Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 4

message: This might be better placed in meta. 
:"Mess with the sectioning"???  I restored it after you split my post.  We don't just break people's posts into random sections and redistribute them around the talk page, ok?  However, in the interests of getting on with it, I'm going to leave it as it is now.  Don't do it again, please.  Exploding Boy 02:57, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
Who is "we"? And the split was far from random. As the conversation diverges, it makes sense to collect together related points rather than to end up in a quagmire of unrelated assertions.  In fact that's how village pump, meta, etc all work. 
Sorry not to reply on the meat of the issues raised, but I've not much time today. Mr. Jones 09:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of sections as converstions evolve 

message: I have never seen anything to suggest that the following sentence is true. 
:Judaism, Christianity and Islam have always assumed that homosexuals choose their sexual orientation.
The only thing I've ever heard from any of the monotheistic religions about homosexuality and "choosing" is that people have a moral obligation to choose not to perform homosexual acts. The quoted sentence is more likely a straw man, but I'll let it alone while I follow Taw's advice.
:(How old are these comments?) There is some discussion of this by the author of the article I linked to.  He suggests that homosexuality is caused by environmental factors that can be compensated for.  It seems quite carefully considered and written.  I'd be interested to incorporate some of the views it presents into the article to address the fairly severe POV (in its selectivity of reporting and assumptions) it is currently suffering from. Mr. Jones 22:21, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed sentence 

message: I removed the bit about the current particular manifestation homosexuality generally being seen as socially constructed, as it is, flatly untrue as written.  Generally, homosexuality is seen in one of two ways:
# as an act that people engage in
# as an orientation toward same-gender relationships that is innate
A lot of people do think that the way sexuality manifests is socially constructed, to varying degrees, but this has not entered into popular opinion, which is what the sentence seems to be saying has happened. -Seth Mahoney 18:25, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
:Why don't you re-add the sentence with your correction? Hyacinth 04:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reason I didn't add the sentence with my correction is because social constructivism is covered elsewhere in the article.  -Seth Mahoney 06:20, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right section of this page to write this in, sorry if it is not. In the introduction, shouldn't it say sex not gender? Sex being physical sex and gender being mental thing, the 'brain sex' if you like. Pikpik 12:24, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Seems to have been placed on the page at least 10 days to two weeks ago, but nothing has been done about it since.  Exploding Boy 05:58, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
§ Is it clear what the alleged problem is? Is there anything left to respond to? It looks like maybe the individual who placed the ND notice has left the field. P0M
§ I just re-read the article. To me it seems that there are no big neutrality issues. If nobody comes forth to list specific points of dispute, I recommend removing the notice. P0M 00:37, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality dispute