won't get a conviction that will stand up through the appeals process.  金 (Kim) 07:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect. In the extremely unlikely event that a trial court did not adhere to Lawrence v. Texas, the decision would surely be overturned at the appeals level. As a similar example, I don't believe there have been any flag-burning convictions since Texas v. Johnson. Rhobite 18:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensual sex

message: *Christianity could use some edits, such as the inclusion of the Inquisition, how it lashed out at pederasty, how it later included procreative themes by combining Platonic thought that it is unnatural, and some modern coverage, the large dissents
*Islam should be made clear that it allows and as even regarded homosexual attractions as holy while always condemning homosexual sex
*The Buddhism and Taoism sections are decidely negative, odd given that those two have been traditionally friendly, it should be made clear that nothing in both of them condemns homosexuality, only when syncretism is applied with Confucianism does exclusive homosexuality come under fire, but never homosexual sex (nonexclusive)
71.32.199.15 05:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work needed on religious views 

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

message: Intro Cleanup It is inaccurate to introduce that the minority of people are exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. I have rewritten it in such a way that more accurately reflects the research without demonstrating a biased point of view. There also seems to be a particular prejudice against Islamic religions. There is also a bias towards US statistics which I have left alon for now.--Waterspyder 01:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be more clear. You can coin a phrase or word. He coined a phrase or word. He is coining the phrase. BUT Coining in the infinitive is incorrect since it is never an ongoing action.--Waterspyder 01:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Both aspects can be documented. Haiduc 02:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but then we should have news articles/journals/academic papers reflecting the stats and opinions, otherwise it is original source material and will be and should be disputed. I worked at a Pride Centre in Canada for 4 years, and while I cannot prove the statement of the original author that egalitarian is probably the most popular form, I would feel comfortable supporting a statistical assertion that it is the most prevalent. I do also however know that there is still a significant community that is age-based, since youth and fitness is favoured as a gay media aesthetic. There are also still a lot of women who enjoy the butch and femme gender dynamic and find it empowering. I don't think they are shunned or in disfavour, they just aren't the preference being exhibited by people in Western society at the moment. I could also talk about other cultures, (since the article is very North American-centered), but that's another discussion altogether. --Waterspyder 03:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Notes 

message: I'm going to take out Achilles out of the mythology part of the text. Not because he might of been or might of not of been homosexual but because the article on Wikipedia doesn't say anything about the fact. Whispering 21:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It qualifies Patroclus as his lover. I think you missed it. Please revert the entry in the article after checking. Haiduc 22:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Achilles 

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

message: ===Organizations which advocate chastity or changing sexual orientation=== 	 	
* NARTH - The National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a secular organization which attempts through voluntary therapy to change the sexual orientation of non-heterosexuals.			
* Courage - Apostolate for Catholics who are not heterosexual, which provides Roman Catholic theological information encouraging celibacy for homosexuals and heterosexual relations in the context of marriage for bisexuals. 			
* Exodus - Christian ministry which views non-heterosexual relationships as sinful and attempts to change sexual orientation using spiritual methods.	
* International Healing Foundation - Organization advocating the position that same-sex attraction is neither innate nor a conscious choice, and can be cured by healing psychological wounds believed to cause the attraction.
===Discussion===
Could editors please discuss their issues with this section here, rather than simply reverting back and forth? My take on the matter is that these are significant viewpoints and should be represented. What do other people think? -Willmcw 07:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Organizations which advocate..." 

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

message: I was slightly taken aback whe I read the caption of the Parade picture that mentioned Rio de Janeiro as having the largest gay pride parade in the world. That's not true, São Paulo has it, the last one outnumbered Rio de Janeiro's participants greatly. It has around 2 million participants. I almost changed the name of the city in the caption, but, of course, I noticed that is NOT Sao Paulo, since it has no shore. Maybe the caption could be changed to "one of the largest gay parades".
:Good idea. Go for it. Be bold. -Willmcw 21:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rio de Janeiro picture 

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

message: I think more criticism of homosexual behaviour should be added. i.e. links like:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05050407.html
Would be cool! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.210.90.180 (talk • contribs) .
:Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy. The type and amount of criticism included in an article should reflect that. For example, weasel terms should be avoided. Guanaco 20:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand we could consider an article containing critiques of all sexualities, including of course critiques of heterosexuality. There is lots to be said on all sides. Haiduc 22:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, but indiscriminate dumping of anti-gay text or excessive anti-gay links into this article should not even be considered. Guanaco 22:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it does not cost anything, here it is:  Critiques of sexual behavior. It can serve as a repository for some of that stuff, at least for the more articulate elements of it. Haiduc 23:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see if I can add some content there. It will be one of the harder pages to keep within the Verifiability and NPOV policies. Guanaco 16:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a lot of work to dig up the sources, but the material is already out there. And it levels the playing field, so to speak. Haiduc 16:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique of Homosexualism 

message: The lead currently says, essentially, that some followers of Abrahamic religions are against homosexuality, while some aren't; and then that some followers of non-Abrahamic religions are against it, while some aren't.  So what's the basis for distinguishing between Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions in this context?   Just Americo-Euro-centrism, or do we have a better reason? Mark1 10:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's an artifact of trying to NPOV the paragraph without totally removing what various people were saying; the final result being that it doesn't say much of anything.  If it does say anything, it's that the condemning in the non-Abrahamic religions is a result of contamination by the Abrahamic religions (and Christianity in particular), but even that isn't very strongly stated.  For the lead, it might be better just to say that the religious perspective on homosexuality is extremely loaded and controversial.... /blahedo (t) 02:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abrahamic religions in the lead 

message: Ambi, cut it out.  If you have specific edits that you think are "original research", address them individually; the vast majority Naif's many, many edits are typo fixes, link fixes, and substantive changes with citations, not "masses of original research".  /blahedo (t) 10:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is complete tripe. Of his many, many edits, I spotted one reference - and that was for a particularly controversial claim which he was trying to state as definitive fact. I've re-added some of his edits which were, as you rightly note, copyedits. The vast majority of the his remaining edits, however, were utter crankery. Ambi 10:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that one of the reverts actually removed a source. That's not a positive direction. -Willmcw 10:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The particularly odd things Naif added were with regards to an unsourced supposed "pederastic initiation experience" which seems to be suggesting that you've got to be raped as a child to be gay, and the odd inference that creating a spectrum with regards to homosexual relationships somehow automatically legitimizes underage relationships. Neither of those seem to me to be supportable. I'm gay and I sure as hell wasn't involved in any "pederastic initiation experience." FCYTravis 10:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistent reverting