Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 2

message: The gentleman named is NOT, to the best of my knowledge (which is pretty good, as a gay politician), openly gay. It's an open secret, but if he had come out, it would have been pretty massive news. I refer you to the note on outing at the top of List of famous gay, lesbian, or bisexual people. - Montréalais 16:58, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Assertion that someone incorrectly identified as gay in this article

message: The best part about the recent vandalism is that the guy can't spell.  I'm not sure what fagots are, but he sure hates them. Exploding Boy 08:32, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
:er... eh? well... I admire his patience, awe! :o ;p--Yacht 17:33, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
Anyone report it on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress yet?  --zandperl 01:15, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Vandalism

message: Cut from article:
:Although the term is sometimes used to describe all same-sex sexual behavior as well as other same-sex sexual or romantic interest, homosexuality usually implies an exclusive or predominant sexual orientation toward persons of the same sex, as heterosexuality implies sexual orientation toward persons of the opposite sex. Homosexuality is also distinguished from bisexuality, which implies a sexual orientation toward both sexes.
I think the term orientation isn't clear enough to be
encyclopedic. It carries the intended meaning that one can be
"oriented" deterministically toward something, and that one thus has
no responsibility to turn away from it. Or, no need to. It's used in
such a way as to imply that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.
:The term sexual orientation is an open compound noun (see the article compound noun and adjective), which means that although the words have separate meanings by themselves, together they form a word having a special meaning.  For example, a "giant panda" is an entirely different animal than a "red panda".
:"Sexual orientation" is clearly defined in A Dictionary of Psychology (Oxford ISBN: 019860761X), and there is a comprehensive article on "sexual orientation" in The Oxford Companion to the Body (Oxford ISBN: 019852403X).  The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (Houghton-Mifflin), the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and Encarta all contain specific definitions of "sexual orientation".  Furthermore, I found 25 references to "sexual orientation" in Encyclopedia Britannica, and 2 quotations in the Oxford English Dictionary.
:Elsewhere, the term "sexual orientation" without further qualification is found in many anti-discrimination policies, including that of the University of California, and also appears in legal documents such as U.S. Supreme Court opinions.  A 1992 Colorado initiative, which sought to assure that gays have no "special legal rights" (this was later overturned, see, Romer v. Evans), used the words "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships" as definitive.  Finally, the American Psychological Association maintains a public Web page entitled [Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality].  (Comparing that article to the current Homosexuality article does not flatter Wikipedia.)
:The above sources provide documentation that "sexual orientation" is a standard term in common use.  The word "orientation" was not used in this article unless it was part of "sexual orientation" (or "homosexual orientation", the usage and meaning of which can be similarly documented).
:Now, consider the statement above:
::[orientation] carries the intended meaning that one can be "oriented" deterministically toward something, and that one thus has no responsibility to turn away from it.
:What is meant by "intended meaning?"  By who is it intended?  And where does this "deterministic" connotation come from?  That aside, what is this notion of "responsibility to turn away from it?"  Responsibility implies an underlying moral, legal, or mental obligation; how is this derived from "orientation"?  This, however, is irrelevant.  Any personal associations someone might have with an accepted term like "sexual orientation" are biased by definition.  My understanding of Wikipedia is that above all, articles should be written without bias.
:As for the rest of this:
::Or, no need to. It's used in such a way as to imply that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.
:I disagree.  The term "sexual orientation" is neutral, and does not imply that homosexuality is right or wrong--doing so would require a value judgement with respect to a particular system of morals or ethical standard.  Similiary the "need to" remark implies a moral or ethical obligation, which in turn requires an underlying moral or ethical system.  Establishing such a system, either implicitly or explicitly, violates the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view mandate.
:It would appear that the complaint is that the neutrality of the article does not specifically imply that there is something wrong with homosexuality.  Why does the article now almost immediately call attention to "advocates who call homosexuality immoral?"  Uranographer 05:13, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand this.  Why is the notion of "choice" such an all-important concept?  It sounds to me like you have an axe to grind, Ed.
For us to write a definitive article, we dare not sweep any of this under the rug. And all assumptions need to be questioned. --Uncle Ed 18:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you're being overcritical. Wikipedia is not the place to decide (once and for all) appropriate terminology, especially for the real world. I think for many many people orientation is used not because it conveniently implies "its okay to be gay" but because it accurately describes the reality of unchanging sexual and romantic attraction. Any other word would not be any more 'pedic because of greater concreteness. This, of course, is not the real issue. These issues are easily dealt with by listing the variety of opinions and meanings, not by deciding once and for all if being gay is a choice. Also, I've noticed you continue to use the "homosexuality", please see: User:Hyacinth/Style guide.Hyacinth 19:00, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, for my vote, homosexuality isn't a matter of choice, though it should be, and its not any more or less anyones business than much else.
[P0M:] I've already written a good bit on the Sexual Identity talk page that probably relates to Ed's questions here. As to "orientation" being too imprecise, or to its allegedly implying absolution from moral responsibility, I have to agree with Hyacinth. The image behind "orientation" seems to be a kind of sexual compass needle that points at possible sexual objects. People who condemn homosexuality seem to believe that one chooses to be gay, to believe that such a choice is a moral choice, and to believe that it is a blameful choice. Ordinarily, when one makes a strong claim of that sort, one is required to supply objective proof of a credible nature. To the best of my knowledge, few if any people have claimed/confessed that they simply decided to be attracted to people of the same sex, and many people have maintained that they discovered homosexual attraction within themselves and strove to "decide against it" to no avail. A friend of mine wears a strong perfume that, to me, smells like diesel fuel or perhaps song strong organic solvent. I cannot decide to like the odor, and she cannot decide to hate the odor as I do. Both of us can decide what we are going to do on the basis of our feelings. (Sorry, I don't see any problem with "homosexual". It's Latin-derived and means "same sex".) There has been a great deal of serious research into the subject of homosexuality, and it would be disrespectful and demeaning to the individuals who have spent their lifetimes trying to get an objective understanding on these matters to simply discount it. 
[P0M:] What should our attitude be toward avaricious feelings? Can we advocate or condemn? Can we discuss the nature of these motivations? Can we give an objective account of their origins and note that it is how one behaves under the impact of these feelings that is moral or immoral?
[P0M:] I think the paragraph that Ed Poor removed should go back in. P0M 01:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Orientation