Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 11

message: I click the link for "Screen Actor" on Dane Cook wikipedia page and it links here. Is that a Joke?
Some how i dont feel it should link here
::I believe you would be correct. Some child with too much time on their hands deliberately vandalized the article. Happens all the time, really. E. Sn0 =31337= 23:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screen Actor 

message: I don't even understand why we emphasize this research from the 60's:
"In my entire experience, I have never interviewed a single male homosexual who had a constructive, loving father. A son who has a loving father who respects him does not become a homosexual."
Clearly the issue of "loving father" is biased and represents a subjective point of view.  Moreover I just don't think you can trust studies from the super-Christian 60's to provide honest science.
:What do you expect from a page that so prominently relies upon the completely and utterly debunked Kinsey studies?  --Theadversary 19:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden of proof is upon you to show this study is debunked. And who's to say there's no better scientific study that does in fact hold its water? E. Sn0 =31337= 22:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use your head, what more proof do you need then the fact that he based his "reasearch" on INMATES?  Others have already done a far better job of showing Kinsey was a hack than I ever could.  Theadversary 16:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When inmates were removed from the sampling, the numbers didn't change muchKechvsf 23:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well gee, that just leaves the reform school subjects and the people he recruited from homosexual "friendship" networks.  No wonder the numbers don't drop much.  The man's research has been debunked by everyone who has looked at it objectively.  The University of Chicago (not a bastion of conservative activism) in 1990 released a study which proved definitively that Kinsey's sample pool was badly flawed.  They noted that he specifically recruited subjects from classes of people likely to have had the desired sexual experiences (e.g., inmates, homosexuals, and reform school youths).  Not one study that has been conducted based upon statistical sampling has come even close to Kinsey's numbers for homosexuals.  Not one.  The most recent one that I'm aware of, the 2002 study by the Center for Disease Control, found the number was 2.3%.  A far cry from Kinsey's 10%.   Theadversary 04:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Research 

message: Searching for "JESUS" redirects here. Matt714 04:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to go to the right entry to me, today, anyway.  Are you still seeing that? --Rschmertz 02:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: If there is to be assumptions noted on homosexuality being present in ancient Buddhist and Samurai practices, I think it would be best to cite them. There shouldn't be remarks like that unless you can provide otherwise. SprSynJn 17:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so ancient either - the formal tradition only died out in the eighteen hundreds. Haiduc 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well-known? Possibly, depending on where you are. I dont know where you came up with the conclusion "exceedingly well documented" when the main article does not cite sources. The Shudo string that lazy posted does have a source, which is good. Not sure if it is valid or not, will have to look into the book to determine that. SprSynJn 18:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Japan, it was called "yaoi". It was the relationship between two men, mostly referenced to an older man and a younger man, though it can be meant for both. It was a common practice in the 1800's, looked down upon, but common none the less. --Majinvegeta 17:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexuality in ancient Buddhist and Samurai practices?

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: From the Wiki article:
"In a study comparing the effects of being raised with older "brothers" and having biological older brothers, published July 26, 2006 in PNAS, Bogaert found that there was a link to homosexuality only if the older brothers were biologically related and even when they were not raised together.[10] "
Bogaert did the follow-up study because of objections that the homosexual connection could just as well be associated with social relationships as with biological effects. His finding that it doesn't affect non-biological brothers overlooks the fact that non-biologically related brothers undoubtedly have an entirely different attitude regarding jealousy, etc. between each other.
Bogaert's 1996 study was strongly criticized. Many pointed out that siblings' behavioral influence on each other, particularly the older male sibling on the younger, is the most probable cause of any statistical showing that younger male siblings were more likely to be homosexual than the average in society.
So Bogaert got grant money to do a follow-up. This time he would study male siblings where the other family siblings are adopted or from families created by re-marriage. His statistics show that in these situations there is no trend towards homosexuality. Therefore, it must be because of the mother's hormones.
Nonsense, again. For all these siblings know who is biologically connected. The emotive reaction to genetic older siblings (on the part of all family members) is bound to be different, as is their behavior towards each other. Not only is there knowledge by family members. Those outside the family know it. And the intimacy of close contact from birth is bound to differ in such situations. In fact, if you take away his biological connection, it would tend to prove the opposite, i.e., that older male siblings' dominant relation and the inner-family dynamic of desire for approval from the biologic parents may have some effect on a homosexual orientation.
Bogaert's study should lead social scientists to compare this situation with numerous studies showing the relationship between first borns and older siblings with younger ones, rather than jumping to biologic conclusions. It would be particularly interesting to see if there are studies in this area (economic success of first-born compared to subsequently born; differences in age; choice of jobs; effect on middle child, etc)  involving siblings who are adopted or are re-marriages.
In other words, we are aware of trends regarding 1st, middle, final sibling, etc. regarding different types of economic and social "success." How about comparisons of biological siblings and non-biological siblings in this area? Is there any substantial comparison between the biologically related siblings and those that are not biologically related? If the non-biological siblings don't follow the same pattern as the biologically related ones, that would tend to also disprove Bogaert's argument regarding non-biological brothers
Note also, that all of this is just a wild assumption by someone trying to prove a biological connection (which no one has ever shown) by a sociologic statistic. There is no medical proof. His answer, like that of most psychologists today, is to throw up their hands and declare: "It must be [entirely] biology (including chemistry) because we were so wrong when we declared homosexuality to be a mental disorder."
Eventually, someone will figure out that like the infamous I.Q. tests that once claimed that race determined intelligence, our emotive relations with other is a bundle of many factors including biological randomness, society, and intrafamily relationships.
: In full agreeance.  Seems to be the general outcome in most psychological debates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.110.24 (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brothers and Homosexuality 

message: I added it again, its more insclusive now, and not simply seemingly a redundancy of the sexual orientation box, i think it should be included.. any thoughts? Qrc2006 00:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the person who removed it a couple of times as "not ready for prime-time," I can say that I'm pleased with the evolution of this template. It's already led me to a couple of articles I hadn't visited before. CovenantD 01:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think three related templates on the same pages is a bit messy. Is there any way the three can be integrated? DanB†DanD 01:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Identities Template 

message: At the top of the list of links to WP articles in other languages, I'm seeing a link with text "Pyccknn" (latin approximation, cut me some slack) linking to something that appears to be a category or template re:LGBT or so.  I can't find the Wiki markup that creates this link; can anybody help?  The regular Russian link to the homosexuality article seems to be in the proper place, doing the correct thing. --Rschmertz 16:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template LGBT had a link to the Russian category, which in turn made this page (and any other page with that template) have a link to it. I removed it. -Branddobbe 02:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erratic Russian Link 

message: The article does not reflect the serious body of work that views homosexuality as a social construct, notably from Foucault. Such views, if valid, provide serious limitations to the use of such terms. 'Homosexuality' as a concept can be viewed as a historico-cultural peculiarity of 19th century attempts to classify types of person and personalities. In other times and cultures such concepts make little sense e.g. the compulsory same sex activity prevalent in the Spartan armed forces or the ritualised male fellatio in Melanesian society. Even in today's society, it's far from clear that terms such as 'homosexual' or 'heterosexual' are at all useful except, perhaps, in making casual generalisations about behaviour or preference.--Nmcmurdo 00:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Homosexuality' as a Social Construction 

message: The page looks kind of crappy and disorganized now with all those different templates and portal graphics jammed up against each other. Are they really all necessary?
DanB†DanD 21:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FOUR different templates???

message: As a newly registered user I cannot add any part of the article I found (titled "Birds and bees may be gay: museum exhibition") to this one, but maybe someone could check out this link and consider adding a reference to this article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10405795.
The Birds and Bees article cited a scientist:
"Geir Soeli, the project leader of the exhibition entitled 'Against Nature,' told Reuters: 'Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them.'"
The article also explores why homosexuality occurs in nature, when it appears to be a genetic dead-end:
"Still, it is unclear why homosexuality survives since it seems a genetic dead-end.
Among theories, males can sometimes win greater acceptance in a pack by having homosexual contact. That in turn can help their chances of later mating with females, he said.
And a study of homosexual men in Italy suggested that their mothers and sisters had more offspring. "The same genes that give homosexuality in men could give higher fertility among women," he said."
The "he" in that quote is also Geir Soeli.
Shannon Bullock 02:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article on homosexuality in nature 

message: Please add http://narth.com/ to the list of external references —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.32.206 (talk • contribs) 
:No. NARTH is a hate group on par with Focus on the Family, American Family Association, and Family Research Council. Request denied! E. Sn0 =31337= 05:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about you do a regex (regular expression, aka find-replace) of gay into african {or interracial in the case of gay marriage} to any homophobic argument, compare the result with old racist claptrap, then try to tell me homophobia isn't hate. Bigotry is not a valid POV. Thank you. E. Sn0 =31337= 22:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with your "analysis" is your ridiculously broad definition of "homophobia".  NARTH is not "homophobic".  Your argument assumes facts not in evidence based upon your own slanted view of the world, which seems to be, "anyone who disagrees with a homosexual is a homophobe." NARTH is a professional organization, does not hate homosexuals, and has a valid point of view.  YOU are the hater here who is clearly engaged in a non-neutral attempt at jamming a message you don't like -- straight out of the homosexual special rights activist playbook.  Theadversary 15:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As well it should be. E. Sn0 =31337= 18:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  Either of you have some proof to back that up?  You'd better check the number of states who have recently enacted statutes and constitutional amendments to prevent gay marriage.  Some of those votes have occurred in liberal, pro-gay mecas like California, and some have been by 3 to 1 margins.  Theadversary 16:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes it would. E. Sn0 =31337= 20:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because heave forbid we actually have a neutral page on homosexuality on Wikipedia.  Theadversary 16:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No they don't, and can't, because it isn't.  But don't take my word for it either, check NARTH out for yourself.  Theadversary 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that NARTH is focused on curing homosexuality and isn't about homosexuality, I don't believe it belongs in this article.  Just my $0.02US... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the way that Theadversary added the link to the article is alright, or at least it would be if he cited his claim that they don't use or condone the older methods. He just put it in the Behaviour modification section, which is what NARTH is based on. Notability compared to other groups may be questionable though. --Wildnox(talk) 18:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I linked to NARTH's website, check the link in the line.  Regardless, this entire section needs a rewrite.  It is so biased it isn't even funny.  It starts out from the position that no "reputable" therapist practices reparative therapy because of the APA's position and then goes on to talk about testicles being wired with a pathetic link to an unsourced opinion piece on the Southern Poverty Law Center's site.  I'm going to put together a more balanced article when I get a spare minute that will try to discuss in the same space the basics of reparative therapy epitomized by NARTH, the faith-based ex-gay programs epitomized by Exodus, and the critiques of such programs that already appear here.  That should clean up the serious problem with neutrality this section of the article has.  Theadversary 04:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, there is no neutrality issue here. NARTH's views are that of a small fringe of bigots who have been discredited and dismissed by the entire mainstream mental health community. Wikipedia is not required to give "equal time" or "undue weight" to such groups, nor does NPOV require that we somehow create "balance" where none actually exists. NARTH says one thing, literally everyone else says something else. We report that, and that's the end of it. FCYTravis 07:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PROVE that NARTH members are bigots.  Your statement is hateful and proves the lack of neutrality here.  Theadversary 22:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, scientific study shows that although genetics sometimes seem to have a strong correlation with sexual orientation, there sometimes doesn't seem to be any correlation at all. It is wrong to say sexuality is or isn't genetic. Regardless of how sexual orientation is formed, the overwhelming consensus is that it cannot be changed, but that doesn't mean it's genetic. Herorev 16:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Studies have shown that it is genetic.  See the sources quoted in the article.  If you have sources that show that it is not genetic, or some other perspective, then add those to the article and cite them.  it is not our job to argue whether it is true, or not true, but to document reliable sources.  Atom 17:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NARTH 

message: I was examining the redirects to this page and have picked out some that, in my opinion, are of questionable validity. However, I thought I'd get community consensus. The ones I've picked out are:
Queball
User:Mykenism (NOTE:This was set up by the user, but I don't believe user pages are supposed to redirect to article space, are they?)
Buttfuckery
Talons brain and or penis
Poofter
Steve Wisdom
That way
YagsinujtayAnyway, just thought I'd put this out there. - GassyGuy 05:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Poofter used to have it's own, not very good, page. It's British slang similar to faggot. The article said it was also Australian and somewhat more lighthearted than faggot, although I'm not sure of those two. Is there a page on anti-gay pejorative terms in general. If so, it should be mentioned there. I tried doing a quick search but couldn't find one. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Poofter is more lighthearted / less offensive than faggot, I've even heard gay people themselves use it to describe themselves. --cocainekongpow 15:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That doesnt make it less offensive, its about the context. To be honest, I dont think most people will type "faggot" or "buttfuckery" into wikipedia for any other reason than boredom or childish humour. Fitz05 00:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Buttfuckery now redirects to Anal sex. -- Steel 15:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now it's back here again... -- Steel 00:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now that I check it, it has been deleted. It makes sense that it would go to Anal sex though JayKeaton 09:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable redirects 

message: Some editors are having a heated debate on whether the Falun gong is homophobic.  The following quotes are from the leader of this group Master Li Hongzhi.
According to Li homosexuality is the leading indicator of the depravity and regression of our society. Gays are more visible than ever and laws have been created to protect their evil life style. In Li’s poem “the World’s Ten Evils,” he states: “homosexuality, licentious desires—dark heart, turning demonic.”  Li’s strongest words against gays come from a lecture in Switzerland. Homosexuality was one of the factors that led to the collapse of the Greek civilization, he said. Furthermore, “Homosexuals not only violate the standards that gods set for mankind, but also damage human society’s moral code. In particular, the impression it gives children will turn future societies into something demonic.”  Li describes a special kind of suffering for homosexuals. They will be made to undergo a particularly slow and painful annihilation: “That person is annihilated layer after layer at a rate that seems pretty rapid to us, but in fact it’s extremely slow in that time field. Over and over again, one is annihilated in an extremely painful way.” 
It would be great if you could come to this page and vote your opinion here. Thanks --Samuel Luo 04:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the Falun Gong homophobic

message: I've added the following tag to the "Edit this page" window:
Before you edit this page please keep in mind that this page is being watched and that vandalism will be quickly removed and tracked.
Although I understand editing is limited to registered, established users, the tag still may help. Also, I am adding this article to my watch list. I will revert blatent vandalism, but will refrain from edits until discussion is commenced. Thanks for everyone's help! Trodaikid1983 02:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of non-visable header in the edit page 

message: I'm sick of wrestling with religious zealots over the "Behavior Modification" section in the article, I've edited the article and believe that the most NPOV way I can describe FMI is "vehemently anti-gay", it should also make the right wing POV more difficult to gain traction now that I've mentioned that the American Psychiatric Association removed Homosexuality from their DSM in 1987, leaving such supposed "treatment" to nutjob firebrand preachers with some jump cables and a car battery. (sarcasm)Izanbardprince 01:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Treatment of Homosexuality

message: Hi There,
Just thought it might be possible to mention HOCD at some point. For those of you who aren't aware, HOCD is a form of OCD where the suufferer, while being straight, has obsessive thoughts about being gay that cannot be resolved. This happens to both men and women, and even to some gay people (they have fears that they're actually straight!). A full defintion can be found here: . If you google HOCD you can find a number of references to it in a number of places.
I think a brief mention at some point would be helpful to anyone suffering from HOCD. There is no article about HOCD on Wikipedia yet, but I'm thinking of writing one soon.
When I get around to it, I'm going to try to write an article on HOCD as well.
This condition is very complicated, stressful and susceptible to doubt (speaking from experience). The worst thing for me right now would be for someone to reply saying 'sounds like you're gay' or encouraging me to come out of the closet! Please read  for a gay person's perspective on HOCD.
Thanks.
Ok first of all, WTF?!?!? It sound like another thing that makes people think that there is somthing wrong with them for being gay. I say that this HOCD is somthing that people made up.--Dil 20:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think something like that really belongs in the homosexuality article, plainly because calling it OCD is misleading. Many homosexuals go through times were they may doubt themselves, and heterosexuals obviously do to. OCD, by definition, is the process of repeating specific things in a routine, which the sufferer feels is necessary to live day by day. Creation of another artcile would be fine, but I don't believe it should be in this artcile. Also, please sign your discussion entries. Thanks! Trodaikid1983 20:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. People with OCD obsess about lots of different stuff, and it makes no sense to mention on hundreds of articles that some people with OCD obsess about the topic. For example, it would be out of place to mention in the natural disasters article that some people with OCD obsess about natural disasters. Same for death, suicide, germs, etc. Herorev 01:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexual Obsessive Compulsive Disorder 

message: Despite your delirious notions that homosexuality is a "disease" to be "cured", the fact of the matter is that it isn't and it can't be, the more scientific studies are done on the subject, the more your lies disintegrate when exposed to the daylight.
Anyway, if you could please not resort to your usual behavior towards the truth, which is usually trying to delete it when it doesn't serve your purpose, I would appreciate it.
Anyway, the reason I reverted CC80's edit is because this is a section devoted towards "Behavior modification", I really don't see how it's "unbalanced", it mentions the techniques that have been tried (and failed) to "cure" a "disease" that doesn't exist, and I cited it properly with respected organizations, such as the APA.
Thank you, good night, and may the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless you all.
Izanbardprince 09:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About religious zealots attempting to delete the truth

message: Despite YOUR claims to cite everything you write, you never did cite a book, website, documentary or other proving that some reperative ministries use shock therapy to men's testicles. Could it be that you don't have any such documentation?Imgi12 15:15, 13 December 2006
:Actually he did cite it. Here is a direct quote from one of the citations he provided in his edits(with linkage) "In the not-so-distant past, gays and lesbians were routinely subjected to "reparative therapy" that included barbarous "aversion techniques" designed to "cure" them of homosexuality. Gay men were shown pictures of naked men and then administered electric shocks through electrodes attached to their testicles, or made to ingest drugs that made them vomit.". I don't understand why two editors now have failed to check the sources provided. --Wildnox 22:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because the link itself is not sourced.  It is an OPINION piece on the Southern Poverty Law Center's web site.  It has absolutely NO links or cites to sources of when, where, why, who, etc. practiced such "treatments".  In short, the link does not verify anything.  Theadversary 22:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shock Therapy

message: O.K. so he did cite it, it still isn't worded properly. His citation says "In the not so distant PAST". The article makes it sound like this is something that is ongoing.
Imgi12 01:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I reworded with "has in the past included".--Wildnox(talk) 12:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Granted

message: Izanbardprince deleted my reference to the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance as a pro-homosexual group claiming that they encourage discussion. This is false. My evidence is here: []. Number 15 on this list of "hoaxes" is reparative therapy, a type of behaviour modification. The personal note by the author of this page [] also proves this group's bias. His note is found near the bottom of the page. I believe this to be sufficient evidence to identify them in the article as the pro-homosexual group that they are.
Imgi12 19:28 14, December 2006
:So you think somebody who is neutral would have to support behaviour modifcation? You know, anybody can have a mixture of opinions, some for, some against, so two statements don't mean much. The arguement is moot anyway since you've used your own interpretation and synthesis to come to that conclusion with your evidence. --Wildnox(talk) 02:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, if you can cite a reliable source stating that they are pro-homosexual, that would be different and I would support the addition of "pro-homosexual". --Wildnox(talk) 02:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Just because the group "suspects [reparative therapy] to be a hoax (or a partial hoax)" doesn't mean they're pro-homosexual, anymore than suspecting Satanic Ritual Abuse is a hoax means they're pro-satanists. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About a pro-homosexual group 

message: I would like to suggest an external link to the [gay movie history] section of the [About Gay Movies site. I think it adds to the information on the topic of homosexuality because the history of homosexuality in movies is sympthomatic for the views on homosexuality through the centuries. Especially during the sensorship years. I have tried to add it in the past but it was always deleted because it is an external link. Please advise. 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External link to Gay Movie History

message: This article has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal.  This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person.
A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned.  This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts.  Please be alert for suspicious activity.  Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. DurovaCharge! 17:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community ban of the [[Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Joan_of_Arc_vandal|Joan of Arc vandal]] 

message: Looking over the military section, some changes occurred to me and I wanted to run them by others before making them:
# The very first "section" is just a link to the Eur. Court of Human Rights ruling - can this be put someplace else?  Maybe the "In Modern Times" section?
# Ditto with the orphan "Nazi Germany" link?
# The "United States Military" section is either covered or should be covered in the "[Sexual orientation and military service#United States' history United States History]" section of the "Sexual orientation and military service" article.  That article needs to be cleaned up, too, but that's not for discussion here...
With those three changes, the military section will be neatly organized into ancient, past, and present and should be fairly clean.  Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military cleanup? 

message: Could someone please erase the big pile of POV anti-homosexuality rant before contents table. Since it is so obviously POV I don't think it is really encyclopedic to be included in this article or at least in this way at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.241.35 (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2007
:I personally can't see what's POV about it. It seems pretty balanced to me. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 03:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything non-NPOV or anti-homosexuality about it either. Aleta 11:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Pile of POV 

message: How come there is no article on Homosexuality in India? India happens to be the second largest populated country in the world. Obviously there would be huge number of homosexuals in India. It would be great if some one can research and add the article under the different countries mentioned. Indian subcontinent countries should fall under the category South Asia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.204.117 (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality in India 

message: Someone may want to incorporate the findings in this article into this page.  The findings are pretty significant. VegaDark 05:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What findings?  At least that article linked gives no findings and only says what they are trying to do.  It doesn't sound like they have any results yet. at most it should get one or two sentences in a current controversies section. Aleta 07:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "By varying the hormone levels, mainly by injecting hormones into the brain, they have had “considerable success” in altering the rams’ sexuality, with some previously gay animals becoming attracted to ewes." -  Successfully changing a homosexual sheep to a heterosexual one is huge news. VegaDark 09:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was retracted. Futurix 13:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, the Times have now admitted to a publishing ill-informed rubbish. Ben Goldacre takes it apart here http://www.badscience.net/?p=347#more-347 --Nmcmurdo 20:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow...after all those glaring errors, can timesonline.co.uk no longer be considered a reliable source? Publishing something like that when it is patently untrue is inexcusable. VegaDark 20:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh, that drops them down a few notches in my book...  But I had a wonderful laugh reading the BadScience link above :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's great that there are people out there doing sites like BadScience. Journalists frequently trot out utter nonsense on scientific subjects - it's heartening to note that there are people out there ready to bring the publication to shame when they get it so horribly wrong. --Nmcmurdo 20:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be a lesson to anyone who uses newspaper articles to back up scientific arguments. Editors just want a story: 'Obscure study of farm animal sexuality yields inconclusive and uninteresting results' won't make the front page. 'Gay sheep made straight' willl. Journalists deliberately twist the facts, or make stuff up, to sell papers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.196.239.189 (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Times misreports that homosexual sheep changed to heterosexual in recent scientific study

message: If a guy stop liking guys and start liking girls only are they homosexuality anymore? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shirleybiscuit (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a forum, so please refrain from asking questions like this. But while we're on the suject, I don't think "homosexuality" is as simple as deciding to be gay or not. I would consider them bisexual if a change in sexuality ever occurred. --Majinvegeta 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends whether you think these terms are useful for describing people. See the comment at  for example.--Nmcmurdo 00:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: Where does the name 'Uranism' come from? Sofeil 05:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean "Uranian"? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you have answered my question now. Thank you. I was reading a translation of an essay in German. I guess it's more common to use "Uranian" as a verb in German. Sofeil 09:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a verb? garik 09:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Uranism'?

message: I understand the history of both the terms, but don't they mean the same thing at this point?  Do they each need their own article?  (Asking at Gay as well.) Joie de Vivre 23:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's easy -- take a look at the two articles and you'll see.  Gay is about the term itself, and discusses its use not only to describe homosexuality (a fairly scientific term), but ways it has come to be used for other things ("that's so gay").  The Homosexuality article is not about a word (though there is some discussion on it); it is about the condition.  Add to that the fact that Homosexuality is overly long, and it's clear to me that extended discussion of the term "gay" is best kept out of the Homosexuality article.  --Rschmertz 23:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Is it really necessary to have two separate articles for two words that have the same meaning?  I don't think the discussion of the pejorative usage is particularly relevant; it could be pared down.  Joie de Vivre 23:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see where you're coming from, but despite being about the word, not the phenomenon, the Gay article isn't really a dictionary entry.  That should be clear from the style of it.  I realise that almost any word could be taken from the dictionary and its history traced and explored in an encyclopaedic article like this - that could get silly if taken too far.  I think this one's special though.  The word's had a particularly interesting history.  It's also an almost international word.  Compare Okay.  I think the section on the pejorative usage is another reason why there should be two articles - 'gay' does not always mean homosexual. garik 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why are "[[homosexual]]" and "[[gay]]" two separate articles?

message: Don't know how to do this so here goes:
Why is the revised article not available at location Homosexuality. The Homosexuality article is vague, broad and biased in comparison to the revised article
--Ismailova 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand, can you explain?  Joie de Vivre 19:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you mean that you prefer the older version?  You are free to implement changes based on individual sections.  If you are suggesting major changes, it would be better if you discussed them at the Talk page first.  Sometimes changing an article does not improve it, if you think this article lost something, please tell us how it could be improved.  Joie de Vivre 17:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not getting it 

message: I just removed the "Sexual Orientation" box, as the info in it is generally covered in other boxes on the page. Aleta 00:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many boxes

message: The section "Homosexuality" in Terminology of homosexuality has a  that points to Homosexuality, and the Homosexuality article has a  which points to Terminology of homosexuality... I'm not sure how this should be resolved. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it even a problem? That seems to be the optimal situation to me. garik 10:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non controversial problem 

message: The statement that he made in 1976 is ignoring a causality problem.  He said "that a boy whose father is warmly related and constructive will not become homosexual," this is referring to the idea that one follows the other (namely the becoming of a homosexual because of a destructive father), while there is the possibility that the father is becoming destructive because of the development of his son.  The correct statement from his data would be "in a household where there is not a destructive father, there will not be any homosexual sons of that father."
69.221.232.40 02:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although, of course, that statement is just a non-studied belief and while I can see the educated thought process behind it, common knowledge and life experience has taught me that that statement is not true and that possibly the exact reverse could be more likely JayKeaton 14:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm afraid it's rubbish. garik 14:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bieber Statement 

message: This has been copied directly from the Talk:gay page, garik said that he was going to bring the article here but obviously he hasn't so I have instead. Mrpowers999 22:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you mean bring the discussion here.  It was here, and was archived. garik 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In any case, this has been discussed (albeit briefly) before—I don't think there's much support for merging them. garik 23:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why are "[[homosexual]]" and "[[gay]]" two separate articles?

message: Suicide is such a huge problem among gay youth (Pierre J. Tremblay) that I think this article needs more on it. This article is kind of long, so it might be best to put the issue in the coming out section ... but the coming out article makes no mention of suicide. We have good figures from public studies available, in fact, they are quite alarming and not generally well known. The Tramblay article cites 16 times the national average for gay youth aged 17. Not mentioning this fact is a genuine disservice to our community. Still, I didn't want to write a new section on an already long article without consulting the talk page first.
Qrk 04:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please contribute this important material. Possibly placing a new section between "Coming out" and "Sexual practices" may be appropriate. Haiduc 11:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it perhaps go in the Gay article? This one deals with so much more than those who self-identify as gay. --G2bambino 15:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide Section 

message: I am intrigued by the evolution models in a recent paper published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.  I'm hoping a writer with greater skills than my own can summarize this.  Here is a link to the paper: http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gavrila/PAPS/h.pdf  It also provides a nice literature review of the data.  evo 02:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary Models 

message: Does anybody know the title of the book or study by Bieber that is referenced in the article, where it was published, and the guy's full name? The present version tells us what page the quote is from, but not what book!
It would be nice to get a source for the APA's criticism of the fellow as well, as that is completely uncited. DanB†DanD 22:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bieber -- title? first name? 

message: Of course, there are numerous anthropologists who are social constructionists, but it is ludicrous to suggest that "numerous researchers" have suggested it would be a good idea call homosexuality "homosexualities" instead. Can we cite whoever it is did say it (assuming that this "numerous researcher" is not simply a Wikipedia editor)?
In general, there's a fair bit of slant to the anthropology section.
DanB†DanD 22:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all these are anthropologists who are saying that they need to be careful about recognizing the differences between different cultural manifestations of homosexuality in history.  They are not suggesting that we ought to substitute the word 'homosexualities' for 'homosexuality' in our everyday usage in the West today.  Rather, the linguistic prescription is obviously directed to the anthropological discourse about homosexuaity in different cultures and epochs.  Second, I am removing the "dubious" tag because the different types of homosexualities are listed directly below along with clear citation of the anthropologist who identified them.--Agnaramasi 00:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Homosexualities"?

message: I changed the following two segments in "Homosexuality and society", "Military", "In modern times":
:Attitudes world wide vary, from country to country and over time, with some countries—like the United Kingdom and the Netherlands — accepting openly homosexual individuals into the armed forces, and others — like the United States, Nazi Germany, and many nations in South America and the Caribbean — either quieting or discharging homosexual people.
Here I removed the reference to Nazi Germany (with external link to the Holocaust Teacher Resource Center) for two reasons.  The first is that this is an historical reference, and while I may try to work it in its own paragraph later (as the sexual liberties of pre-Nazi Germany, esp. Berlin, and the subsequent Nazi witch hunt are important to the military history of Germany and homosexuals), it does not belong in a list of currently-existing nations and regions.  The second, and perhaps most important, is that it is a "loaded reference"--it is designed to cast the nations and regions listed in the same light as Nazi Germany, which is historically viewed as Manichean "evil."  This is, in my opinion, a more politically than historically motivated inclusion.
:Most nations that adhere to the strict interpretation of Sharia (Islamic law) remove individuals from their armed forces who are believed to be homosexual, and may punish, torture, or subject them to the death penalty.
Here I changed "may punish, torture, or subject them to the death penalty" to "may have them punished, tortured, or executed."  I feel that "death penalty" is not neutral, as it seems to portray them as legitimate and wholly defensible.  By the same token, the phrases "kill them" or "have them killed" are also not neutral, as it portrays them as unlawful and wholly indefensible.  I feel that "have them executed" is a reasonable compromise.—Kbolino 04:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military: Nazi Germany and the "Death Penalty" 

message: Hey, admittedly I don't really know how to add footnotes, but I do know that presently over half of all Fortune 500 companies offer same-sex domestic partnership benefits (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/30/BUGJNJMQ9C1.DTL).  I fixed it in the article, but if someone wants to add the citation for me that would be cool.Rglong 10:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Please provide a section name or link in the future, it makes life easier.—Kbolino 02:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over Half Fortune 500 

message: Could there possibly be mention of the first civil partnership or union law in Denmark in 1989?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_unions_in_Denmark
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.32.202 (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil Partnerships 

message: FCYTravis states, "assertion that all homosexual relationships involve sex - this is not sourced or necessarily true." On these grounds, he deleted my additions: that homosexuality has a "sexual component" and, "While homosexuality can include romantic friendship, homosexuality and romantic friendship are not synonymous."
Firstly, as denoted by the word itself, "homosexuality" has a sexual component BY DEFINITON. Merriam-Webster’s defines "homosexual” as “1: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex. 2: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.” A statement to the contrary can be based only on POV or a fundamental lack of understanding of the English language. Therefore, based on the accepted meaning of the word in the English language, the demand for a citation is unwarranted. In asserting otherwise, FCYTravis is attempting to impose his own private language. This is contrary to Wikipedia’s POV rules.
Secondly, since homosexuality has sexual component by definition (even though it arguably is not necessarily only sexual), there needs to be a name for passionate friendships between people of the same sex when sexuality is not involved. The phrase for this in Wikipedia is “Romantic friendship.” Since this is a topic that is closely related to homosexuality, it belongs in the lead to help define “homosexuality” in contrast to other forms of same-sex love relationship.
Therefore, unless a better argument can be brought to bear against these revision, I am reverting.LCP 23:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are baldly asserting that two men who love each other, but who don't have sexual intercourse, are not homosexual. You are baldly asserting that sex is a definitive part of a gay/lesbian relationship, and that is at the least entirely unsourced and at worst, false and biased. FCYTravis 07:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think LCP is saying that.  Two men, both of whom are homosexual, may be in a romantic relationship that does not include any sexual activity.  The individuals are homosexual, but their relationship is not.  It is asexual.  To that extent, the relationship has little or nothing to do with homosexuality, heterosexuality, or any other kind of sexuality.  This is in the same category as a man and a woman who have a romantic but non-sexual relationship.   The individuals may be heterosexual, but the relationship is asexual.  There could also be 2 heterosexual men (or women) who have a non-sexual romantic relationship.  Basically, there is not a one-to-one relationship between kinds of relationships that exist and the sexuality (to the extent that is relevant at all) of the people involved in them.  JackofOz 08:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks JackofOz. In response to FCYTravis, I again assert that he is trying to impose his own private language. The idea in question is homoSEXuality. I am not sure why he says my assertion is “bald” (or what would be wrong with a “bald assertion”), but my assertion IS unequivocal—as is the meaning of homoSEXuality. HomoSEXuality invariably has a SEXual component regardless of whether, as JackofOz points out, the lovers engage in sex. In contradiction to FCYTravis’ claim, I have provided a very cogent reference in my earlier comment (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual). Being from the dictionary, it does not require a citation. However, to appease FCYTravis, I will include the ref.LCP 16:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: To be absolutely clear, yes, I assert that if two men love each other but that love does not involve sexual attraction (actualized or not), then they are not homosexual. For example, I love several men very deeply: my son, my father, my brother, my cousin, and my uncle--but I do not feel sexual attraction for any of them. Would FCYTravis say that I am homosexual because I love my son, father, brother, uncle, or cousin? If so, that is deeply misguided. If not, why not?LCP 16:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You are free to seek outside input through a request for comment at WP:RFC or request informal mediation at WP:MEDCAB. It may not have been your intention but you edits do seem to me to have the effect of suggesting that homosexuality is purely a sexual (and not romantic) inclination. This is highly WP:POV. As a side note, other wikipedia articles should not be used as references (as Wikipedia is a tertiary source). WjBscribe 18:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the ref to MEDCAB. I don’t understand why you reverted edits that were very well cited. Just like heterosexuality, homosexuality is "essentially" physical--by definition. The ONLY thing that differentiates homosexuality from heterosexuality, for example, is the object of its sexual attraction. Furthermore, that is what sources claim. Unsourced claims to the contrary are merely POV. If another objective source could be brought to bear that supports that idea that homosexuality INHERENTLY has a romantic component, I’d be happy to see it included. Regarding the romance of homosexuality, I personally do not care--except for the sake of accuracy. And the current definition includes information that is not warranted or cited by ANY authority that I have been able to find. So it seems that you have reverted the wrong edits.LCP 18:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: From the American Psychological Association: "Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others." . Fireplace 18:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! Include the ref.LCP 18:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Although I am not sure that would I accept Foucault or the post-modernist view as the ultimate authority on “The History of Sexuality,” Foucalt is formidable and should be included in the article, and I follow you up until the last line of your statement. However, I think you are inadvertently taking too narrow a view of "romantic," perhaps the view promoted by Hollywood. In contrast, "romantic love" etymologically and historically is asexual as it is, "imbued with or dominated by idealism, a desire for adventure, chivalry, etc." I don’t think I would go so far as to say that it cannot include sex. Instead, what I am saying is that (in contrast to homosexuality, in which sexuality is at least an essential component) sexuality is not essential to romantic love or friendship. If you are versed in Foucault, I am sure that you can appreciate the subtleties of the distinction. Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s In Memoriam is a wonderful testimony to same-sex romantic love that was not sexual. I really like the Wikipedia article, Romantic friendship. I hope you’ll take a look at it.LCP 20:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you 100%.  I guess I am just saying that you could call a romantic friendship homosexual only insofar as it involves sexual desire or attraction. In this sense, romantic friendship might exceed but not be entirely precluded from the designation 'homosexual'. Otherwise, I think the better word would be homosocial, which is the kind of friendship elevated to the status of virtue by Aristotle, for exaple, in the [[Nichomachean Ethics].  Of course in Ancient Greece such friendships might sometimes involve sexual activity and even more likely sexual attraction, albeit a form of sexuality far removed from the empiricial/medical understanding presupposed by 'homosexuality'.--Agnaramasi 02:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ”Sex” is inherent to meaning of “homosexuality”

message: The lead may not be the best place for the following: "the Kinsey Institute asserts that ones sexual orientation should not be measured according to discrete categories. Instead, it should be measured on a continuum based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience in each period of ones life." Any other ideas of where to put it?LCP 18:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kinsey info

message: The lead says that homosexuality is a sexual orientation, but then describes it as an attraction or an interaction.  The APA states "Sexual behavior does not necessarily equate to sexual orientation. Many adolescents—as well as many adults—may identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual without having had any sexual experience. Other young people have had sexual experiences with a person of the same gender, but do not consider themselves to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual."  If someone is heterosexually married, and is only heterosexually involved, but has homosexual attractions, is that person heterosexual or homosexual?  Likewise if someone has had homosexual experience, but orientation remains heterosexual, what would they be classified as?  It seems to me that homosexuality should be distinguished between homosexual attractions and homosexual behavior.  Right now, the article seems to blur the difference, assuming that those with a homosexual orientation have sex with their own gender.Joshuajohanson 22:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if anyone has access to better scholarly materials. I also wonder if the lead could be modeled after Human sexuality. Otherwise, short of resorting to a strict dictionary definition of homosexuality (which I tried) and/or noting the ambiguity of the term, I have no suggestions to improve the current lead. Regardless, I do have problems with the way it stands and the way the APA text is being referenced and employed here ("Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others." ). According to the APA text, a man would be considered homosexual (or as having a homosexual sexual orientation) merely by the fact that he finds his son, father, brother,  male cousin, or uncle "attractive"--regardless of the quality of the attraction. I do not think that is the intention of the APA article, but that IS how it reads. And that is ludicrous.LCP 22:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between finding someone "attractive" and having an "enduring...attraction" towards someone.  In your example, the enduring attraction that you attribute to son, father, etc. is based on a familial relationship, and I would argue that there is no inherent "attraction" in that relationship -- it is more a "bond" than an "attraction".  Your example also does not consider the attraction the same man might feel for his daughter, mother, sister, aunt, or anyone outside his family.  One must consider the attraction a subject feels for all people, men and women, before applying the "homosexual" label, and that is implied by the word "others". HalJor 01:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what you mean by "inherent", but I think you mean biological disposition. I am not sure that I agree with your distinction. While the "bond" (whatever that means) between father and son may precede attraction, mutual attraction definitely becomes a powerful factor in the minds of boys and fathers very early in the relationship. And this could easily be demonstrated to have strong survival value, and therefore, a basis in biology. I agree with you that the "attraction" between father and son or child and mother is not the same thing as homosexual attraction (if that is what you are saying). I see where you are trying to go in your explication of "attraction" vs. "enduring attraction", but I don't see any warrant for the distinction. My attraction for my son is very enduring. And in any case, the weakness in the lead is that, as you state, "One must consider the attraction a subject feels for all people, men and women, before applying the 'homosexual' label." A reader should not have to do that guesswork in an encyclopedia article. Instead, the lead needs to provide that context so that the reader isn't left guessing.LCP 16:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the current lead is too ambiguous. The current lead, being taken almost verbatim from an APA self-help page, is also too U.S. centric. Perhaps you can make a change and see if the junta controlling this page will let it stand.LCP 17:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Orientation vs. Sexual Behavior 

message: The problem with the APA text is that it does not differentiate between different types of attraction. There is certainly an implied context--and “everyone” thinks they know what the sentence means. But I am talking about what the words actually say. And while the definition is good enough for an APA self-help article, from which the quote is taken, it is not scholarly. It is not that I disagree with what the line says. Instead, I think the lead needs to be more specific in defining the quality of attraction. I tried to do this by contrasting homosexuality to "romantic friendship," by my efforts have been rejected. Even if RF is not included in the lead, the ideas in the lead nevertheless need explication.LCP 16:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The lead from the APA text needs more development; it was intended as self-help, not a scholarly definition

message: This article is very long when compared to Heterosexuality.  The Homosexuality article far exceeds the 32k standard recommendation for article length, and far exceeds the upper recommended limit of 50k -- Homosexuality is 84k.  Are there sections which can be broken out?  Are there any summaries of broken out sections which have become bloated or redundant?  Joie de Vivre 18:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for historical perspective, it should be mentioned that 'homosexuality' was invented as a word prior to 'heterosexuality.'  The criminalization and pathologization of homosexuality in particular is what led to the solidification of a hetersexual as its normative opposite.--Agnaramasi 20:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  So, wouldn't such content, if that is the source of the greater volume, be better suited to things like "Criminalization of homosexuality" or "Pathologization of homosexuality"?  Joie de Vivre 20:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The article should ideally be structured as a summary style article, and it may have been like that a long time ago.  But over time, passing-editor-creep has turned the article into an unsourced, redundant assortment of disconnected snippets.  I'm hacking away as we speak -- feel free to join the fun.  Fireplace 23:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But, this article will have a LOT of citations, which beef up the kilobyte number without making the article "too big."  It's too bad the counter doesn't ignore what's between ref tags. Fireplace 16:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article length as compared to Heterosexuality

message: I've removed opinion poll results from the "Theories" section - what people tell a pollster they believe has no rational bearing on scientific observation and study. Those results (which are outdated, because there's a 2006 study out here) belong under a section about specific U.S. societal views of homosexuality. Science is not a popularity contest. FCYTravis 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right... scientists don't talk about homosexuality as being unnatural, a choice, a perversion, etc... discussion of those topics belongs in the society, religion, or politics section.  Fireplace 16:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see comments below, "A problem with assumptions about science and the APA"LCP 16:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey under theories 

message: As has been mentioned, this article should be a summary article.  The premodern history is taking up a lot of space, and I think it is weird that it has more space than modern history.  I think a summary and a link to a main page would be sufficient for this page.  What do all of you think?Joshuajohanson 22:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, note the existence of LGBT history. Fireplace 23:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting homosexuality in premodern times in its own page 

message: I strongly feel both that (1) there should be a history section, and (2) the topical sections should not be subsumed into the history section.  A topical organization is much more reader friendly and makes for easy use of  templates in summary articles.  I feel like the best solution is to create a history section, but to be very clear that where content could either go in the history section or a topical section, it should go in the topical section (with perhaps a quick mention in the history section).  Fireplace 23:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yeah, I just want to see what shape this section takes before siphoning off content.  Fireplace 00:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well said.  I second. Eganio 04:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  history section 

message: 'but does not necessarily involve sexual behavior this.' In the opening paragraph. Should be 'but this does not necessarily involve sexual behavior' 81.178.248.161 15:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.--Agnaramasi 14:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Does not necessarily involve sexual behavior" 

message: Hi! Im new to Wikipedia, and not quite sure how to do it, but I found a source for the list of countries where homosexuality is punishable by death.  It is: http://www.modelun.org/naimun/bggs/Torture.pdf
Again, sorry to push it off on someone else, but Im still learning!  Thanks :)
68.240.122.28 16:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Violence

message: What's the etymology of "homosexual"? -Rex Imperator
:Added a bit about it. Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~). VanTucky 17:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: 'Domestic partnership', an almost exclusively American concept, is used for some laws of the Scandinavian countries since the late 80's. I think 'Civil union' would be more appropriate. I think Denmark was the first Scandinavian country legalizing same-sex civil unions, but I don't know about Sweden, Norway and Finland. Maybe someone more knowledgeable could offer some enlightment. Soczyczi 17:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hmm, according to Scandinavia, the Faroe Islands are sometimes also considered a Scandinavian country, and they do not seem to have any civil union/gay marriage laws. The other five do. Fireplace 17:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Domestic partnership and civil unions

message: why does tinky-winky redirect to this article?tinky-winky is a teletubbies charecter:shouldn't it link to the teletubbies article instead of homosexuality?67.185.26.89 01:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The redirect had been vandalised. Now fixed. WjBscribe 01:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: question

message: Should the link "Kinsey and the Homosexual Revolution" be in the external links list? Anyone who reads the content of this will notice its non-neutral nature, especially when it says somewhere "Challenging Darwin's Myths"  . I also think it is too specific if it is meant to portray a religious point of view on the topic, or at least it should be stated along with the link that the web site has religious affiliations. Gavriish 00:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not going to "leave these links alone." They don't belong on the page. They are properly linked at Reparative therapy. FCYTravis 03:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: FCYTravis is correct. These links do not belong here. In addition, NARTH and PFOX are essentially evangelical organizations with anti-gay agendas. Basically they believe that being gay is a sin, a disorder, a choice, and can be changed, none of which is true.  As ReligiousTolerance.org says to a list of NARTH beliefs: "Each of these beliefs totally contradict statements made by all other professional mental health associations."  And no, I don't believe they are well respected by the gay community and sexology professionals. Becksguy 06:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I noticed in the "politics" section that it said this: "homosexual acts were decriminalized in some parts of the Western world, such as in Denmark in 1933, in Sweden in 1944, in the United Kingdom in 1967, and in Canada in 1969."  Although homosexual acts were recriminalized by Stalin, it is still worth noting that Denmark was not the first country to decriminalize it.  The exact law was made in 1922, but there was a de facto decriminalization starting in 1917 :  "the criminal code of 1922, which decriminalized same-sex relations between consenting adults" (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_4_36/ai_104635113) .
136.142.173.169 19:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decriminalization of homosexuality - forgot to mention Soviet Russia 

message: :This section claims that "Gay men have slightly longer and thicker penises than straight men." While the source is cited and such, and I personally don't have access to it, I must wonder how such a conclusion has come about, and whether it truly represents a factual statement appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I question whether such a widespread conclusion can even be accurately made, similarly to how it is difficult to impossible to make sound conclusions regarding differences in intelligence and athletic ability between races. --Agent of the Reds 19:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it actually claims that "There's evidence that... gay men have slightly longer and thicker penises than straight men."  The source is from a respected journal, and the conclusion is encyclopedic insofar as, if true, it may "provide additional evidence that variations in prenatal hormonal levels (or other biological mechanisms affecting reproductive structures) affect sexual orientation development" (quoting from the article's abstract). Fireplace 12:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I have read the article (one of the benefits of being a grad student in genetics is access to scientific journals!).  The data are derived from the studies performed by Alfred Kinsey and colleagues from 1938 to 1963, where roughly 5,000 self-identified gay and straight men were asked to provide both an estimate of their penis size and an actual measurement.  The results found that, on average, the men who identified as homosexual (i.e. having "extensive" sexual experiences with other men) reported longer and thicker penises.  I looked at the data myself, and there is statistical significance to the differences.  The probands ranged widely in age, height, and ethnicity.  So, as far as I can tell, these data are true, but I don't think anyone should scream from the rooftops that gay men have bigger cocks:  I am gay, and admittedly do have quite a large penis, but the sexual partners I have been with (also gay men, of course) have all possessed smaller penises than mine, more along the averages reported for straight men, according to this study.  So there really is no direct correlation, as far as I can tell.  The referenced article represents a subset of the population (i.e. those willing to take part in such a study), and I would imagine that on average, taking all men into consideration, you would not find too much of a difference between gay and straight men, to be honest. Eganio 18:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehehe.  I can relate to your biases.  You may be right about the reliability of the data, but that'd count as original research. Fireplace 21:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You're probably talking about The Bell Curve, which has been widely criticized by reputable scholars in reliable sources.  I'm not aware of any such criticism levied against this study.  Fireplace 00:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am aware that my own personal experiences would fall under the heading of OR, and I agree we should defer to the referenced study.  I am just cautioning against such a limited comparison providing fodder for absolutists who seek to categorize people in a binary manner, just because it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Eganio 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, the whole African descent vs. intelligence issue is akin to such things as phrenology, biological anthropology and eugenics, which were very popular amongst those practicing pseudoscience in the 19th and even 20th centuries.  Such things have historically been used to justify institutionalized and popularized racism, and are understandably highly ridiculed by the scientific community, although I'm sure adherents still exist.  The issue under discussion within this heading is a report of a simple physical measurement, rather than the ill-conceived correlations made by pseudoscientists to support their own biases.  Someone's IQ is far more difficult to measure than penis size, and is itself an issue of debate in the scientific community.  I would venture a guess that any study relating ethnic origins to intelligence is regarded as highly questionable, even among the peers reviewing such a study, and would be of little value to an encyclopedic resource such as Wikipedia. Eganio 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Physiological differences in gay men and lesbians

message: Nmcmurdo was right to be concerned about this sub-section header. The section does lack a world view.  However, I strongly disagree with a title that limits it to the 21st century (only 7 years?).  The process of coming out has existed as long as there has been a closet to come out of.  At least since Stonewall within a relatively similar cultural context in the US (at least compared with the anti-gay horrors that existed before that), and that's since 1969, or so, at least 35 years ago. Also, isn't the coming out process similar in other western cultures? (I know, for example, that Asian and Oriental cultures are different, and we can't speak for them.) If it were renamed to something like "Coming out in the US since Stonewall", or "Coming out in the US in the modern gay rights era" I would be OK with it, I think, or at least enough to not complain. But I think it's misleading as it is.  Alternatively, could the section could be recast by someone knowledgeable to make it less US (or Western) centric without taking away from the main article "Coming out"? Then we wouldn't need qualifiers in the title at all.  Comments? Becksguy 00:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken care of that problem, and moved sections into what seems to me a much more logical, encyclopedic order.  (Whew!  I should NOT have started this at bedtime, which I'm way past now.)  By way of explanation, I ended up lumping "Law, Politics, and Society" together after several attempts at keeping them separate--because most of the subsections rightly partake of all three areas.  Maybe somebody else can figure out a way to make distinct categories there, but I couldn't at this very late hour.  And BTW, IMHO, this sprawling article is just too damn big, and needs to be cut way down, with a lot of this good, detailed material being spun off into separate wikilinked articles, many of which already exist--as is suggested at WP:NOTPAPER.  Well there's my "bold" deed for the day.  Revert if you don't like it.  :-)  --Textorus 09:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I like the new ordering.  I don't have a problem with the length, however, since this is the central article on a major topic.  Fireplace 15:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Fireplace.  Nice job, Textorus.  It appears more organized and it's easier to read now.  Very long articles are often hard to organize for the knowledgeable, and even more difficult to organize in a way that makes it easier for the reader that is just looking for information (which is what we are here to do). Especially on this subject which touches on so many areas of life.  Thanks.  Becksguy 20:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome.  I agree it should be a big article, though there's a difference between BIG and TDB, in my mind.  Some sections could be condensed, and the detailed material put in the wikilinked articles.  But hey, I've just contradicted myself by inserting a few paragraphs on terminology, early gay rights movements, and pre-Spanish Conquest sexuality.  Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.  And you can quote me on that.  ;-)  --Textorus 00:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With topics like these, length is required. Although it is a hefty read, the article is concise, NPOV and well written. Nice job to all. Trodaikid1983 07:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Coming out" in the US in the 21st century 

message: Damn. There's gotta be a better place for me to note this but at present this is all that appears on the main talk page for this subject. In any event, I wanted to make a quick note to the effect that I find this article in its entirety to be disingenuous. The article is so full of disorganized information that the most basic question that a querier would want resolved in an article entitled "Homosexuality" is damn near impossible to find and even when you do come across the information it's written in such a way ("some scholars believe", "a theory is" etc.) that only the most analytical and discerning mind will not be mislead. - The basic issue to be discusssed on "Homosexuality" is whether it is indeed something biologically mandated that is inherent at birth (as modern westerners generally believe) or whether its manifestation is largely dependant on environmental circumstances. People want to know, "WHAT IS HOMSEXUALITY?" An encyclopedia ought to have the courage to face the issue honestly and to state what every non-biased scientist knows: That people self identitify as homosexuals for a very very wide variety of reasons and that under radically different circumstances the vast majority of these people would NOT self-identify as homosexuals and indeed would not be lacking in heterosexuals desires as they so often believe themselves to be. I realize of course that what I'm saying differs quite radically with what all right thinking people are supposed to believe but the scientific evidence does appear to lead to just these conclusions and I think that this ought to be put displayed simply and plainly before the masses of people who come to this page for reasons other than any historical interest. Right now, the view under fire that is itself "in the closet" and that no respectable scientist dare "speak its name" is the one that every byte of science and common sense points to. Should not Wikipedia therefore be on the forefront in expressing this view in an unambiguous manner?   -   mnuez
:You should be careful what you read.  Really, this also differs quite radically from what many scientists believe.  Scientific knowledge about sexuality really is very very limited.  And this is not because they're scared of publishing results that implies homosexuality is a choice (or indeed that it's not).  It really is because finding the necessary evidence one way or the other is very hard, particularly in an area as complex as human sexuality.  But look: Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia you can edit yourself.  Don't curse the darkness.  If you have good, reliable sources (ideally from peer-reviewed journals) just edit the article yourself.  But I stress the citation issue.  What Wikipedia is not about is original research. garik 09:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point out specifically what you feel is not neutral, so we can fix it, if that is actually the case. Thanks, 68.6.46.209 04:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disingenuous

message: There seems to be a very non-negligible number of people who believe that homosexuals are homosexual because they were molested when they were children. Is there any information about how prevalent this belief is? If it's fairly common, it needs to be included in the article, probably in the "Theories on homosexuality" > "Non-biological explanations" section, with references to reliable studies about the validity of this belief. Herorev 02:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like a remarkably stupid belief. I'd like to know how anyone arrives at such a conclusion. Not through any scientific study, I'm sure. Soczyczi 03:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it should be included in the homophobia article given that it is not a credible theory as such.--Agnaramasi 00:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if you're familiar with this guideline, but please check out WP:MOS:Identity.  It's not considered good form to refer to groups of people using nouns, e.g. rather than "gays, blacks, Jews", we say "gay people, black people, Jewish people", etc... Popkultur 04:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  molestation and sexual orientation 

message: Many teenagers, maybe those who are questioning whether or not they're homosexual, want to know more on the subject. Perhaps a page should be made by someone who knows more on the subject than I should make a page about it for those searching for more information.
Rikkiatia 22:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In consideration that Wikipedia is not a place for advice or how-to content, and that all articles must be verified with reliable, published sources, I seriously doubt an article specifically on teenage homosexuality would be fitting. Seeing as technically such an article would fall under the purview of Child sexuality, it would be extremely controversial and might even fail the notability test. Thank you for making a suggestion though! VanTucky (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teenage Homosexuality 

message: I just noticed that in the Languages links at the top of the page, the Russian link goes to an article dealing specifically with Soviet-era perceptions of homosexuality, rather than to the main Russian article that discusses homosexuality in general terms.
Throbert McGee 10:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The links are placed at the bottom of the article proper, usually, and are of the form: ru:Гомосексуализм, this one for example being Russian (language code ru).  I'm assuming that ru:Гомосексуальность is the proper link, but I don't read Russian and therefore cannot attest to the accuracy of my own statement.—Kbolino 17:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Kbolino! I've fixed the Russian link so it goes to Gomoseksualnost, the more neutral term, rather than Gomoseksualizm, the Soviet-era usage.Throbert McGee 06:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you edit the "Other Languages" links? 

message: I have a question concerning the "Prenatal hormone theory" section. It appears that the section consists only of a single blocked quote. However, I noticed in its edit box that there's a whole paragraph below the quote nestled in comment fields, making it invisible in the article. I am to understand that the use of comment fields generally serves as communication among editors, indicating what in the article they think shouldn't be tampered with or how they got the information, etc. Now, it seems to me that this has been accidentally used to hide information intended to be included in the article—the hidden passage even contains links and references, as well as much pertinent info. I think its inclusion would improve the article. I will withhold editing this section until I'm sure if this was done intentionally or no. If it is intentional, I would like to know why; if not, may I request permission to fix the error? Thank you. Velvetron 01:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Skimming the archives, it appears this topic was discussed in Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 9#"Biology is destiny" and Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 9#Hormones. I didn't really read it, but it seems someone considered the subject tangential, pointing to Fetal hormones and sexual orientation. ZueJay (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I added the Levay quote and (I think) commented out the other language.  The Levay quote is extremely clear, which is why I didn't bother rewriting it in my own words.  The quoted-out passage, on the other hand, seems too technical and confusingly written (especially for a summary-style article).  Fireplace 04:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information hidden in "Prenatal hormone theory" section