Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 10

message: I'm confused by the wording on this page in the religion section.  it says:
Sikhism has no written view on the matter, but Sikh (Punjabi) society is generally ultra masculine and conservative, toleration of any homosexual behaviour or orientation is bound to meet outrage or strong disapproval
but this seems to be in conflict at least in part with the other wiki article "homosexuality and sikhism:"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Sikhism
now, while i am not a sikh nor do i pretend to know what's up with sikh and sexuality (which is why i'm on wikipedia) i would suggest that the line in the latter article:
However, other Sikhs believe that Guru Nanak's emphasis on universal equality and brotherhood is fundamentally in support of homosexual's human rights. 
kinda goes against the formers "ultra masculine" description (the latter does go on to say that this homosexual acceptance is a minority, but it at least raises the point that no all sikh could be described as ultra-conservative).
finally, the whole description of sikhs as ultra conservative and supra masculine needs to be at least sited if it is going to stay in the article, cause i read it and i think... says who?  especially when there's another wiki article that doesn't agree... can we clean this up?
--64.142.79.210 04:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sikhism 

message: I have been mulling a way to discuss the specificity of religious proscriptions, in the sense that when scriptures condemn "something" they do not condemn usually anything other than anal intercourse. Thus it seems false to claim that they condemn the whole universe of feelings and actions which makes up the experience and expression of homosexuality. Unless I am mistaken, anything short of actual anal penetration is actively ignored by scriptures. This is analogous to the views that 5th c. Athenians, and Republican Rome took of these affairs as well. Any thoughts? Haiduc 13:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're of course correct when you say that "it seems false to claim that they condemn the whole universe of feelings and actions [most of which, of course, aren't even sexual] which makes up the experience and expression of homosexuality" but it seems to me more and more that when they say "homosexuality" they mean "anal intercourse" (and sometimes even mean "anal intercourse between a man and a woman").  The entire constellation of acts and feelings you refer to above are just decorations orbiting this single, to them alarmingly undesirable, act, if they exist at all.  This is, of course, just a crude outline, but one that I at least see in the "arguments" by ex-gay advocates, christian fundamentalists, neo-"Darwinists", neo-Nazis, etc - they all seem to amount to, "ick!", and there's no way to go beyond that action, which for them alone defines homosexuality.  So when they say, "the scriptures (or whatever) condemn homosexuality", they mean it, but when they say 'homosexuality' they don't, at all, mean the same thing as you.  -Seth Mahoney 19:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please define for me what a "genuine" form of love is.  And since homosexuals are repeatedly prevented from marrying by religious intolerance please don't use it in your example- homosexuals would love to marry if anyone would let them.  Weenerbunny (195.153.124.163 12:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Homosexuality" vs. "anal intercourse" 

message: I would suggest expansion of "Political developments" section noting also opposition to emancipation of same-sex relations, and equally the pattern of some of the most vocal opponents at some point being revealed as closeted homosexuals, a la Lonnie Latham. Haiduc 12:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition 

message: I snipped this
:Hinduism has dealt with homosexuality in its own way, with two of its major Gods Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu engaging in sexual courtship and intercourse producing a baby, with the latter in a female attire. The act was necessary to end the demon who had extracted a promise from the Gods that he never be killed by anyone except the offspring of the two major Gods, contemplating its "impossibility". Also in the Hindu holy scripture, The Ramayana, we see certain male sages desiring to kiss the incarnation of Vishnu, Rama. In an another Hindu holy book Mahabharatha, we  enounter Sikhandi, a girl brought up actually as a boy in the hope that one day he will "convert" into a man, as was "due". Sikhandi was "supposed" to be born as a boy, in the king's family, as granted by Lord Shiva. Sikhandi "trades" his womanhood for masculinity, with a Gandharva, post "his" marriage to a girl, when Sikhandi's parents decide that only marriage will make a man of him. Hinduism is by and large tolerant of homosexuality what with its inclusion in its history and scriptures. Castrates and Eunuchs have a unique place in the Indian society with many of them performing at marriages and on other occasions such as the birth of a male child in a family.They usually move around in groups with a "head", though not necessarily. Hindu scriptures as such do not speak anything against sexual minorities, with some even projecting them in positive light. Hinduism therefore may be called a "Gay-friendly-religion", if such a term exists. However in modern India, sexual minorities face the same problems that their counterparts elsewhere face, if not greater. Incidences of harrasment based on sexual orientation are extremely rare in India, but Indians taking a cue from the rest, are catching up with others in this regard too. To cite an example, there was wide spread disapproval regarding incestuous lesbianism shown in Deepa Mehta's movie Fire . Indian movies (Bollywood) (which form the chief entertainment means for a large part of India) rarely ever mention homosexuality, which in some ways is considered better as opposed to possible negative potrayal.
There may be some salvageable content here, but it's too long, is totally uncited, and has no business being in the intro.  Could someone write a sentence or two about Hinduism for the religion paragraph that is in the intro?  Morwen - Talk 12:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to add two things to the point that in most Hindi movies there is no mention of homosexuality. First, this is undoubtedly true for Hindi movies just as it is for the cinema of every language and national culture. In no national cinema that I'm aware of is homosexuality mentioned in more than in a tiny fraction of all movies. Second, while gays aren't often mentioned, queers indeed are. It's common to see hijada-s depicted in Hindi films. The category of hijada doesn't easily map onto that of gay or homosexual, but it certainly does onto that of queer. Hijadas are most popularly understood as being either intersex (hermaphrdites) or eunuchs (biological men who've had penis and/or testicles castrated). In fact, they include many who are anatomically and biological male but socially interstitial male-female. The book "With Respect to Sex" by Gayatri Reddy addresses many issues about hijra identity, culture and practice. Interlingua 16:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hinduism

message: There are numerous references to Central Asian homosexual traditions on this and other homosexuality-related pages. Could you clarify where exactly in Central Asia (which peoples and coutries for example) and provide references if you can? The link connecting to Homosexuality and Islam primarily talks about Middle and Near Eastern societies.
:Please see Pederasty in the Islamic lands for more details and references. Haiduc 02:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexuality in Central Asia

message: Forgive me, but I think that the external links section should be purged.  The links there present focus solely on the “pro-gay” positions, organizations, articles, etc.  Now, as an openly gay individual, I am not advocating that we counter them with their “anti-gay“ equivalents.  I feel that they should be removed and the links should relate to relatively objective examinations of homosexuality, the homosexual culture, and the studies that have been done.  Links to things like GLAAD, GLSEN, Lambda Legal, etc. should probably factor out to Gay rights, with other links going elsewhere.—Kbolino 02:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Objective examinations of the (one) homosexual culture?  -Seth Mahoney 02:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read: cultures in which homosexuals participate—Kbolino 03:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh okay, just so long as we're talking cultures, plural.  -Seth Mahoney 03:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I moved this here:
:The opposite situation seems to obtain in homonormative societies, where men whose primary attraction may be to the opposite sex nonetheless engage in the homosexual practices prescribed by their respective culture.
For the following reasons:
1.  I've never encountered the word 'homonormative' outside wikipedia.
2.  Name one homonormative society (if this refers to what I suspect it does, 'homonormative' is a complete misnomer).
-Seth Mahoney 19:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't disagree that "homonormative" seems to be a junk word, however the concept of a society where homosexuality is a proscribed behavior warrants exploration...  Usually it is a coming of age behavior, and may not be demonstrated by all members or for their entire lifetimes, the Sambia tribe would be one where all members seem to participate in ritual homosexuality for a period of their lives, but eventually are expected to procreate.  In any case it's discussed briefly on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and that's probably where it belongs.  Rainman420 22:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sambia case was exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote that.  And for that case, given that the question of whether what's going on there even counts as sex, I'd stick by my terming 'homonormative' a misnomer.  -Smahoney 22:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article 

message: I just wanted to say that, though this article still needs work, it has come a long way in a fairly short amount of time, and with some heavy vandalism.  So a big thanks to all of you who put in the work.  -Seth Mahoney 01:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: I'm not exactly sure why people are so desparate to get the AFA, of all groups, listed here, but the see also section isn't really the place for it, unless they offer an NPOV look at what homosexuality is.  They do, however, work just fine as sources for quotes or information on their organization.  The polemic section would be a good place for this, as would Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, Homosexuality and psychology, etc.  -Seth Mahoney 01:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisited

message: Anastasius reigned a century before 581. Please somebody correct either the year or the Emperor.
:Thank you for catching that. It was a typo, the correct year is 518. It has been corrected. Haiduc 18:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "taxes on homosexual boy brothels continued to be collected until the end of the reign of Anastasius in 581" 

message: This article failed to mention the numerous options out there for those of us who have had homosexual thoughts and feelings.  I have added a section on treatment that touches on some of the alternatives and benefits.  I realize that this is a controversial topic for some but it is important for people to know what they can do about their situation.  Also it is 100% relevant to the topic, and this is something with which I have firsthand experience. IceOwl 07:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there is a section Homosexuality#Behaviour modification. I think it's more relevant and full of citation unlike your addition. --tasc 07:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you're going to "work" as you once did. Your modification will be also reverted! Read WP:NPOV --tasc 07:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you call biased. Please provide evidence that the treatment does work before claiming it works. --KimvdLinde 07:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've rewritten it again. It suggested that gays were deviants which is not at all NPOV. I also notice that some of you are getting very close to falling foul of WP:3RR. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already listed IceOwl on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. —Guanaco 07:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment section 

message: I will add in due time a small section about Drosophila and the fruty gene (call fruitless now for political correct reasons). Mutants of the gene make males homosexual, and other mutants make females lesbians. --KimvdLinde 03:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Homosexuality#Gay_animals (above) for some of the considerations when adding such a thing to an article (is the animal gay in the human sense, or is it an animal having sex with members of its same sex, but not gay?)... but it (the research) certainly does sound interesting. Ronabop 11:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Drosophila = fruitfly. It has to do with a complete change of orientation, males with the mutatnt gene have no interest for females, court males and try to mount them as well. --KimvdLinde 16:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I knew Drosophila = friutfly. I wasn't referring to the pun on "fruit", I was referring to the long discusssions on whether an animal can be "gay" or not gay, or even *have* such a thing as a "sexual orientation", irrespective of their actual physical actions... Okay: here's a short mental game which might summarize the prior discussions. Imagine a gene in, say, a canine, where ingesting meat made them vomit. Does that gene affect whether or not they are "vegitarians", or, rather, does it affect whether or not they are "herbivores"? How about conditioning experiments, where any time they tried to eat meat, they were shocked... are they true vegitarians, in the human sense? Ronabop 08:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drosophila and Fruty gene 

message: Someone deleted "gender" from the end of the basic definition of "homosexuality." Here is why I cannot agree with that change. I can understand why this was done, but I reverted it because the objective of an article like this should be to bring as much clarity as possible to an already thoroughly confused topic, not just to say things that can be defended as "logically correct."  The underlying problem is that society intrudes upon relationships that people perceive to be problematical, and that intrusion can include the classification of a relationship between same-gender individuals as "homosexual" because they both appear to be men or both appear to be women. The determining factor in sex is whether the individual will be capable on maturity of, is currently capable of, or was once capable of producing sperm (male) or ova (female).  But an androgenized female (i.e., an XX individual with a penis, the appearance of having testicles, etc.) living a sexual life with an ordinary male would generally be categorized as gay. And a male with an entirely female body type living with an XX female would most likely be regarded as a lesbian. In jurisdictions where homosexual relationships are illegal, there frequently is no problem when a sex change operation has made the relationship "conforming." (What it actually does is make two XX people living together or two XY people living together look o.k. to the authorities.)  
I have no idea how one is supposed to figure out what to call two XX-XY "chimera" individuals, one whose superficial appearance might be masculine or might be feminine or might be otherwise, and the other whose superficial appearance might be any of the above. In my personal opinion it's nobody's business but their own. The only trouble is that in the real world of today somebody will probably object to any possible variety of sexual coupling except missionary position on Saturday night by one XX and one XY person, both consenting.  
In accessing this discussion page I happened to re-read the "to do" list, and it occurs to me that a frank discussion of these very basic but recalcitrant facts might simplify everything else that needs to be said in this article.  The only time that I can think of when "homosexuality" is not just a matter of some intrusive expression of opinion or delighted discovery of unexpected variety (both side dishes when compared to the real issues of love and of sexual compatibility) is when reproduction is being thwarted in an otherwise good relationship.  金 (Kim) 02:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constantly bail the leaky boat 

message: I just have a few minutes, so I'm moving these paragraphs here rather than make all the changes myself:
:Michel Foucault and his followers have argued that the homosexual is a modern invention, a mental construct of the last 100 years. While true of homosexuality as a scientific or psychological category, there are examples from earlier ages of those viewing their sexuality as a part of a human identity and not merely a sexual act. One cited example is the 16th-century Italian artist Giovanni Antonio Bazzi who adopted the nickname "Sodoma", which is viewed by Louis Crompton as something analogous to the modern gay identity.
Until some issues can be worked out:
#Foucault didn't have followers.  This isn't a religion we're talking about here.
#Foucault's arguments need to be sourced.  (Actually, this sounds like an argument from Jonathan Ned Katz, not Foucault per se.)
#It isn't a mental construct according to the Foucauldian paradigm, it is a social construct.
#The counterargument, "While true of homosexuality..." needs to be sourced.
#The argument involving Giovanni Antonio Bazzi needs to be sourced - name dropping is insufficient.
And:
:While some premodern societies did not employ categories fully comparable to the modern homosexual or heterosexual dichotomy, this does not demonstrate that the polarity is not applicable to those societies. A common thread of constructionist argument is that no one in antiquity or the Middle Ages experienced homosexuality as an exclusive, permanent, or defining mode of sexuality. John Boswell has criticised this argument by citing ancient Greek writings by Plato, which he says indicate knowledge of exclusive homosexuality.
#The first sentence needs to be sourced (stated as fact, it is POV).
#The second sentence needs to be sourced.
#John Boswell's claims need to be sourced.
-Seth Mahoney 02:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical and geographical practices 

message: Lately, there has been a concerted effort on the ex-gay article to shift its point of view away from neutrality.  Since this article is related, I'm asking that any editors who are knowledgable on this matter join in. Alienus 08:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what direction? horseboy 12:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shifts in [[ex-gay]] 

message: Until the spread of Christianity and Islam, most religions made no distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relations. This sentence in the intro is okay, but should it not also be made clear that as such, there was no concept of sexual orientation (as we now understand the term) up until the modern age? SouthernComfort 16:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, absolutely, although saying there was no concept of sexual orientation is a bit stronger than I'd like.  -Seth Mahoney 02:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-20th century views

message: This is weird, when I visited the page I found a sentence right at the beginning that was obvious vandalism... so I wanted to edit it out, but surprise! I can't find it when I edit the page! How is that possible? --IronChris 20:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hum, ok, I just checked and the offending sentence has disappeared. Oh well, I guess I'll never know... --IronChris 20:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. People can start and complete edits between the last time you loaded the page and when you clicked on the "edit" function.  2. If you want to know what was there, who put it there, and when it was removed (and by whom), check the edit history.—Kbolino 01:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: Looking at it again, I think the entire paragraph concerning religion in the intro is unnecessary since there is already a section on religion further down. Why the need for mention of religious views at the very beginning? SouthernComfort 09:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph on religion in intro

message: Seeing that the article is now above 70kb whereas the recomendations is arround 32kb, maybe it could be an idea to move the section on Homosexuality in society to a separate page. After all, this page seems to be more about what homosexuality is. Just a thought... J.Ring 23:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article too long? 

message: The recent changes to Gay rights opposition may interest some of the editors here. Al 12:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even more so now.  Did you know anything about the evil gay agenda?! Al 03:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it was evil but suit yourself. Chooserr 03:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And there's a new POV hot-spot, courtesy of Chooserr: Homosexual agenda. Al 04:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch, compared to Nazi Germany, and it is valid too. Sucks to be on the opposition side of that argument JayKeaton 04:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't care. The opposition to equal rights of any stripe is and has historically always simply been willfully too stupid to realize that having an ideology comparable to Hitler's is bad for business! Their ideology thrives on ignorance and stupidity. E. Sn0 =31337= 04:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay rights opposition 

message: i am unhappy with this section, the headings make it sound like this is a collection of valid arguments while it entirely consists of jewels like: "it leads to plagues and natural disasters" or "'The male form is superior to the female form,
some of these things should be mentioned maybe in a historical context but as it is now it looks pretty weird
trueblood 08:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is obviously no claim to validity, nor can any such objective discussion exist. These are simply historical arguments used by people over the ages to defend and attack relations between people of the same sex. This whole section is a "historical context", and unfortunately of current interest as well since some of those arguments are still being bandied about. If that is not sufficiently apparent perhaps we could come up with a better introduction for it. Haiduc 10:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pro and con  

message: The homosexual agenda article needs more input.  Please come join us if this issue interests you. Al 04:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexual agenda 

message: I have now removed twice a section that tries to link homosexuality with pedophilia, using a single, hightly partisan  and conservative website and resorting to original research to make the point. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 11:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GG :) E. Sn0 =31337= 23:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality and peadophilia original research 

message: To the IP "198.103.172.9" that keeps posting about those Canadian numbers disproving Kinsey, a few notes:
If you check Kinsey's wiki page, you'll see that, although many people based the claim that "10% of people are homosexual" on his work, he never actually said this. What his study found was that 10% of male subjects had been exclusively homesexual for a period of at least three years at some time in their lives. The incidence of exclusive, lifelong homosexuality he found was 4% among men and 1-3% among women.
Secondly, while Kinsey's research was groundbreaking, his subject selection wasn't really random, and his numbers have long been superseded by other, more rigorous studies. What you are trying to "disprove" is only a folk conception of Kinsey and his relationship to current research, not anything quoted in the present article.
So that's why people are treating your addition as irrelevant--it's nothing to do with bias.
DanB DanD 22:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kinsey and the "10 percent"

message: Although I've been involved in expanding the Art and Lit section, I'm a bit concerned that it is focusing more and more on American popular culture. Can someone add some stuff on, for example, the openly gay Chinese megastar Leslie Cheung, and other non-western stuff?
Or, alternatively, should some of this material be moved to the main "homoeroticism" page?
DanB DanD 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might try asking User:Haiduc.  -Smahoney 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: more non-western art/lit?

message: While making a minor edit to the "Religion" section, I saw that it now speaks as if a Hindu India had been conquered by the Christian British Empire and thus exposed for the first time to "Abrahamic" religions with their tradtion of homophobia. In fact, when the British conquered India it was already under the control of a different Abrahamic faith, Islam--and had been for three hundred years! And in fact, the social forms of homosexuality seen in India today can be traced back to Muslim influence, and are not native Hindu customs.
In general, the presentation of so-called "Abrahamic" religions as monolithically homophobic is a pretty big inaccuracy in a number of Wiki articles on sexuality. I don't know if there's room to correct the section as it know stands--does anyone have suggestions? Or should the inaccurate summary just be cut, and the detailed analysis placed on a subpage? Let me know, or try whatever fix seems best on your own--otherwise I'm just gonna start snipping.
DanB DanD 23:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any innacuracies should be corrected.  Corrections should be sourced, even if the text they replace aren't.  -Smahoney 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holy Christocentrism, Batman!

message: Hi all,
I have promoted this article to a good article. I noticed some of my changes were reverted during my review. This is no problem but please consider all my changes thoughtfully. I try not to make any controversial changes during my reviews and I try not to change anything unless I believe it really affects the article's quality.
Cedars 02:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article promotion 

message: i thought people here would be interested to read this if they haven't already, it's still relatively recent. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13555604/  I would have posted it in LGBT commons but we apparently don't have one.   I'm not sure whether to laugh or to ponder... Zappernapper 07:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me being gay, I will laugh at it because that is totally stupid. Yeah I have older brothers but thats not what makes me gay. And also I have 2 brothers so how come my middle brother isn't gay, also? It's like how they are saying that we can get cancer from basically anything lately. lol--Dil 13:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say that how gay you are depends on how many older brothers you have, it sais that the statistical probability that a male child is gay is greater if the mother has previously given birth to male children. It doesn't mean that you can't be completely straight and still have older brothers. If you prefer, you coudl put it this way: if you are straight, you are less likely to have older brothers than if you are gay, and the difference in probability is small. 83.108.157.39 01:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  biological basis 

message: I have never seen a study with a figure for homosexuality anywhere near 10% - except of course for the Kinsey study, which actually found 4% for exclusive male homosexuality, and 1-3% for exclusive female homosexuality. The 10% is for men only, and refers to those who have been gay in behavior for three years or more at some point in their lives (covering quite a lot of schoolboys and prisoners). 
Kinsey's problematic to use as a standard for a number of reasons, and here we also seem to be calling him a "gay activist" which is...arguable. In any case, I am not aware of any other demographic studies that could really be said to be "by gay activists." Which studies are meant?
DanB DanD 18:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best solution is to cite a variety of sources, pointing out the difficulty in determining a precise number (after all, it depends entirely on how you ask the question - "have you ever had a homosexual experience?"; "do you identify as homosexual?"; "have you ever had a long-term homosexual relationship?"; "are more than 50% of your sexual encounters with members of the same sex?" - each has its own difficulties and assumptions).  -Smahoney 21:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree.DanB DanD 22:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "figures nearer 10%"?

message: The following entry should be slightly modified:
"The Roman Catholic Church requires homosexuals to practice chastity in the understanding that homosexual acts are 'intrinsically disordered', and 'contrary to the natural law'. It insists that all are expected to only have heterosexual relations and only in the context of a marriage . . ."
The second sentence should be modified to read:
"It insists that any persons who do not intend to remain celibate should have only lawful sexual relations (that is, intercourse only within the context of marriage) . . ."
Problems with the existing entry:
1) The clumsy writing seems to imply that the Catholic Church insists on compulsory "heterosexual relations".  In fact, the Church insists, first, on virginity or celibacy.  Chaste (or lawful) intercourse would then be a secondary activity within the proper context of marriage.
As Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in "The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" (1986): "Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life." (Section 12)  Note the phrase "as all of us are": even those who are married are called to live chastely.
2) "Heterosexual relations" is too broad because it subsumes many sexual activities not sanctioned by the Church.  That is, not all "heterosexual relations" are "chaste" in the eyes of the Church.
It is also worth noting that the Church refers to "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals" only in a heuristic sense -- that is, references in Church documents to "heterosexuals" or "homosexuals" should not be taken to imply that it regards "heterosexuality" or "homosexuality" as spiritually essential or objective conditions.  As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote in "The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" (1986): 
"The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation . . . the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a 'heterosexual' or a 'homosexual' and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God . . ." (Section 16)  
It should thus be borne in mind that the Church's spiritual notions of personal identity are historically very different from (and incompatible with) any materialist or quasi-Freudian notions that treat desire (specifically, sexual desire) as the constitutive element of the individual.
(Also, I'm not sure that "Roman" Catholic is correct.  The Catholic Church's views on "homosexuality" would presumably apply to Catholics who observe the Byzantine rite as well as those who observe the Roman rite.)
:Huh...what about Byzantine rite Catholics? Are they better placed under Catholic or Orthodox as far as this question goes...or do they need their own category? I don't think we can quite say they're "presumably" in line with Rome on this. I know some Byzantine-rite Catholics are part of Axios, so...
:Also, anon guy, can you source the claim that the church privileges celibacy above lawful married sexuality? I remember that as being the subject of a lot of waffling and debate.
:Also, do you happen to know the origin of the term "homogenital"? Do you see it in official statements of the church?
:Also, can you give sources for the Ratzinger quotes, in case we want to incorporate them into the article?
:DanB DanD 17:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Roman Catholic Church

message: I deleted the example of India from the religious section. Correcting its inaccuracies would have required the addition of a couple of paragraphs, out of proportion to its importance.
The section remains non-encyclopedic, frequently inaccurate, and strange in its selective emphasis. Anyone else want to dive in?
DanB DanD 01:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion Section

message: That's why I return the comment which was censored soon after it appeared.
Funny propaganda, especially where the authors touch on the matter of homosexuality beingnatural/unatural. Homosexuality IS unatural in the sense that it is always a marginal and pervert thing in the animal world. If it were as widespread as most articles regarding this mater suggest, life on earth would not evolve. Plato knew that, but we should also, it does not take a genius to make simple observations of the outside world. Certain organisations can preach what they want for this group to gain more influence and rights, which are not given to its representatives by nature (e.g. offspring raising), but this does not change the fact, that pervert is pervert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.5.255.111 (talk • contribs) .
:This page is for discussion of the article Homosexuality, not for discussion of homosexuality in general. —ptk✰fgs 11:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, wikipedia is not a democracy. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 05:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And besides all that, please see WP:V and WP:NOR. :) Luna Santin 05:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everyone should have their say in democracy.