Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 11

Military

"Others, such as the United States purge them from the force in the belief that they are a threat."

Purge is a bit of a loaded word. Reading that sentence, I might expect that link to go to some page detailing how the US military conducts widespread interrogations to ensure its military is 100% heterosexual, when in reality under DADT it is barred from doing so as long as the service member does not actively disclose his or her sexual orientation or lifestyle. This is far from the ideal situation of equal protection regardless of sexual orientation, but I think the sentence does a disservice to wikipedia's philosophy of NPOV.

Definition Dispute

Definitions of homosexuality and gender -

American Heritage Dictionary

Homosexuality - "1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. 2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex."

Gender - "1. Grammar a. A grammatical category used in the classification of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and, in some languages, verbs that may be arbitrary or based on characteristics such as sex or animacy and that determines agreement with or selection of modifiers, referents, or grammatical forms. b. One category of such a set. c. The classification of a word or grammatical form in such a category. d. The distinguishing form or forms used. 2. Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture. 3a. The condition of being female or male; sex. b. Females or males considered as a group: expressions used by one gender." and "usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories."

Merriam Webster Dictionary

Homosexuality - "1 : the quality or state of being homosexual 2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex"

Gender - "1 a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass 2 a : SEX <the feminine gender> b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex" Apollomelos 11:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sigh! You just don't get it, do you? We made the WP so we can be at least as good as your average dictionary, and strive to be a lot better. The definitions you quoted are not exactly written in stone, in fact, if you'd check a few old editions, you would probably find other definitions. As for the question of sex and gender, there are tons of WP articles you might read and which I really, really advise you should not change just because a dictionary says something mildly different. sex, gender, and my I think quite exhaustive explanation of the problems associated with the term homosexuality in Homosexuality and transgender, and lots of stuff linking from there should make even you understand why your edit is not only POV, but simply inaccurate. Kindly stop being so trollish and become somebody who contributes information, instead of making one- or two word POV changes. Thank you very much. -- AlexR 12:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Insults aside the dictionaries are quite accurate. For example on the homosexuality and transgender article all of the situations with the discrepancies are intersex. A male is a person born with the organ to produce sperm - it does not matter if you cut it off at a later date or it does not function. Please explain how I am inaccurate. Apollomelos 12:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What's the point of throwing in more dictionary definitions here - you are not going to convince anybody with that. And your definition of "male" is hardly the only one in existance, and I seriously doubt you can claim it is the only correct one. Also, by no means all the discrepancies I pointed out refered to intersex people alone. Besides, if you still do not understand where the problem with your definition is, I sincerely doubt you are even remotely interesting in finding out in the first place. Oh, and this is going RfC now - I can't be bored with somebody who's arguments consists of dictionary quotes, some of which you don't even to have seem to have read. -- AlexR 13:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

AlexR by all means I am not doing this to offend you rather to maintain the accuracy of this encyclopedia. Even throughout this dialogue when you have referred to me as a troll, homosexist, POV warrior, etc., I have refrained from insulting you. Do you have anything to support your assertions outside your opinion? Any dictionaries and so on? Apollomelos 20:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

American Heritage Dictionary

male - "1. A member of the sex that begets young by fertilizing ova. 2. A man or boy. 3. Botany A plant having only staminate flowers."

female - "1. A member of the sex that produces ova or bears young. 2. A woman or girl. 3. Botany A plant having only pistillate flowers."

intersexual - "1. Existing or occurring between the sexes: intersexual competition. 2. Biology Having both male and female characteristics, including in varying degrees reproductive organs, secondary sexual characteristics, and sexual behavior, as a result of an abnormality of the sex chromosomes or a hormonal imbalance during embryogenesis." Apollomelos 12:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apollomelos: If you will look at Sexual differentiation, you should be able to see that "sex" can mean many different things—genetic sex, anatomical sex, hormonal sex, psychological sex, etc. For the purpose of the article on Homosexuality, the use of gender is a much clearer and unambiguous term to use than sex. (FYI: Becuase there has been an anonymous editor that keeps switching sex for gender in the Unisex names article, I wrote a longer explanation of the issues involved at Talk:Unisex name#Gender.) BlankVerse ∅ 14:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I completely disagree. This is an article on homosexuality - and rather scientific. Plus I have yet to see ANY mainstream major sources outside of personal Wiki opinions that hold that view. There is good reason for the dictionary definitions. Various cultures that have displayed homosexuality commonly modify the gender identity to break a taboo. Furthermore how would we apply a gender based definition to the Animal Kingdom? Thee most common definitions according to the dictionaries are that sex is scientific based and gender is a social identity - the only people where there would be a discrepancy are intersexuals – another scientific term. If you can cite evidence otherwise that is equally scientific I would change my opinion, until then I cannot. Apollomelos 20:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The bottom of this matter is when it all gets down to the basic defintions - a male being born with an organ that usually produces sperm - the only way you could not be displaying homosexuality if with another male would be you are intersexual. Gender is a social construction. We can mention it, but as to re-define the term - I oppose. Apollomelos 20:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your alleged "scientific" definition is a) not even agreed upon by scientist, and b) I think I can safely say that Homosexuality and transgender covers quite sufficiently why all of the "scientific" arguments have lots of problems. And evidence has been presented sufficiently as well. -- AlexR 21:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay. "not even agreed upon by scientist" - is your opinion. Dictionaries state otherwise and last time I checked the dictionaries are the source of definitive meanings of words. "I can safely say that Homosexuality and transgender covers quite sufficiently" - give me an example using science and following the dictionary meanings. One that is based on science as homosexuality is NOT a social construction whereas "gender" is. I bet you cannot. Apollomelos 00:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is exactly where you get it wrong - there is not just the plain technical meaning of "homosexual" around, but also one that is based on identity. One is usually not orientated towards a certain set of genitals, and much less so on a set of chromosomes or sperms. As for the rest, obviously, it is not worth repeating myself again. Oh, and BTW, what is this latest edit of yours supposed to mean? It is rather ... odd. Well, already reverted, so it does not matter much. -- AlexR 03:18, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My two cents: On the one hand, I think it could be argued that the definition is evolving right now rather than statically defined (as in a dictionary); on the other hand, I think it could be argued that the dictionary definition is the closest thing to a neutral version.

Well, actually it would be nice if it were, but that is not quite the case. Most dictionaries are often prescriptive, not descriptive. They record the "correct" usage, not the actual usage. And in anything relating to sex/gender (and probably other fields, too) they are not exactly quick to update any definitions; and that does include not updating to current scientific definitions, too (of which there may be more than one as well). Not to mention that a dictionary, almost by definition, has short definitions, while we have (or should have) the long and usually more complicated definitions. -- AlexR 13:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Give me one example of this justification regarding transgender people who are the scientific justification as on the transgender and homosexuality article that do not become intersexual by the end of the argument. You cannot. Transgender = social identity, intersexual = man and woman at the same time in a scientific sense. A transgender man who sleeps only with other men is scientifically homosexual not heterosexual just because his social identity is a woman. Apollomelos 21:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, a transgender man (that would be a female-to-male person) who sleeps with other men is probably gay, but to what extend that can be called "homosexual" - well, that has been dealt with extensively, so what exacly makes you deny that? You obviously don't even know what you are talking about, and you sure don't mind being as insulting as possible in your choice of words, not to mention that all other people who have worked on this article in the past months disagree with you; so what makes you think you can convince anybody with your vague semblance of arguments? Just wondering ... -- AlexR 21:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for using the word transgender man incorrectly, but that still does not dismiss my assertions or the dictionaries. And everybody who worked on this article in the past does NOT agree with you simply because they omitted correcting the mistake, perhaps they did not notice. Plus I can see from transgender and homosexuality's talk page that users have disagreed with your own personal opinion of the usage of gender and sex stressing the defintive meanings be restored. Apollomelos 00:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Intro rewrite and terminology

Well, I'm not sure what the dispute above is about exactly. The article sex identifies ten different compentents of sex and gender, both biological and social. I certainly lapse into using "sex" and "gender" as synonyms, because repeating one of them over and over again just gets kind of boring. But certainly the scientific community seems to prefer "sex" to have biological connotations, and "gender" to have social connotations. Though when writing for the encyclopedia, it is probably important to be explicit whether we mean one in particular or both. When doing this, we must keep in mind that not all readers will know if we say "sex" we mean "biological sex" and if we say "gender", we mean "gender identity or role", or (Webster rolls in his grave) vice versa. In most cases, this article is really talking about both, and the messiness of the distinctions thereof is pushed out to other articles. In doing on work on the introduction, I've simply used both terms, which will hopefully alert people to the idea that there are at least two different things going on here. Well, that and the paragraph that points people to the articles describing the fuller complexities in detail.

In any case, in the process of rewriting demographics of sexual orientation on the basis of the various scientific studies, I found it useful to separate "sexual orientation" into three axes - orientation/preference/attraction/inclination, behavior, and self-identification - because these are what scientists use in practice to define the term. In common society and among LGBT people, you see different people using "homosexual" to mean any one of these three things (and often arguing over which one is the "right" definition).

If you actually try to use a popular dictionary to do detailed linguistic work, you will find that it is often incomplete. (Many of the definitions are also circular - e.g. males are men or boys, boys are young males, etc.)

Unless we are playing Scrabble or something, dictionary writers can't really be the final arbiters of what a word means or whether or not it exists; popular usage determines those things. When someone sits down to write a dictionary, they do a lot of research to find out how people are actually using various word. Unfortunately, dictionary writers tend to wait a long time for words to "stabilize" before they record them; they often prefer written usage to oral usage; they often prefer more "mainstream" sources and dialects which may tend to de-emphasize certain communities of usage (everything from slang in ethinic and sexual minorities to technical jargon); and they don't update their dictionaries very quickly. And if you actually try to use a popular dictionary to do detailed linguistic work, you will find that it is often incomplete. (Many of the definitions are also circular - e.g. males are men or boys, boys are young males, etc.) I'm not sure why that is exactly (other than the sheer magnitude of the problem of isolating so many different meanings loaded into the same word), but certainly when it comes to reading scholarly journals about homosexuality, the dictionary definitions are often too vague or otherwise inadequate.

Whether or not a particular usage is "correct" or not is also a matter of popular or personal opinion, and over time, popular consensus has changed about many such questions. And very, very, often, people disagree about what "correct" usage is - sometimes due to localized patterns, sometimes because the language is changing, and so on. Dictionaries are often used to settle these disputes, but the very same controversies happen in the process of writing the dictionary. Dictionaries which are useful to linguists will note multiple usage patterns, and will also note that some people consider one or more usages to be erroneous, offensive, etc. (If I remember correctly, The Language Instinct talks more about the controversies of proscriptive grammars and word usages, and about language change.)

The policies Wikipedia is not a dictionary and NPOV seem to imply that Wikipedia should not take a stand on which usages are "correct" and which are "incorrect", but for accuracy and completeness, we should note when some people think that a given usage is offensive, erroneous, etc.

I'm sure there are articles on Wikipedia (possibly including this one) which could use some improvements along these lines. -- Beland 04:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess you can consider all that babbling about dictionaries to be a semi-educational tangent-slash-rant; the citations above seem to show that there are multiple, contradictory "proper" usages, and that "correctness" can differ depending on the social context. (Which agrees with my own experience.) So once again, my general advice would be to explicitly disambiguate using more specific terms, for the benefit of our poor, confused readership. If this whole long dispute was just about the use of "sex" vs "gender" in the introduction, then as I've said above, we really mean both, because usually people - including scientists - when they talk about homosexuality are thinking about or are actually measuring people who have either male sex and gender, or female sex and gender, and don't really consider the fuller complexities, and anyway, we have some fine articles that go into that subject in great detail. So hopefully my dual use of both terms plus linkages to appropriate articles will suffice. -- Beland 04:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's a lot better - thank you for your effort. As for the general problem with dictionaries etc, I 100% agree with you there. -- AlexR 13:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, thank you Beland you always do great work. I believe your new introduction is equitable. My main concern with the previous edition was the possibility of having a lot of relevant information removed. For example - negative attitudes with the scientific definition - Romans held negative attitudes only for the passive partner - certain cultures did the same thing, only the passive person was really "gay" - some culture are positive towards it as long as it does not threaten the masculine or feminine gender role - i.e. Hijras of India. And of course we will explain each case in the best possible manner to avoid any confusion. Apollomelos 20:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Biology Edit 04/04/2005

I believe you may misunderstand scientific studies and I am sure your edits are in good-faith. An experiment finds something not “claims”. Now if you can find another experiment refuting the previous one I welcome the additions, but you cannot place “claim”, that would suggest that they did not “find” anything. You also inserted “allegedly”, once again the results either find something or they do not. When writing about history it would seem admissible to use “claim” but with science the experiment finds something. Now the overall context may be disputed, i.e. if other studies have found refutations – but still the one study in itself can not be described by “claim”. “Some scientists have suggested that male homosexuality is an innate condition, though not necessarily inherited through the genes.” – this addition is just inaccurate. The majority of scientists believe it is innate and cannot be changed and I am not sure why we need that in the genetic section as it is made clear in the malleability area. This article’s genetic section deals with just that – so if it is not “necessarily inherited through genes” it does not belong there – it is off topic. However; again, if you can find a study that found otherwise feel free to add it to that section – but remember this study only found it in 20% of male homosexuals. Apollomelos 19:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is sometimes some room for use of the word 'claim' with respect to scientific studies, and that is usually when the study returns statistical data which is then interpreted - though in this case, it is the scientists, or the reviewers of the study, who make the claim, not the study itself. Additionally, studies are often done within a certain ideological framework that leads to an appropriate use of the word 'claim' with respect to the given results of the study. A good example would be the studies done with respect to the effects of pornography, where a very real claim is made, but that claim is justified only with respect to the very leading questions that are often asked. I'm fine with either, so long as 'claim' is used only with respect to interpretations of the results of the study, and 'find' only with respect to the actual statistical data gathered. To date, no study has found a biological cause for homosexuality, but many claims have been made with respect to the information gathered. -Seth Mahoney 19:47, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think that when most people say that something is "innate" they mean that is part of the genotype of an organism. When they say it is acquired they mean it is something that stands as a modification to what is at least potentially there in the genotype. To me, the above discussion is inadequate because the formation of a sexual identity (by that I mean the formation of all of the identifiable sexual traits) and the formation of a gender identity are both "nature and nurture" processes. As each layer of one's phenotype is laid down, something takes form that is difficult or impossible to change. There is no way to change the chromosomal sex (XX, XY, or whatever) once conception has occurred. All the cells that grow from the first cell are going to be like it chromosomally. But an XY individual doesn't have to be born with male genitalia because several things can go wrong in the womb to prevent the fetus from being masculinized. Even if the baby were surgically reassigned to being a male, it would be a "male" with no possibility of producing sperm cells. If, on the other hand, an XX fetus happened to be exposed to masculinizing hormones at the right time and ended up with an enlarged clitoris that was, in effect, a penis, that feature could be surgically changed. Brain structures, however, are totally beyond our ability to change in any constructive way. By the time we get down to things that might be changed, they are generally rather superficial things such as how somebody with a masculine gender identity learns to express his masculinity. (Guys can be reeducated and learn that it is o.k. to cry, for instance.) Or, to put it another way, by the time somebody gets born his or her sexual identity and the basis of his or her gender identity are at most subject to some kinds of learning experiences that may modify their expression somewhat. What is possible to the organism is mostly all there, and any changes are likely to be limitations of one kind or another that get imposed from the outside. What is most confusing in all of this, I suspect, is that humans are generally innately capable of a much wider range of sexual and other behavior than society permits them to experience without discomfort or even trauma. Most humans are probably capable of interacting sexually with many other "sex objects" than the one-item menu that most societies give them: member of the opposite sex. 金 (Kim) 03:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A single experiment certainly does not reliably prove a fact, for encyclopedic purposes, even a study that is apparently well-constructed. Scientific peer review requires replication. In this case, there are conflicting studies using different methodology. Genetics and sexual orientation is collecting all of the science on this issue, and this paragraph actually belongs in an unwritted section of it, so I have moved it there to get things rolling. The paragraph is flawed; I will need citation to the original study (singular?). See discussion on Talk:Genetics and sexual orientation. -- Beland 05:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality in animals

I proposed a rename of Homosexuality in animals to Sexuality in animals or Animal sexuality or something similar. The reasons are twofold:

This follows the convention being established by the renaming of many of the homosexuality-related articles.
The article covers a lot more than just homosexual-like behavior in animals.

There is a vote on the bottom of Talk:Homosexuality_in_animals. -Seth Mahoney 19:54, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion re introduction

The introduction to this article is truely, truely awful. I suggest tearing it down and rewriting it. →Raul654 05:43, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there are more elegant introductions on WP - however, check the "definition dispute" above to see why it looks that way. I can do without a repetition of this argument. -- AlexR 08:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== There is a wide variety of sexual behavior in animal kingdom , and the high class animals are close to law class humans, so you can fine a similar phenomena between them . ==

I think some people will remind us that the polygamy is a well known phenomena in the animal kingdom, and that woman cant kill a man after intercourse just because the black spider and bees do that, we don’t have to inherit all from animal kingdom that man belong to, because the idea of evolution is to correct the behavior of the animal and turn it to a neuter .

The sexual preference is affected a lot by the ideological and psychological character of the person, people who like violence in doing sex, or dirty chat during it, men who prefer hairy pussy , women who prefer hairy men, women who prefer bearded men, women who prefer unbearded men , women who prefer men with long hair, or don’t like them and don’t attract to them at all, men who prefer women with short hair, I knew a man who was very straight said that he find long hair for a woman " disgusting " !

Sexual identity

Please note that there are two different concepts associated with the term "sexual identity". The first is male/female identity, which is what sexual identity covers. The second is self-identification with respect to orientation, e.g. "I am gay." This is the meaning used by the introduction, and this meaning is covered in a section on "sexual identity" in the article sexual orientation. This is certainly a confusing arrangement, and I would support making "sexual identity" a disambiguation page or other remedy. -- Beland 03:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Health Risk Revert 04/15/2005

Your additions are not fact; the percentages are skewed as there as never been a census on the number of homosexuals and does not even begin to take into account the widely accepted bisexuality reported by Kinsey. Furthermore even countries such as the Netherlands that do have such information have reported no major discrepancies between heterosexuals and homosexuals; in fact homosexuals had a lower divorce rate. It may be true that HIV transmission is easier during anal sex, but not all homosexuals have anal sex and many who do practice safe-sex. That information belongs in anal sex. I would appreciate it if you stop posting these “facts” from Christian hate sites. Apollomelos 21:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I very much agree - even if, for example, the thing about thyroid fever is correct, that is not a health risk of homosexuality, but of eating feces - something some straight people do as well, and most homosexual people do not. Similar statements could be made for most of those "statistics", but I guess it is pointless - people who compile such "statistics" are not exactly known for listening to arguments anyway. -- AlexR 00:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does any point of view other than your own, stem only from “Christian hate sites”? Is it not possible for your view to be skewed as well? Why must you remove any point of view other than your own? -- Rgordey 23:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rgordey. Look at every other wikipedia article that contains information about a potentionally hazardous behavior. There is a list of health risks/ safety section at the end of each article. See spud gun, motorcycle, rifle for quick examples. If you want to make a difference, add information about using condoms. 69.42.5.52 22:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Possible solution: Since the "health risks" aren't actually peculiar to homosexuality, add them to both homosexuality and heterosexuality (and maybe bisexuality as well). -Seth Mahoney 01:01, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, though it bears mentioning which populations in each group are more at risk (such as truck drivers and teachers in Africa, homosexual men with partner lists in the three and four digits in the west, etc.) Haiduc 01:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please don't encourage other users to do this. See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. We should welcome a "health risks" section here as long as it's done neutrally. Sloppily-cited lists copied from godhatesfags.com are unacceptable, of course. The "health risks" section we're discussing here is thinly-veiled Fred Phelps propaganda, much of it apparently made-up in the old coot's head. But I don't think it's POV to simply state that unprotected anal sex (both gay and straight) is a good way to get HIV, and gay health groups recommend safe sex. Rhobite 01:12, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hrm. I was joking. The fact is that there are no health risks associated with being gay, only with doing certain things. Notes on health risks, if they are pertinent to an encyclopedia at all, belong in the articles discussing specific acts. (Its also worth noting that this article discusses gay men and lesbians, making "health risks" even less pertinent.) -Seth Mahoney 02:52, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Being an open member of the gay community for nearly 7 and a half years, I truely believe wikipedia is withholding valuable information from this article. It is imperative that young homosexuals know the facts to make the correct decisions about sex. The consequences can be (and often are) deadly. 69.42.5.52 02:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Health Risk Revert 04/17/2005

In addition to what has already been said above much of what you have listed would be more correctly defined as a health risk of promiscuity and unprotected sex. Sexual history is a much greater indicator of the listed health risks than sexual preference. -- CVaneg 01:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, the proposed "health risks" section is mostly copied from godhatesfags.com, and "fag" has simply been replaced with "homosexual". The citations are sloppy, or simply fabricated - I couldn't find the CDC / Associated Press article, for instance. Rhobite 21:03, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Several of the bullet points in the "health risks" section referenced a mysterious "Dr. E. Fields". Well whaddya know, I tracked him down. What a respectable source, in addition to opposing homosexuals it turns out that Dr. Fields is dedicated to the survival of the White race. He belongs to nice groups such as National Vanguard, and denies the holocaust. What a cool guy! [1] [2] Rhobite 01:29, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sources: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) web site Slides from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/graphics/trends.htm Page Titled: AIDS Surveillance - Trends

Just for the year 2003 there were approximately 50,000 newly diagnosed cases in the US of AIDS regardless of gender, sexual preference or transmission vector.

Just for the year 2003 there were approximately 25,000 newly diagnosed cases of AIDS attributed to Male/Male sexual contact.

That is approximately 50% of new cases of AIDS from an estimated 7% of the total nation’s population. (I have seen thousands of estimates of gay population both higher and lower. Seven percent seems to be the media’s guess. It should be less if we discount for lesbian women being part of the initial seven percent)

I have tried not to skew the facts however, if you still say “there is no risk for being gay” your just dancing with semantics. Why do adult black (Afro-American) men have a higher risk of heart disease than white (Anglo-Saxon) males? (Rhetorical) I have no idea, but they still do. That doesn’t make me a racist no more than observing that there IS a health risk for being gay. And I use the term ‘gay’ to mean the state-of-being, as in “I have been gay all my life.” and “I will live and die gay.”

The whole purpose of the ‘Homosexuality’ article is supposed to present the pertinent evidence in an unbiased fashion and let the reader determine for his- or herself the validity.

Rgordey 20:49, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I'm not at all sure what you're saying. There are no health risks that are inherently a part of being gay, at least if you are referring to HIV/AIDS, because some gay people are lesbians, some gay men don't have sex, some gay men only have oral sex (which presents a much lower risk of HIV transmission than most other sex acts), and so on. They are all gay people. Further, that a certain group experiences on average a higher incidence of certain conditions does not mean that being in that group gives you a higher chance of developing that condition. If, for example, on average white men aged 20-30 had a higher incidence of heart attack brought on by poor diet, that doesn't mean that men aged 20-30 who eat healthy meals have a higher chance of having a heart attack. Being gay doesn't increase your risk of anything. Certain acts, which are not inherently connected to being gay or straight or anything else, sometimes do.

Further, based on the information you have provided, AIDS cases resulting from male-male sex are leveling off, whereas AIDS cases resulting from heterosexual contact, especially among adolescents, are going through the roof (one thing to note here, both in reference to gay and straight people, is that AIDS usually takes a while to develop after the initial infection, so this information is a few years older than it looks, if you're talking infection rates). Given that information, it would seem that not only is AIDS a health risk to everyone, but perpetuating the myth, whether by throwing out a skewed view of the "facts" or by stating it outright, that AIDS is a gay disease does a disservice to heterosexuals everywhere. -Seth Mahoney 19:47, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize; I'll try to be clearer. (If you will allow me to paraphrase) I am suggesting there are certain acts, which ARE inherently connected to being gay or straight. It is my understanding that the exceptions you site while completely valid are in the miniscule minority and don’t effect the conclusion I presented. I had assumed it’s given that when I referred to gay men in particular I meant gay and bisexual men who practice same-sex intercourse. I was trying to make a general observation. I am aware I was purposefully being inclusive partly because I am a lazy typist. I didn’t make any distinguishing observation between oral or anal sex because I didn’t have the supporting data. Again, I mean intercourse or sex to be a broad term as I didn’t have CDC data for different individual habits. I think the vast majority of people both gay and straight agree there are differences in being gay while at the same time acknowledge for the overwhelming majority of gay people, they “put into practice” there gayness; I was hoping my broad reference would have been clear.-Rgordey 22:20, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, in a nutshell, here's what I'm getting at:

1. Unprotected anal sex is the biggest culprit in transmitting HIV between men.

2. There are gay men who have sex, but don't have anal sex, and among those men who do the majority usually practice safer sex.

3. These men are all practicing homosexuals.

4. Therefore, having unprotected anal sex is not intrinsically a part of being a practicing homosexual.

5. Therefore, increased risk of HIV transmission is not intrinsically a part of being a practicing homosexual.

6. Therefore, any data you have collected regarding HIV transmission among gay men belongs, if anywhere, on the pages that discuss the specific acts, and not here.

-Seth Mahoney 21:19, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Seth, risks of AIDS transmission would be more appropriate for anal sex (which already discusses it), safe sex (which touches on the topic briefly), and probably some other places. One context in which AIDS would be appropriate for this article would be how it has shaped the gay community and how it was initially percieved as a "Gay Plague". -- CVaneg 22:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Assertion: “Unprotected anal sex is the biggest culprit in transmitting HIV between men.” – While I do not have hard data to support this, I would tend to agree. The truth is I do not know. Please share your data sources.

This is just commonly accepted fact. HIV is transmitted through blood, semen, and vaginal fluids. It is only very rarely transmitted by oral sex, because there's no way for the virus in the semen, even if ingested, to get into the body. I'm sure the CDC has info if you want to look there.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq19.htm Dated: December 15, 2003 "Can I get HIV from oral sex? Yes, it is possible for either partner to become infected with HIV through performing or receiving oral sex." "...no one knows exactly what the degree of risk is..." -- Rgordey 17:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right, you'll note I didn't deny that HIV can be transmitted via oral sex, so I don't know what you're hoping to prove. You might also want to note that if you go to the effort of going about proving that HIV is transmitted by all sex acts gay men engage in (I'm pretty sure its not), you've simultaneously proven that HIV is transmitted by all sex acts straight couples engage in (except straight couples have one additional act that transmits HIV), so you still haven't proven that there is some inherent health risk to being gay, just to being a sexually active human being. Which suggests that the appropriate place for any of this information is on the pages describing the specific acts themselves. Therefore, until you actually provide proof that being gay is inherently a health risk, any changes to the article to that effect will be reverted. There will be no further discussion on my part regarding this point. -Seth Mahoney 14:50, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

So then why does 7% of the nations population develope 50% of the nations's AIDS cases? If you'll notice, I have not made any changes at all to the article - ever. I had hoped someone else would. Why do you feel the need to threaten me with a revert? Do you own this article? - Rgordey@16:59 Apr 28 2005

I hadn't noticed, actually. I assumed that since you were participating so much in the discussion your changes had prompted it. My apologies. And no, I don't own the article, but that doesn't mean that I, or someone else, will not revert changes that amount to a fiction. Not a threat, just the way things are. -Seth Mahoney 03:17, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Supposition “There are gay men who have sex, but don't have anal sex…” – Again I would tend to agree however I am not sure that this is a large enough of a subgroup to make that much difference in the statistics presented.

Here's my major point: it doesn't matter what difference it makes in the statistics. It could make a .0000000000000001% difference, and it wouldn't matter, because if there is even one gay man who doesn't have anal sex, then having anal sex isn't necessarily a part of being gay.

Predicated Supposition “…and among those men who do the majority usually practice safer sex.” – Again how can you be sure? I haven’t found any empirical data that supports this. Please share your sources.

Well, I guess I'm basing this primarily on my own experience, but most of the gay men I have known claim to primarily practice safer sex, I have almost always practiced safer sex, most of my partners have practiced safer sex, at least with me, all the gay men I have known have never had a short supply of condoms... I'm not sure what evidence you want.

Supposition “These men are all practicing homosexuals.” – Fine, I am not arguing this.

Well, you kind of have to be, if you're acknowledging that some gay men don't have anal sex, but arguing that nonetheless all gay men are at increased risk from HIV, which is what you would have to be arguing to assert that being gay somehow puts you at increased risk of HIV.

I don't think that was the argument. I think the point is simply that - as medical organizations themselves say - gay men as a group (emphasis on the latter word) have a higher statistical rate of HIV infection than is the case with most other groups in the population. That doesn't mean that all gay men are individually at greater risk, nor would such need to be the case for these statistics to be relevant to this article. 152.163.100.12 02:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

His assertion, elsewhere on this talk page, is that being gay is inherently a health risk, therefore the data belongs here. The assertion is false. Yours, that there is a higher HIV rate among gay men than among other population groups, is much stronger one for including some information regarding gay men and HIV/AIDS (which is probably covered somewhere in its own article anyway - at least, I'd be surprised if it wasn't), however that still doesn't justify including something to the effect that being gay is hazardous to one's health or that there are health risks associated with homosexuality - they are associated with particular acts, regardless of the genders of the people engaging in them. -Seth Mahoney 02:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Conclusion “Therefore, having unprotected anal sex is not intrinsically a part of being a practicing homosexual.” – Where is your data? How did you come to this conclusion?

I don't actually need data here. This conclusion follows from my premises.

Conclusion “Therefore, increased risk of HIV transmission is not intrinsically a part of being a practicing homosexual.” – The data I presented seems to indicate the opposite conclusion.

No, the data you presented suggests no such conclusion.

Conclusion “Therefore, any data you have collected regarding HIV transmission among gay men belongs, if anywhere, on the pages that discuss the specific acts, and not here.” - This is the one that gave me pause. Where should a relevant warning that has transience mortality implications, to say the least, be placed? I am sorry it is unpopular, but that has nothing to do with its relevancy. Perhaps if more were aware of this data they would be alive now? -Rgordey 3:10, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I told you where it should go. I don't know what else you want.

-Seth Mahoney 02:24, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

first nations

it is true that homosexuals among First Nations and Native Americans were called Two Sirited people and were respected and even reveared, for having a closer connection to the earth then most, i was wondering if this should be included in the article... what do you think? Gabrielsimon 05:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is Two-Spirit to check, but briefly, that term refers to transgender people, not homosexual people. -- AlexR 09:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is only partially correct, from what I have seen. Two-spirit expression is very fluid and not all two-spirit people take on the gender chractersitics of the opposite sex, suggesting that those may be garden-variety homosexuals. Haiduc 10:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then be so kind and update Two-Spirit, since all I ever heard was that two-spirit people are usually considered gender-variant. Then again, the framework two-spirits were set in was probably different from the current western one, so that ought to be explained in detail. -- AlexR 11:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Semantics: being gay is gender variance. Hyacinth 21:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, usually it is not included in "gender variant", but at the very least that is open to debate. -- AlexR 00:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Different cultures use(d) "two-spirited" differently, and some cultures had other words. Not all native cultures celebrated homosexuality either. Exploding Boy 22:36, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

i never said they all celebrated two spirited people, i said they reered hem for thier difference, unlike how people from more european style civilisations just feared and hated and misunderstood it all. aboce all else, homosexuality was accepted among native cultures. Gabrielsimon 23:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just among the Sioux (which includes several cultural variants identified by tribe or nation) there are very strongly held differences. One group is intolerant and forces non-conforming individuals out. The other group gives "two-spirit people" a legitimate place in society. I think Alex is right about the framework thing. The way it seems to be explained is that some people with male genitalia feel like women. Therefore they do things appropriate to that gender. Having sex with men may be part of the feminine gender role of some of them but not necessarily all of them. On the other hand, I have never heard of these two-spirit people having sex with women. I'll have to root through my books. Another complication, now that I think of it, is that there is another concept that may be applied: "backwards people." As Lame Deer explains it (see: Lame Deer, Seeker of Visions"), "backwards people" do everything the other way. If it is hot they will put on a coat. If it gets cold they will take the coat off. Their genius evidently tells them to do everything the "wrong" way. Having sex with the "wrong" people could be included. Lame Deer doesn't mention sex acts, as far as I can recall. (I think I would have noticed.) But I believe other people do make this connection -- maybe even taking things to the extreme that the "anti-sense-ness" of these people is solely limited to sexual behavior. 金 (Kim) 07:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Choice

a good number of homosexual people i have spoken to say that their being the way they are was not a choice, but that they were born that way. should that have a place in the article?

Gabrielsimon 05:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be covered at Homosexuality#Malleability. --SPUI (talk) 05:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

idiocey

i find it strange that small minded idiots keep vandalizing pages all over this site....

Gabrielsimon 03:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the Arabic literature was clear from homosexualities until they invaded Europe and read the greek's books, no men, no boys, no shemales, the Zionist organizations tells us that Buddism didn’t stand against the same sex relationships, and jump immediately to the next point without telling us or giving us time to remember that Buda, told his students not to deal with females, not to touch them, not to speak to them, not to look at them, and when his best student Ananda, in the famous story asked him what if one lady start talk to him, he told him to answer her ( what a polite !! ) but keep the conversation as short as possible and not to look as much as he can ! now what the poor guys would do !? the difference between Buda and Plato on one hand, and Jesus and Mohammad on the other, is that women are more kept away from philosophy then her to be kept away from religion, because in religion she would just teach the inherited rules to children or to other women, but not to men, she must know religion very well to be abele to educate children and rise them, she can teach the rules, but not making them, or reshaped them, if she dare to try, and started become strong, man start give her more authorities on the field of transferring the rules , like in Iran lately, how they allow women to be Imam of pray of a group of women instead of elderly man, and how she even can have this leadership on men like in muslems of west, because can man allow her to teach him what other men said, but not to teach him how to think .

What exactly are you trying to argue here? -Seth Mahoney July 4, 2005 18:57 (UTC)

Animal Kingdom Revert 04/21/2005

"Clearly, homosexuality among animals may refer only to an apparent sexual behavior. Homosexual behavior is observable"

That revision is wrong for the following reasons:

Biologist call it common not just "obersvable" - that is POV
- OK
"Clearly" is a POV word
- OK. Explained.
Some of the documented cases were in animals that mate for life therefore it is not only a "sexual behavior".
- It is behavior, even if life-long.
In the species that it may be a sexual behavior it would be just as true for any form of sexuality including heterosexuality.

There is no reason for this revision and I am assuming good-faith. Thanks for your help to the user who made it. 63.224.248.30 20:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But there is. One has to stay away of antropomorphism that begins with the very title "animal kingdom" (replaced), otherwise you are in trouble. One has to explain human homosexuality basing on the preexisting phenomena in "animal kingdom", not vice versa. You can only observe the behavior or animals and draw conclusions; you cannot ask a cow how it feels.

Thanks for clear explanation of your objections. I hope you will understand my position and we can find a way how to put it forth in a reasonable way.

By the way, you also reverted my addition that cows mount cows. A cowboy sees it every day in a sufficiently large herd. I believe it was unintentional, but if you have a real objection, please explain. Mikkalai 22:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kingdom (biology) is a technical term, not anthropomorphism. Joe D (t) 22:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I am not a native English speaker, and you guessed correctly, I forgot about this meaning. Nevertheless, if one wants to go really technical, then "kingdom Animalia" is the usage, if you want to avoid confusion with, e.g., Disney's Animal Kingdom. Also I suspect that the original author did not really mean to discuss homosehuality among, say, Nematoda, so if not antropomorphism then an overkill. Mikkalai 23:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Elvis Presley's possible homosexuality

A devoted Elvis fan is constantly deleting what is written about Presley's possible homosexuality in two different books on Elvis and some other sources. One of these sources is written by the king's stepmother, Dee Presley. In the Wikipedia article on Elvis is only written that some authors claim that Elvis was gay. The reader may decide whether or not this accusation is true. This Elvis fan seems to be the same guy who is still under a Wikipedia hard ban. He is even deleting parts of the discussion and claims, without proof, that Elvis slept with hundreds of women. I do not understand why this Elvis fan sees the king's possible homosexuality as a problem. See Talk:Elvis Presley.

Sociology

"Those who are atheist, agnostic or secularist have been consistently shown to be tolerant of homosexuality as well as supportive of gay-rights legislation. Countries with significant populations of these groups are often among the most accepting of gay citizens."

Is this true? I don't think the Soviet Union or China were/are particularly accepting of homosexuality despite the fact that both were/are officially atheist. I'm not going to edit the article, as I don't know for sure, but someone who knows more about it probably should look into it. Vonspringer 01:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any dominant ideological force can be used to attack homosexuality. The CCP was so strongly against homosexuality for ideological reasons that they blinded themselves not only to the number of people who were motivated to engage in homosexual relationships but also to the actual behavior of ordinary people. Any position, religious or ideological, that interferes with people seeking truth in objective, empirical, investigation and demands of them that they accept as truth the dictates of some "holy book" (whether it's the Bible or Mao's little red book) makes it easier for opponents of homosexuality to attack it. All they have to do is find an authority figure that says its bad. When empirical investigation and free inquiry is practicable then opponents have trouble finding any real objection to homosexuality. So I don't think it is the athetism, agnosticism, or whatever that is behind the greater tolerance. Rather it is a question of the methodologies for determining what is true that are deemed acceptable in any given society.

The writer of the passage quoted above would probably have trouble coming up with statistically valid studies to prove his/her point. 金 (Kim) 03:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then perhaps the first sentence could better read something more like: "Many of those who are atheist, agnostic or secularist consider themselves to be tolerant of homosexuality as well as supportive of gay-rights legislation." The second sentence might need to be more severly modified or deleted since it makes a statistical statement without citing research.

Vonspringer 07:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, even that sentence does not hold much water, above it is already mentionend that "atheist, agnostic or secularist" does not automatically equal LGBT-friendly; and it implicitly still implies that not being "atheist, agnostic or secularist" means automatically a homophobic bias. That seems to me very much like one of those US based POVs, where that experience probably can be made, but fact is, one has nothing to do with the other. Even when one assumes that many religious leaders or teachings have a homophobic bias, experience in Europe at least has shown that this does not necessarily mean that those belonging to these religious groups show the same bias. Most ceretainly it is not a necessary relation. So I'd just cut it, because it is - at least right now - nothing but POV crap. -- AlexR 08:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's more or less what I was worried about as well. I agree that cutting the entire section would be best, since there is by definition no uniform atheist position on such a subject. And I don't like the implication that religion implies intolerance. But I'm not going to do the modification myself since I have no idea how to do the necessary updates to the table of contents. If you'd like to, feel free to go ahead and chop it yourself if there are no objections from anyone else. Vonspringer 20:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Abrahamic

Christianity 04/27/05

Strong's Number: 8441 Pronunciation: tow`ebah to-ay-baw' or

Total Occurrences: 117 KJV Word Usage: abomination (113) , abominable thing (2) , abominable (2)

תעבה to`ebah to-ay-baw' act part of 8581 ; TWOT-2530a; n f

Definition: 1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable 1a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages) 1b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)

In the Book of Leviticus (Vayikra ויקרא), which is a book of the Torah (תורה), God reveals his commandments or laws through Moses, in an ethical framework. In the context of Chapter 18, (in modern Christian Bibles), God pronounces his law concerning sexual immorality. The Hebrew word תעבה or abomination, as it was translated into English, is used many times throughout the chapter. For example, it is used to describe incest, adultery, the act of same gender intercourse and bestiality.

While is true the word is used 117 times, but to liken the word abomination to “being arrogant or eating shellfish” as exemplar is being narrow minded and trying to fabricate or further a particular point of view. With regards to usage and context incest and bestiality bound the act of same gender intercourse. However I would suggest the phrase “—much like being arrogant or eating shellfish.” Should be removed rather than include a comparative. I understand the Hebrew Torah, Christian Bible and the Qur'an of Islam all view the act of same gender intercourse as a violation of God’s law. Why not let this be stated here plainly and be done with it? Rgordey 19:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because the (potentially sanctimonious) phrase "God's law" can refer to all manner of things, many of them trivial, ridiculous, or nonsensical to modern eyes. Their inclusion thus contextualizes the argument. Haiduc 12:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Health risks redux

While there are no health risks associated with homosexuality, just as there are no health risks associated with heterosexuality, there ARE sex risks associated with certain aspects of gay culture and of straight culture. We (gays in the west) have a problem in the community. Friends of mine are either dead or sick. And now that people are becoming complacent that problem is intensifying rather than going away. People may not be dying like they were ten - fifteen years ago, but they are continuing, some to get sick and others to infect their partners, unknowingly or not. How and where should we discuss this? A new section? Under Gay community? That seems like a proper place for an expanded discussion, but should there not be a pointer, a phrase or two, in this article, as we do with many other aspects? Haiduc 04:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're totally right. This does need to be discussed, and relevant statistics could be useful info to use. I'd be surprised if there wasn't already an article that could be linked to and paraphrased. I'll do some digging and report back any findings. -Seth Mahoney 04:09, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Some useful articles as a starter might be Homosexuality and medical science, AIDS myths and urban legends, AIDS (especially "Current status"), Safe sex, and Bugchasing. I'd prefer to see the new section titled something along the lines of Reactions to HIV/AIDS within the gay community or something like that. -Seth Mahoney 04:23, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

From RfC

Hi all. I've read through the recent talk entries, but I'm not entirely sure what disputes remain. Can someone give me a thumbnail update on what issue or issues precipitated the RfC? · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:07, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Religion

Instead of cutting the Atheists, Agnostics, and Secularists section entirely, as suggested by the "Sociology" talk section above, I made an effort to be more informative but factual, and completely rewrote it.

The section on religion in this article is much longer than the article Religion and homosexuality, which is only a little insane. I will work on moving material there in the near future. -- Beland 02:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Whether here or there I hope the allegations of actively homosexual Popes and Cardinals can either be withdrwn or substantiated. Andycjp 25th May 2005

The Lariviere book has a handful of homosexual popes and cardinals (Michel Lariviere, Homosexuels et bisexuels celebres, Deletraz Editions, Paris, 1997) Haiduc 09:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Debate on format

Two users are discussing whether the lists of arguments set out in the Polemic section should be left as lists or should be reformatted as narrative paragraphs. Opinons of other users would be welcome. Haiduc 02:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

edit needed

"Anthropologists divide homosexuality into three major types: fags, fagiitty fags, and homos. See Forms below."

can someone sort this out, it appears differently when i try to edit, not sure what to do.

It was already fixed--Tznkai 18:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

clarify point of view.

There are users trying to remove logical arguments that they obviously disagree with by calling it POV. Please clarify this. Just because an outside source says it exists, does that make it legit? I would tend to side with logic- if you can disprove those arguments logically I would be happy to recant.

Above by User:IntellectualProp2002. Please make sure to sign your comments by using four tildes in a row ~~~~. It makes these pages easier to read. Also, to FCYTravis... is this IP you? 207.224.198.170 (revert intellectualprop, use talk page to discuss why your origincal research and non-mainstream conspiracies should be included, if you or your ip address reverts again you will be blocked for 3RR) -- if so, perhaps you should be careful yourself of 3RR; if you're this IP, I count this last revert to be your fourth. If not, then please disregard. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:06, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I am separate although the other ip addresses I believe are connected to intellectualprop2002. If you wish to develop your material in the specifc articles and than once that has been wordsmithed insert a small summary feel free. Mainstream science has cited androgen links in MANY studies yet we only half a sentence on this page for that because of size constraints. 207.224.198.170 22:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Size constraints? Wikipedia is not paper.. If it's a valid theory, there's no reason why those theories can't be included. These are particularly critical to social debates over homosexuality, so I can't see how it can be argued for them to be excluded. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Can we add the fourteen paragraphs of mainstream scientific studies on adrogen to the article as well? 207.224.198.170 22:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I rather resent the allegations of sockpuppetry (do you really think I would jeopardize my admin candidacy over this?), but I'll set that aside for now, per WP:FAITH. The article is already 70KB long - fringe arguments such as those being added do not merit lengthy, paragraph-long insertions in this already-overlong article. The proper place would be a Scientific theories of homosexuality article, or some such, but as such an article does not exist, that's neither here nor there. --FCYTravis 22:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look, I am not particularly well versed in whatever these theories are, but isn't it more proper to air them in a discussion setting instead of just reverting things and seeking to quash debate over it? (I ask this of both sides of this current edit war).) What are these theories that are being proposed? Let the community see them and decide. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to this process. I wasn't sure what 3RR was, but thanks for the warning. It's not becomming of us to twaddle on insignificant matters. My goal is the truth. I will take your advice and create new aricles, but unless you can find an egregious error in the logic, I insist on including these. I suggest you counter these arguments with ones that offer more information as opposed to ignoring current information. These arguments represent a significant portion of the scientific community, as well, and I cannot rely on what you say is "mainstream."

sorry the last comment was by Intellectualprop2002 22:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)intellectualprop

I see. I took a look at some of these links and looked more carefully at the text being proposed and see them for what they are. I do think they're perhaps worth mentioning in the article, but definitely do not deserve the amount of real estate that's being inserted currently. I agree that it would perhaps be better for a fork article. And FCY, I apologize for any affrontery I caused you -- I just saw all the reverting, plus reverting from an anon IP along the same lines as yours, and was taken a little aback. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

by the way- These arguments are at the crux of the origin of homosexuality. Why don't they deserve discussion? Yes you should put 14 pages supporting your view. JFIntellectualprop2002 22:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I in fact suggested the opposite -- let's discuss it. Can you please make a thumbnail argument for what you would like to insert? Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:37, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Those paragraphs are pretty concise, but I suppose I could reduce them further. JFIntellectualprop2002 22:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am asking for a conversational argument, not cited text. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:54, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Please see mall. section, mainstream scientific organizations clearly state homosexual orientation is not a choice and it cannot be changed due to innate factors that are immutable. A social construct infers choice and is definently a minority fringe view in todays world (2005), now in the 1980s that was another story... Globeism 22:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On top of that mutiple admins have been working to reduce this articles size removing many mainstream views to their own articles. These fringes do not deserve 75% of the biology sections when they only represent perhaps 1% of science. This is a summary article in that respect. Globeism 22:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have researched these subjects in depth. This new material is, well, foor lack of better word disgusting and quite a minority view. Globeism 22:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There exists a Genetics and sexual orientation article. I believe any new material relating to the debate over genetics and homosexuality be taken to that article. I have clarified the link to that article in my latest edit of the main article. --FCYTravis 23:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- Additionally, your argument that homosexuality is caused by "nurture" versus "nature" seems adequately treated in this paragraph: Conservative religious congregations maintain that being gay is a self-indulgent transgressive choice, like being a fast driver, and state it is learned behavior. Thus it is their position that all homosexuality is of a preferential nature. Some of the organizations that believe homosexuality is a choice and a violation of their religious creeds offer "conversion therapies" for lesbians and gay men in an attempt to change their sexual orientation. Some groups, most notably the Roman Catholic Church, take an ambiguous position on whether homosexual orientation is a free choice, explaining that the psychological basis behind it is not well understood. It is viewed as a "cross that must be borne", and homosexual individuals are expected to practice chastity. [3] (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm) I'm sorry, as much as I respect your obviously strongly-held views, I personally feel that they are fairly represented already in this article. As FCYT said above, I encourage you to see if your information would fit somewhere in the Genetics and sexual orientation article. Thanks · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:07, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

3 revert rule and revert wars

I would invite all the participants in this debate to please read WP:3RR. Note that sockpuppets are not allowed as a way of circumventing the 3RR. -- Karada 23:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Globeism- you're being extremely close minded. We do not know everything there is to know about anything. If you can explain to me how those arguments are wrong, I will recant. I will not rely on your supposed "mainstream science." That means nothing to me.

Katefan- sorry. Here's the thumb- sex genes instruct us to have sex and reproduce. We wouldn't like sex if it didn't promote life. Homosexuality doesn't promote life because offspring is cannot happen, so the allele (if it existed) would kill itself off through natural selection.

JFIntellectualprop2002 23:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is a POV. Arguably, homosexuality promotes life in certain circumstances by providing a limitation on human population growth - which, if left unchecked, could threaten the survival of the human species. Secondly, many gay/bisexual people have children through surrogacy or heterosexual relationships. --FCYTravis 23:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Katefan- I don't know if you were directing that last post to me, but my arguments do not have anything to do with religion or politics. It is logic based on scientific findings. The section that you referred to implies that this only conservative religious people "feel" that homosexuality is a choice. I'm interested in the truth, not what people feel. Thanks for understanding. :D JFIntellectualprop2002 23:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarifications. It's an interesting theory; do you have research to back that up? Anyway, I feel that, also, it's more appropriate for the Genetics and sexual orientation article, where they are purposefully collecting all manner of scientific research on the issue. Thanks · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:14, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think saying that only "conservative" religious organizations believe that is a bit of a POV in itself - I've changed it to simply say "Some" religious organizations. --FCYTravis 23:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Travis- that was the most illogical thing I've ever heard- homosexuality promotes life by limiting it. As for the children of homosexuals- I understand that that happens, but the children are not created out of the homosexual couple as in a heterosexual couple, and if he was, it is not natural in the evolutionary sense.Intellectualprop2002 23:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's your POV that it's illogical. Given that population growth beyond habitat limitations is a major factor in the cycles of many animals, it's not out of the question to postulate that homosexuality could be a natural evolution to check rampant population growth by reducing the number of members of the population which are likely to engage in behaviour that expands the population. This would have the effect of *promoting* the overall sustainable lifespan of the species by preventing or moderating boom-crash cycles. It's just as plausible as anything you've put down. --FCYTravis 23:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right- there may be a better location for this information, but this article deserves some recognition of scientific and logical evidence supporting these arguments, not just "some" religious groups. Intellectualprop2002 23:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

we do have narth included, which claims to be not religious, though it is a fringe group as well, (1000 psychologist versus. apa @ hundred of thousands)

Yes, you could be right. There could perhaps be a generic paragraph stating that some scientific research supports the "nurture" theory. Travis, how could this be done? · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Intellectualprop I question whether you have researched this topic much. You have one author who thinks it might be an evolutionary disadvantage when highly regarded universities such as Georgetown have put forth it is an evolutionary advantage, not to mention widespread throughout the animal kingdoms. Your disdain for scientific authority frightens me. I believe, even you must admit your view is a TINY minority. Even China's medical organizations backed away from the claim it is changeable is 1999 and following the world majority and mainstream scientific views. Globeism 23:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Even if it is a disadvantage, it's entirely possible to have people who are carry the "gay gene". and who reproduce (See recessive gene). That's assuming that sexuality is based on a single gene. On top of that there are those who consider sexual orientation to be something measured along a scale rather than pigeonholed into distinct categories. So really, I think the matter is quite a bit more complex than you are making it out to be Intellectualprop --CVaneg 23:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And just because you think it is "logical" does not mean it can be included in Wikipedia. We need citations, evidence, support, this is not original research for user's "logical" views or fringe respresentation. We designate what major, highly regarded authorities say, and likewise specifiy views that are minority as such. It is to bad Wikipedia does not have a MLA format. Globeism 23:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

globeism- please address the argument at hand, and abstain from red herring personal attacks.

Travis- you have a point about the maintenance of certain population levels, but that is more likely a social construct as opposed to a genetic one. Do you really think genes know what the world population is?

Genes don't know that an animal needs to fly, either. It simply happens to be an evolutionary advantage. A population with a recessive trait of nonreproduction could have an evolutionary advantage over a population without a similar trait that goes through more violent boom-bust cycles. --FCYTravis 00:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

see androgen studies, the more children you have the higher likelehood of homosexual children Globeism 23:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I accept that sources could be a benefit to this forum, but do "a number of researchers," or "recent estimates," or "many studies," or "the great majority of workers in medicine and the sciences," constitute sources? If so, I will rephrase my arguments with those meaningless blurbs next time. Thanks for the advice

see specific pages, they have citations because those are summary statements, visist things sucyh as apa statements, or pediatric, etc. Globeism 23:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But I agree with user Jayjg in that wikipedia does need more citations, for example when stating many studies it should give a few examples even in summaries not just specific article Globeism 23:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[3] you should check this out, many organizations such as apa sometimes mention androgen for their reasoning, multiple studies have linked it to homosexuality in humans and animals, brain structure, penis sizes, fingerprints, sweat odors, etc

I wonder if we aren't getting off track a little. It's really immaterial what our personal views are (mine, too). The question we have to answer is -- is there information from a credible source that bears on the debate that is missing in our article? If so, we then have to evaluate how mainstream the view is (so we know how much or little to include). Then, if those conditions are met, we should summarize that viewpoint in that article. Debating amongst ourselves about which theory is correct, while tempting, really detracts from the point of building an NPOV article. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:23, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents: what we've seen regarding the above issue has been the norm in this article for months: any attempt to include a countervailing viewpoint is repeatedly reverted based on an endless series of baseless excuses. Tonight's events are another example of the pattern: after someone added a link to a site for the conservative Catholic organization "Courage", it was inevitably reverted - first by Tony Sidaway, based on the claim that it's allegedly an "ad", although it is in fact the same type of official site as the others in the list. Then Nohat reverted it again, this time claiming that it's "too specific" for inclusion, although that's no more the case than for any of the others in the list. It will undoubtedly now be reverted again, based on a third and equally baseless excuse, then the 3RR will be invoked to make the censorship permanent. The real reason it's being removed is because it represents a view that doesn't sit well with the activists who dominate this article, and that's also the reason they removed the material added by Intellectualprop2002 being discussed above. 205.188.116.13 28 June 2005 08:10 (UTC)

This group, sadly, is not one of the "Organizations that offer support to lesbians and gay men" but another dogmatic effort to propagate an irrational and unscientific conceit toxic to (for example) young people who are trying to make sense of their nature in the face of a climate of hate and who often kill themselves rather than live with this hate. It is no different from a site that might purport to help black people with their blackness in the hope that they will be reborn white someday. As an example of religiously-inspired bigotry it might belong as an exhibit in the aticle on Homophobia, or the one on Superstition. Repeated attempts to force it into this article, which has hewed to scholarly methodology and has survived this far only due to that principle, are propagandistic efforts by people busy calling others "activists." Heal yourself. Haiduc 28 June 2005 09:54 (UTC)

I have to agree with Haiduc on this point. Beyond the group's specious purpose (and the anon's inaccurate description of it in the text of the article), the link is so specific as to be all but useless to the majority of readers on the English Wikipedia. Additionally, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- its articles should hit the high points of a topic, but even though Wikipedia is not paper, it should not be a dumping ground for every piece of fact or fancy -- or every Web site. · Katefan0^(scribble) June 28, 2005 14:52 (UTC)

I certainly didn't expect that type of response from the two of you, who had previously been the most reasonable of the group. I will merely point out that advising people how to live within Catholic morality is not "bigotry" - unless you yourself are biased against this particular religion, as is clearly the case.

At any rate, this is just more censorship, reminiscent of the situation described recently by an editor who had tried to introduce some balance into one of the articles dealing with pedophilia, but found that it was dominated by members of NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association) who were reverting any views which are not supportive of pedophilia. I'm sure they similarly toss around terms like "bigotry" as an excuse to remove anything that doesn't fit their viewpoint. Such tactics are not fooling anyone: it is merely censorship, and such censorship has been the norm in this article for a very long time. 205.188.116.13 28 June 2005 18:12 (UTC)

You failed to refute any of my points, so I don't have much else to say on this score, except that a website espousing adherence to Catholic morality (especially one for Slavs) is not any more germane -- per se -- to the subject of homosexuality than is one about, say, monkeys. · Katefan0^(scribble) June 28, 2005 18:16 (UTC)

The only points you made were: 1) A website for the Slovenian branch of the group is too specific, which I addressed by changing the link to Courage's main site; and 2) You claimed that this group's purpose is "specious", without giving any justification for that inflammatory label - it appears to be merely more of the same anti-Catholic sentiment. The issue here isn't whether you personally agree with this group's goal or religion - Wikipedia is not supposed to be limited to only those items you personally agree with. Up until now, there hasn't been a single link in that list representing a countervailing perspective. 205.188.116.13 28 June 2005 18:31 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to have a list of groups that support gays, then, as misguided as I think the ex-gay movement is, there probably is room for such a link, although perhaps not the one put forth. It would be disingenous to claim that every such group is a mob of crazed hate-mongers. Some of these people really do believe that they are helping gays and approach "therapy" in a supportive way, even if they are, in my opinion, wrong. --CVaneg 28 June 2005 19:22 (UTC)

I am sorry if this is perceived by the anon as "censorship," but the fact is that until we have scientific evidence that these groups are helpful and useful to people drawn to same-sex relationships (perhaps it exists, but I am not aware of it, only of evidence debunking all the claims of these groups), I do not see how their inclusion can be justified here under this rubric. Religious contributions are not necessarily bigotry, but something like this, coming from a group that has historically done so much harm, and coming with no claim to legitimacy other than its self-styled assertion that it is "therapeutic" remains to my eye an obvious example of bigotry. Remember when the Australian government was forcibly taking aboriginee children away from their parents to raise them in orphanages to be accultured into white society? Would you categorize that under a list of "Social assistance for Aboriginees," because that was the intent of the policy? Haiduc 29 June 2005 03:27 (UTC)

I think the simplest way around this is not to class them as helpful or not helpful. I think the section I created is sufficiently NPOV and yet accurately describes these group's base ideals by calling them "Groups that seek to change homosexuals' sexual orientation or sexual identity." Myabe that's good, maybe it's bad; it takes no stance. · Katefan0^(scribble) June 29, 2005 12:18 (UTC)

Shouldn't we simply describe them as Ex-gay groups, referring to that article for more information? Axon 29 June 2005 12:43 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that personally, but I would anticipate the people pushing for those groups' inclusion would quibble with that descriptor. For instance, Courage doesn't claim to try to "turn" people straight, but rather only to stop referring to themselves as gay. That is, sort of, slightly different. · Katefan0^(scribble) June 29, 2005 12:45 (UTC)

Actually, I believe "ex-gay" can refer to those who have allegedly changed their sexual orientation from gay to straight and those who are simply celibate. I believe courage were once an "ex gay" but ceased using reparative therapy due to their lack of efficacy[4]. So you are correct, they can no longer be referred to as an ex-gay group. Axon 04 July 2005 14:13 (UTC)

I have no problem with the link as long as it is not classed with "Organizations that offer support to lesbians and gay men". Haiduc 30 June 2005 02:16 (UTC)

Aesthetic attraction

At the top of the page, the article currently gives one definition of homosexuality as "A sexual orientation characterized by aesthetic attraction, romantic love, and sexual desire exclusively or almost exclusively for members of the same sex or gender identity." While I agree with the part about romantic love and sexual desire, I don't think it's fair to say that homosexuality can be characterized by aesthetic attraction exclusively for members of the same sex. Aesthetic attraction applies to all things that one might consider "beautiful", whether they be men or women, or works of art, or whatever. This should be rewritten so that it doesn't seem to imply that to be homosexual means to only find beauty in members of the same sex. Nohat 28 June 2005 06:37 (UTC)

Aesthetic attraction is the precursor for sexual desire. There is no need to de-contextualize something that is obvious and understood to refer to the topic of this article. The apparent conflict you point to would only be a cause for concern in a legal document. Haiduc 28 June 2005 10:17 (UTC)

I think the sentence is misleading. We do a disservice to our readers if we make an ambiguous statement that could be misinterpreted. Nohat 28 June 2005 15:11 (UTC)

The mechanistic reading that you are suggesting ("Oh, you mean that gay people do not like flowers and music and all that stuff?") is not plausible. It becomes impossible to write anything with anything approaching style and ease of readability if your aim is to "idiot-proof" the texts. Why, of all the problems with this article, is this irking you so much? Haiduc 29 June 2005 03:32 (UTC)

Because it's at the very top of the article. How can I begin to address the other problems with the article if I can't even get past the first paragraph without wincing at the terrible writing? It's simply bad style to have misleading or ambiguous sentences, no matter how implausible the alleged "mechanistic" reading. In fact the reason I bring it up is because someone was reading the article over my shoulder and noticed that sentence and remarked, "huh? does that sentence say what I think it says?". The idea encompassed can be succintly and elegantly expressed without being ambiguous and misleading. Why is it so important to you that the ambiguity remain? Nohat 29 June 2005 04:39 (UTC)

Would you like to suggest an alternative phrasing? Haiduc 29 June 2005 11:05 (UTC)

Modifications July 4

I am contributing the following:

One modern example is the oppression of Alan Turing, an English war hero who is credited with cracking the German's Enigma code during World War 2. After the war ended he was caught in his private home having sex and was forced to undergo chemical castration by hormones under court order.

In the United States laws remained on the books persecuting non-heterosexuals in some states until 2003. Some laws outlawed the sale of liquor to three or more gay men while others legally mandated that they be celibate or face penalties including chemical castration. Police raids on places frequented by those who were not heterosexual was common, the most infamous being the Stonewall riots, in this instance gay men resisted government oppression and fought back. Even at the present time many states allow employers to fire an employee because of their sexual orientation or allow land lords to refuse service to non-heterosexuals.

While some premodern societies did not employ categories fully comparable to the modern homosexual or heterosexal dichotomy, this does not demonstrate that the polarity is not applicable to those societies. A common thread of constructionist argument is that no one in antiquity or the Middle Ages experienced homosexuality as an exclusive, permanent or defining mode of sexuality. This argument can be shown to be factually incorrect as evident in ancient Greek writing by Plato clearly showing knowledge of exclusive attraction. (John Boswell)

Michel Foucault and his followers have argued that the homosexual is a modern invention, a mental construct of the last hundred years. That is, of course, true of homosexuality as a scientific or psychiatric category. But it is a mistake to presume that earlier ages thought merely of sexual acts and not of persons, an example being the 16th century Italian artist Gianantonio Bazzi adopted the nickname "Sodoma", an obvious gay identity. (Louis Crompton)

Organizations that claim they have methods that can change sexual orientation

Courage - Apostolate for Catholics who are not heterosexual; provides Roman Catholic theological information encouraging celibacy or modification of sexual orientation

Exodus - Christian ministry who's theology holds non-heterosexual relationships to be sinful and claims they have developed religious methods that can modify sexual orientation

Unless there are any valid objections I will be adding it within 24 hours.

To the objections insofar:

(the US does not physically "castrate" men) - the United States DID use chemical castration for quite some time

("Sodoma" is a reference to the act, not an identity) - if a PERSON went by that NAME, they ARE using it has THEIR identity, they obviously thought their attractions defined their identity

And unless intellectualprop2002 (a known liar, who's references were checked and found to be false) can discuss why this article is NPOV on the talk page it will be removed 67.41.236.211 4 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)

There is a wide variety of sexual behavior in animal kingdom , and the high class animals are close to law class humans, so you can fine a similar phenomena between them . ==

I think some people will remind us that the polygamy is a well known phenomena in the animal kingdom, and that woman cant kill a man after intercourse just because the black spider and bees do that, we don’t have to inherit all from animal kingdom that man belong to, because the idea of evolution is to correct the behavior of the animal and turn it to a neuter .

The sexual preference is affected a lot by the ideological and psychological character of the person, people who like violence in doing sex, or dirty chat during it, men who prefer hairy pussy , women who prefer hairy men, women who prefer bearded men, women who prefer unbearded men , women who prefer men with long hair, or don’t like them and don’t attract to them at all, men who prefer women with short hair, I knew a man who was very straight said that he find long hair for a woman " disgusting " ! (unsigned comment by User:Rightistatheistfemale)

External links to Exodus-style organisations

I don't see the point of leaving these links around to be argued over. The organisations in question are religious in nature and of limited interest and marginal influence (to put it mildly) in the fields of sociology and sexology. The links exist, it seems to me, primarily as advertsements for the religious interests with which they are affiliated. I've removed the section. We have articles on such organisations and a "See also" link to such articles would be better. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)

I would agree: this page already links to the ex-gay page. Axon 4 July 2005 20:37 (UTC)

I agree that ex-gay is the appropriate place for links to those websites. Here they just look like advertisements for a particular point of view which is primarily derived from religion, which is not the subject of this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize on behalf of religion for our errant brothers and sisters, and also suggest we vet all of the external links on this page. On the other hand, I tend to have that opinion about most external links.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)

In reference to Tony Sidaway, Axon, given that the other links are for organizations which each likewise present a "particular point of view", there is no justification for deleting any organization which presents an alternate point of view. --66.216.226.34 5 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)

(I have refactored the above on the principle of Remove personal attacks)

The principle of NPOV is to represent all significant points of view on a subject. We've done that by describing the viewpoints of various religions and providing a link to Ex-gay. We don't do that by providing advertising links to groups that are trying to convert people to their religion.

Courage describes itself as an apostolate and Exodus describes itself as a ministry. They couldn't be plainer, they're avowedly religious organisations, not secular ones. They're inappropriate for an article about homosexuality in a secular encyclopedia, but are appropriate for articles on such organisations.

There really isn't a debate going on over this, it's just a few religious organisations that currently find their views largely unrepresented in secular thinking. Artificially inserting links to them doesn't change that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)

Citing Haiduc's comment is not a "personal attack" against him - if anything, it was his comment which made the personal attack by disparaging a religion he doesn't like. There was no legitimate reason to censor most of my remarks, as anyone can see by looking at the original via the edit history for this talk page. 66.216.226.34 5 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)

On another note: since there's a "Reform Judaism" link, you can hardly claim that these others are being removed because religious organizations are 'out of place' in this article. If all religious organizations are to be excluded, then why is this not being done in the case of liberal religious organizations? 66.216.226.34 5 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)

Despite the common opinion that polls are evil, I think this is an appropriate time to gauge where opnions lie.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)

I'm sure I could find many Christians willing to vote on my side, but that would be silly. Polls are not meaningful because they merely reflect whoever happens to be checking the article's discussion page. 66.216.226.34 5 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)

Likewise, I can find many Christians willing to vote opposite. Thats not the point. I'm using the quick poll to see if we have (near) consensus (of wikipedians) or not.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)

No, it's merely gauging the opinion of the people who happen to edit this specific article, most of whom tend to be gay activists. I could always round up other "Wikipedians" willing to vote for the opposite point of view, but that would merely spark a "poll war" as both groups tried to recruit voters for their side - to say nothing of the "sockpuppets" that both sides would inevitably employ. That's why polls are not meaningful. 66.216.226.34 5 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)

I must say, I find the last post rather offensive. I also find this quickpoll pointless and objectionable, not least because it's poorly constructed; it would be far more productive, and any decision(s) reached would have far more weight, if we discussed the issue and reached a consensus. Exploding Boy July 5, 2005 19:55 (UTC) Added: having taken another look, I'd add that there are now far too many external links given, most of them with only the most tenuous link to the topic. Exploding Boy July 5, 2005 19:57 (UTC)

Exactly how do you believe it could be better constructed? The reason I made it was to see if there is a near consensus among editors. If there is, then discussion becomes simpler. If there isn't, discussion is still needed. I'd also like to point out that managed to have an edit war over these external links. I repeat, an EDIT WAR over EXTERNAL LINKS. Personally, I've found a very useful tool for saying where consensus lies, or is closest to is to take a survey, a poll if you prefer. Again, I am guaging opinions. I do not have the aim nor the ability to declare policy over this article. At any rate. I did this in good faith, and if you have a better solution, by all means go for it.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

Quickpoll

Is having a wikilink to ex-gay sufficient, or should we have external links to these groups?

Yes ex-gay is sufficient

--Tznkai 5 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)
-- AlexR 5 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)
-- Axon 5 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)
-- Seth Mahoney July 5, 2005 17:34 (UTC)
--Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)

No we should have external links to these groups

I do not wish to vote for either option because of the reasons stated here

With the recent edit comments by 67.41.236.211 calling me a "wacko" and an "idiot", this debate has now degenerated a step further.

For whatever it's worth, I don't personally subscribe to the "reparative therapy" idea - in fact the traditional Christian view has always been that same-sex attraction is merely one of countless sinful tendencies that we all have in various combinations, and these tendencies should be resisted by a disciplined life, not therapy (a modern practice). Nevertheless, the people at "Courage" and other such groups are genuinely trying to save souls, and they have kept going despite all the abuse they take from the gay community.

But this is not a debate over the theory itself, but merely a matter of whether to include opposing points of view or not. These links had been allowed previously; I believe it was my friend 67 who removed them, sparking the current edit war. 66.216.226.34 5 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)

Here is an excellent example of your behavior: 30 June 2005 18:43 - You re-insert the links, then you refuse to discuss them, engaging in edit wars instead until 5 July 2005 00:38, five days later. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)

Well when you revert an article (six times in 24 hours) and refuse to discuss why on the talk page (until recently) you are seen as an internet troll. Not to mention the issue of these links had already been agreed upon several months ago. Rarely do you engage in civility, most the time you edit war instead, usually for several days. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)

And I did not remove them though I do agree with those who did. I get tired of edit warring with you, most the time its useless as you return in a month or so. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:37 (UTC)

Needless to stay I decry your generalizations of homosexuals as some sort of political activist. "gay activists" Are you recruiting for the heterosexual lifestyle? It's absurd. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:40 (UTC)

If the above comments were directed at me, I will merely note that the repeated removal of valid material, while using terms like "village idiot" and "wacko" to describe your opponent, would generally be seen as "troll" activity. I, on the other hand, was attempting to restore material that was being deleted, and I have never engaged in uncivil discourse, much less the use of invectives. 66.216.226.34 6 July 2005 11:39 (UTC)

I sympathise with 66.216.226.34. We don't call one anothers whackos and village idiots on Wikipedia. Also I'd like to point out that quickpolls are not binding--the proposal failed. We make decisions by discussing and editing.

I agree that the people at Courage and whatnot do seem to care about people's souls and whatnot. However this is a secular encyclopedia, and homosexuality is not defined in terms of the soul in secular discussions, although in a religious context, depending on the religion, it would have a place. We already link to Ex-gay (I think I recently inserted the link myself and I hope it survived) and we note religious attitudes to homosexuality in the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)

Was there any decision on this topic? Should we remove the links to Courage and Exodus? Axon 18:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Internet and gay people

With the advent of the Internet, gay people find it easier to locate one another and organize. They can engage in cybersex while keeping their sexual orientation hidden or hide behind a facade such as Plushies, Yiff, and Furries.

I don't like this sentance, as it seems to imply that all plushies are gay and possibly vice versa. The point can still be made, but I think the sentance needs a rewrite--Tznkai 5 July 2005 00:52 (UTC)

I really don't think this warrants a subsection all its own. Wouldn't it be enough to say that the advent of the internet has made it easier (etc)? Exploding Boy July 5, 2005 00:55 (UTC)

I removed it from modern developments. The more I think about it actually, the more superflous it seems.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)

NPOV

There is strong evidence that homosexuality cannot be genetic, though it is not being allowed mention in this article

Present the evidence here, please. -Willmcw July 6, 2005 05:21 (UTC)

I have a feeling this user will not be happy until he wins the inclusion of his own original research, esp. since he feels all the authoratative sources (who state sexual orientation is determined by biological factors such as a combination of hormones in the womb and genetics) are politcally correct and infiltrated by militant homosexuals. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:35 (UTC)

I will not be happy until justice is served.

Here's your evidence, will: Science has not yet discovered any genetically dictated behavior in humans. So far, genetically dictated behaviors of the “one-gene-one-trait” variety have been found only in very simple organisms. Most geneticists say many genes are involved in human behaviour: from 5-6 at least, to hundreds. In such a case changes in behavior will take place very slowly and steadily ( eg) a few percent each generation over many generations, perhaps thirty. That is, homosexuality could not appear and disappear suddenly in family trees the way it does. (For it to do so, many "homosexual" recessive genes would have to switch on suddenly in the fetus, and all the "heterosexual" genes would have to switch off- a nearly impossible scenario from a geneticist's point of view.) The human race shares most of its genes - something between 99.7 percent and 99.9 percent. That means all ethnic groups will have most of them. This has three implications. If homosexuality is genetically dictated, homosexual practices will be identical or extremely similar in all cultures. But the enormous range and diversity of homosexual practice and customs among different cultures (and within cultures), argues against any genetically-mandated homosexuality. There would be a similiar incidence of homosexuality in all cultures. But homosexuality has been unknown in some cultures and mandatory in others. Changes in homosexual practice and behavior in different cultures would take place very slowly, over many centuries. But this is not what history shows. (The decline of whole models of homosexuality [the Greek, over a couple of centuries, and the Melanesian, within a century]; the relatively sudden [in genetic terms] emergence of the present Western model over a couple of centuries; and abrupt changes of practice within an ethnic group, even over a single generation, are not consistent with anything genetic. Even less so the swiftly changing sexual practices within the current Western model.) Homosexuality cannot be a genetic mutation. Although a genetically-based condition tends to stay in a family tree for generations, only very slowly and minimally changing its characteristics, a genetic mutation is one way it could appear suddenly. But for that to occur, many genes would have to mutate at the same time - an inconceivable scenario. Even five or six genes mutating at the same time is implausible, genetically speaking. Dean Hamer, one of the strongest advocates of a genetically-based homosexuality, has remarked that he doesn't think a gene exists for sexual orientation. If homosexuality were genetically dictated or strongly influenced, there is no way a "homosexual gene" or "genes" could maintain themselves in the population. (One adult needs to have an average of one child if a specific gene, or many specific genes, present in the adult are to stay in the gene pool. But, on average, five "exclusive" homosexuals produce only one child among them. At that rate, homosexuality would die out of the population in several generations. Obviously this hasn't happened. However, about 50% of homosexuals are or have been married, making them bisexuals, with an average of 1.25 children each. Exclusive homosexuals and bisexuals, combined, still produce an average of only 0.9 children each, meaning that a homosexual gene or genes would still slowly, but inevitably, disappear from the gene pool.) Twin studies: These very complex comparisons of identical twins and non-identical twins definitively rule out genetic determinism. If homosexuality were genetic, identical co-twins of homosexual men and women would also be homosexual 100% of the time, but they aren’t. Heritability may be as low as 10%, rising and falling depending on the amount of environmental influence of an opposite kind. Social, sociological

The sexology literature shows huge amounts of change from a homosexual orientation toward a heterosexual orientation. This could not happen at all if homosexuality were genetically dictated – it would be fixed and unalterable. About 90 percent of Western “ intersex” children (those born with ambiguous genitalia) choose to remain in their gender of upbringing when puberty reveals their true genetic gender and surgical interventions are offered. Often, this choice is made in the face of very contrary physical and hormonal characteristics. It argues for overwhelmingly strong environmental influences on the formation of gender orientation and behavior. The stages of psycho-social development toward adult heterosexuality are clearly demarcated, known and understood by developmental psychologists, and are so obviously learned that heterosexuality is clearly not genetically mandated. Surveys of adult homosexuals show conspicuous deficits in several of these developmental stages - showing that homosexuality is cultural and environmental rather than genetic. There is a much higher incidence of homosexuality among those who have been raised in large cities, rather than in rural areas, arguing that the environment is much more powerful than genes in the development of homosexuality. A scientific/sociological tool, Path Analysis, has been argued to show that there is no social or familial basis to homosexuality, but rather a biological one. However, the researchers did discover social and family paths leading to homosexuality, but chose, for some reason, to say they were not significant, even though, in terms of the methodology, they were. Hormones and brain structure

There have been many studies, none of which has shown any convincing relationship between homosexuality and exposure to pre-natal hormones. Studies examining effects of very high doses of female hormones to pregnant mothers show no effect on males and a dubious effect on women. In a review of 25 studies of testosterone levels in adult male homosexuals, 3 showed lower levels, 2 showed elevated levels and 20 found no difference between homosexual and heterosexual males. Therapy changing levels of male and female sex hormones has been shown to affect sex drive but never orientation. Scientists have barely been able to distinguish between the microstructure of male and female brains in adults, let alone between male homosexual and female brains. Attempts to prove such a similarity have been unconvincing. Male and female brains appear identical at birth, and the only consistently replicable difference, from about age two or three, is their size. Most of the development of the human brain takes place after birth in response to stimuli, learning, and experience. The brain changes so much in response to learning and repeated human behaviors that this could probably account for any differences between homosexual and heterosexual brains which might be ultimately discovered. Our instincts, such as self-preservation, hunger, and reproduction, are among the most deeply embedded and strongest impulses we have, but these are able to be controlled. If we want to argue homosexuality is also a deeply ingrained instinct, we must also argue it should be malleable and responsive to training. Genetic content of homosexuality is minimal

Geneticists, anthropologists, developmental psychologists, sociologists, endocrinologists, neuroanatomists, medical researchers into gender, and twin study researchers are in broad agreement about the role of genetics in homosexuality. Genes don't make you do it. There is no genetic determinism, and genetic influence at most is minor.

Those who say homosexuality is genetically influenced are correct, but only to about this degree:

If a girl becomes pregnant at age fifteen, we could argue that she is genetically predisposed. We could say that in her culture, her genes gave her the kind of face and figure that send male hormones into orbit and bring her under a level of pressure that she is unable to resist. But that's about the strength of the genetic influence. There are a huge number of environmental factors that could also have brought the pregnancy about, from cancellation of the basketball game she was going to watch with a girlfriend, permission to borrow Dad's car, her boyfriend's company, the movie they had just viewed together, and failure to use a contraceptive, to big environmental factors like personal values systems, peer group pressure, and an emotionally distant father.

Is this consensus likely to change? Might some major biological link be discovered which could change everything? After all, science moves fast.

For most of these scientific disciplines, the findings have been clearly established from facts that will not change (eg: the diversity of homosexual practices between and within cultures; the clearly established stages of human development; the over-riding role of upbringing in the ultimate gender choice of people with ambiguous genitalia). But what of future studies of brain micro-structure, or detailed analysis of genetic composition and function? Will they reveal links between brain structure and human behaviors, or behaviors and genetic sequences?

Of course they will. Papers will continue to be published. But we can safely conclude that even authors wanting to find such links will almost always include the standard scientific caveats that the influence is minor, and that the environment is important. What we can reasonably say about future research is that it will enter new fields and come up with new links, but none of them will be determinative.

This is proved once and for all by studies of identical twins. They have identical genes, and other influences, but if one is homosexual the identical brother usually isn't. There is only an 11% chance he is homosexual. This includes all the influences we know nothing about and are yet to discover. All added together only have a rather weak effect.

Homosexuality, as a genetic inevitability, has probably been gay activism’s most effective public relations initiative in the campaign for equal rights and special protections. Although it is no longer politically correct or fashionable to say in many circles that homosexuals can change, it is scientifically accurate to say so.

To say a behavior is "genetic" is a logical fallacy - a simple lack of observation. Nothing is forced on us by our biology. Even breathing isn't. The fact is that nothing makes us do anything - neither our genes nor our environment. fromm: http://www.mygenes.co.nz/findings.htm 66.74.196.5 6 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)

Yes, most agree that it is not SOLEY genetic, instead it is a complex combination of pre-natal hormones AND genetics. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:48 (UTC)

Recent Statements by Professional Associations

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders. The American Psychological Association declared that it was not a disorder in 1975.

Recent statements by professional organizations include: bullet The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1973. bullet The American Law Institute continually updates its Model Penal Code, which is a group of laws that they suggest be implemented at the state level. They recommend to legislators: "that private sexual behavior between consenting adults should be removed from the list of crimes and thereby legalized." bullet The American Bar Association in 1974 expressed its approval of the Model Penal Code, including its decriminalization of consensual adult homosexual acts. bullet The World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1981. bullet The American Psychological Association released a Statement on Homosexuality in 1994-JUL. Their first two paragraphs are:

The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.

Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.

In 1994-AUGUST, The APA sent a proposal to one of its committees that would declare as unethical: bullet attempts by a psychologist to change a person's sexual orientation through therapy, or bullet referral of a patient to a therapist or organization who attempts to change people's sexual orientation

The APA publishes an undated brochure titled "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality." They state: bullet "...many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors." bullet "...psychologists do not consider sexual orientation for most people to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed." bullet "...homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or emotional problem." bullet "There is no evidence indicating that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children." 1

In 1997_AUG-14, the APA published a news release about a recently passed resolution "on so-called reparative therapy." The resolution "raises ethical concerns about attempts to change sexual orientation, reaffirms psychology's opposition to homophobia and client's rights to unbiased treatment." 2 bullet The American Medical Association (AMA) released a report in 1994-DEC which calls for "nonjudgmental recognition of sexual orientation by physicians." They suggest that psychotherapy be directed help homosexuals "become comfortable with their sexual orientation." bullet The Academy of Pediatrics and the Council on Child and Adolescent Health have also stated that homosexuality is not a choice and cannot be changed. [5] 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:52 (UTC)

Not every known argument is being allowed on this page, so I insist on a NPOV marker. By the way, what's the point of saying the behavior isn't SOLELY genetic. What aspects about it are genetic? I know we're not supposed to reinvent the wheel in this forum, but I'd love for you to explain that. (intellectualprop2002)

If the root cause of a homosexual orientation is genetic, as it is for Class 1 (early onset diabetes) and left-handedness, then the person will probably be unable to change their orientation. If the root cause is something in the environment, then there would be a significant chance that the individual can change their orientation through therapy.

Essentially all conservative Christian authors who have written about homosexuality maintain that sexual orientation is not determined by one's genes. They treat it as an abnormal, unnatural, chosen, and changeable habit or addiction. Religious conservatives often point to studies of identical twins who were separated at birth and raised independently. If one is gay, then the other twin is found to be gay only about 55% of the time. They reason that: since identical twins have the same genetic structure, then if homosexual orientation were determined by genes, 100% of the other twins would be gay. Thus they conclude that homosexual orientation is not caused by one's genes.

Many gays and lesbians believe that their orientation is caused by their genes; it is normal, natural, unchosen and unchangeable. With the exception of one small religious association of therapists, the vast majority of human sexuality researchers and mental health therapists accept that the root cause of homosexual orientation is genetic.

In reality, it seems that the data shows that a small minority -- perhaps 10% -- of individuals have a "gay gene" or "gay genes." However, the gene is only expressed in perhaps 55% of those individuals, as a result of some unknown factor in the environment. In the remainder, it remains dormant and the person matures as a heterosexual.

The rejection of a genetic cause of homosexuality by essentially all conservative Christians and some others seem to be based upon a faulty or inadequate knowledge of the detailed workings of genetics. Genes have a property called penetrance, which is a measure of their effectiveness, or power. Consider the gene for Huntington's Disease. It has two alleles (varieties). One is a very rare allele will causes the person to fall victim to the disease. The other, much more common, variety prevents the disease. This particular gene is 100% penetrant. If you were born with the allele that causes the disease, then you are absolutely certain to develop the disease later in life. The penetrance of the gene which causes Type 1 (early onset) diabetes is only 30%. So, if one identical twin has the allele that causes diabetes, then the other twin will have the same allele. Both will have a 30% chance of developing the disorder. Both twins will have the identical allele; they will have the same genetic structure. But it may or may not be triggered by something in the environment, and cause diabetes. Similarly, if one identical twin develops schizophrenia, the other twin has over a 60% chance of also developing the disorder. If one twin develops bipolar affective disorder, the other twin's chances are about 60%.

The genes set up a minority of identical twins for left-handedness, or homosexuality or Type 1 diabetes. But there is something in the environment which either triggers the gene, or allows it to remain dormant.

One theory that fits the available observations is that the penetrance of the "gay gene(s)" is approximately 67%. That causes about half of the males with the gene(s) become gay. "There could be hundreds of millions of straight men walking around with this gay allele but who are straight simply because it didn't penetrate" In the case of the "gay gene(s)" perhaps 10% or more of all males have the allele that causes homosexuality, but in many cases is the allele not "triggered".

Assuming that the penetrance of the "gay gene" or "gay genes" is 67%, then one would expect that if one fraternal twin was gay that the other would also be gay about 22% of the time. This number also agrees with studies of families with twins.

Nobody knows what triggers the allele. It might be some event happening in the womb, like an abnormal amount or irregular timing of hormones. It might be some event during early childhood -- before school age. Either way, it is outside the control of the individual and his family of origin. What is know is that it takes effect before the child reaches school age. Child psychologists can interview children at that age and determine with excellent accuracy who will grow up to be gay. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:57 (UTC)

Intellectualprop2002 I am removing the NPOV notice again. You need to state what is missing. All major associations clearly state it is NOT a choice, it is INNATE. Yet nearly half of the biology section of this article discusses the changeable FRINGE view, if anything that should be shortened since it is such a minority. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info. I'm wondering if you believe all of the above. If so, do you agree that homosexuality would be a self-destructive gene, regardless of the penetrance? In other words- the higher the penetrance, the lower chance that the gene would reproduce? Do you know if penetrance varies on the sucess of the gene in nature (possitive or negative)or is it consistent based on the original structure of the gene?

In addition, doesn't the argument on penetrance back up the push for reorientation? If enviromental factors can alter the effect of certain alleles, doesn't that imply that we can definitely develop a therapy to prevent or reverse the effect (assuming that anyone would want to reverse the effects)?

I can't speak to the neutrality issue (although after a quick skimmming and seeing sentences like "In the United States laws remained on the books persecuting non-heterosexuals in some states until 2003." don't exactly make me enthusiastic about its neutrality), but I've said it before and I'll say it again -- this article is horrible. Unquestionably one of (if not *the*) worst articles on Wikipedia. The writing is bad, the presentation is bad (it breaks the manual of style in at least a half-dozen places I noticed), it contains numerous unreferenced claims and statistics. This isn't a fixer-upper, it's a total-tear-down-and-rebuild. →Raul654 July 6, 2005 06:31 (UTC)

Are you gonna do it? Or how about I start and you help.--Tznkai 6 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and rewritten the introduction to eliminate many of the most egrigious problems (and I'm usually pretty good at doing these since I write them for the main page every day). It's fair, balanced, and well written, which is why it probably won't stay there for long. →Raul654 July 7, 2005 04:02 (UTC)

I noticed you had an error with the summary of Kinsey. His reports stated that indeed minorites are exclusive. Hdsijhfoiuahfyusdaof 7 July 2005 06:30 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Ok. If the flag is going to be up, there has to be specific addressible and fixable complaints.

Start listing.--Tznkai 6 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)

There have been numerous disputes and complaints in the past which have already been discussed at length either here or in edit comments. If there is going to be a real chance of adding opposing views and cleaning up the slanted presentation of issues this time, then the criticisms can be painstakingly listed again. If, on the other hand, it's just going to be another game of deleting anything that doesn't fit a specific agenda, then there wouldn't be any point. 66.216.226.34 7 July 2005 10:49 (UTC)

There was a lot of complaining there and not a lot of substance. I want specifics, and facts, not an allusion that theres an agenda and if I go on a scavenger hunt through the history I'll mysteriously figure out what it is you find is problematic--Tznkai 7 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)

This is a completely reasonable request. If you have specific objections to specific sections of the article, please list them. Otherwise, there is no justification in keeping the NPOV tag on the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 7 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)

The problems are legion, but include the following broad categories: 1) in every subject covered by the article, from history to religion to medical issues, most of the information is selectively weighted in favor of one point of view and is therefore often very misleading or outright fraudulent. At one point, the article was even presenting a modern painting by Robert Lenz as an "ancient icon" which allegedly proves that early Christians allowed gay marriage, and despite the obvious absurdity of this it took a great deal of effort just to convince them that this is in fact a modern painting. More subtle distortions in the article have proven impossible to correct, and much of the information remains deeply suspect, often drawn from writers which even some gay activists have admitted are of dubious validity. 2) There have been persistent efforts to delete literally any addition, no matter how mild or small, which presents an opposing view, so that it takes enormous effort just to make tiny changes. We've seen this yet again just today: after someone added (yesterday) a small addition noting criticism of the Psychiatric community's decision to suddenly change their position on homosexuality, this addition has been repeatedly removed even after I modified the wording to make it more neutral. This has been the norm with almost any addition that presents even the barest hint of the opposite viewpoint, or any fact that doesn't support a specific agenda. 3) As Raul654 pointed out, the language is hardly neutral, consistently using terms like "persecution" to describe any laws or viewpoints in opposition to sodomy. It's a bit like pro-pedophilia articles which describe any anti-pedophile laws as "persecution" and "oppression". Numerous other categories can be listed, but let's start with the above and see if there's going to be a good-faith effort to actually allow changes this time - otherwise nothing productive is going to come of this. 66.216.226.34 7 July 2005 20:36 (UTC)

I said something about specifics didn't I? All I see here a list of complaints and allusions of bias, conspiracy, and cablaism.

To address your semi specific complaints:

Psychiatric community: If that criticism does exist, it has to be two things. 1. Notable (not original research) and 2. Refrenced or so overwhelming no one doubts it (consensus).

language usage: I want specifics. if its minor changes, go ahead and make them and I'll support you probably. I'm a big fan of neutral language.

In summation: Get proof for anti-psychatry bit. fix the langauge bits. And give something specific thats worthy of the NPOV flag, not a litany of complaints.

--Tznkai 7 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)

I gave some specifics; demanding that I list all of them - of which there must be dozens, if not hundreds - would seem to be merely the usual attempt to place impossible burdens on any critics of this article. The only reasonable procedure is to allow people to finally make needed changes one at a time and hash out each as needed, rather than listing every single point of dispute up front. Right now, you're not allowing even small changes: if you really think the new addition needs a reference to avoid deletion, then I would ask that you also delete the many other passages which lack references - otherwise you're just using a double standard to delete anything you don't like. Right now, there is no evidence of good faith. 66.216.226.34 7 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)

Thats why WP:AGF is ASSUME good faith. Take a look at two wrongs make a right real quick as well. That edit is still suspect of being original research WP:NOR and is lacking in citations or refrences. The burden of proof is not on me to delete unrefrenced material, because I'm not demanding that there be an {{NPOV}} tag on the article. If you want to remove some of these unsourced things you keep talking about, go ahead and I certainly won't revert it. There is no conspiracy against you. There is no double standard. I am demanding specific problems with the article to justify the NPOV flag.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)

I, Raul654, and IntellectualProp (and possibly others) have given plenty of examples over the last few days; let's deal with those first. Concerning the latest edit war: the point was that there has long been a practice in this article of using the "lack of references" excuse only for those additions presenting an opposing view, which is a double standard. If I were to delete any of the other passages lacking a reference, you can be certain that it would promptly be labeled "vandalism". 66.216.226.34 8 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)

Specifics. and I don't care what you predict is certain or what the bias is, and blah blah blah. The fact is, WP:NOT still holds. SPECIFICS! Specific addressable complaints!--Tznkai 8 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)

Plenty of examples have been given recently by myself, Raul654, IntellectualProp2002, and I believe others. 66.216.226.34 8 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)

I'm still not buying this. I don't care if you want to give me a list of external diff links, but you can't just say "There are plenty of examples", you have to list them! Repeat yourself for all I care.--Tznkai 8 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)

Rather than asking me to repeat myself again, please take the time to actually read what has already been written. This is getting silly. 66.216.226.34 8 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)

Point out a statement that you have written that specificly addresses something wrong with the article. Pretend I'm stupid and I can't remember what you've said, because I honestly haven't the foggiest what you're talking about as far as "plenty of examples"--Tznkai 8 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)

This is becoming truly surreal. Look at all the comments above: among other things, I and others have pointed out the selective (and often very misleading) use of information in this article; the slanted wording of many portions of it; the manner in which most opposing viewpoints have been relentlessly removed, etc. 66.216.226.34 8 July 2005 22:06 (UTC)

"I and others have pointed out the selective (and often very misleading) use of information in this article; the slanted wording of many portions of it; the manner in which most opposing viewpoints have been relentlessly removed, etc." Its almost like you've been studying Rovian politics. "Selective use" Many portions" "Relentlessly removed". That isn't specific.--Tznkai 8 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)

Ok, I will repeat, again, some of the specific examples that have been given, and see if you people will finally read what is being written. Among other examples: Raul654 already pointed out specific areas in the text which are POV, using as a representative example the phrase: "In the United States laws remained on the books persecuting non-heterosexuals in some states until 2003", one of many passages in which terms such as "persecution" or "oppression" (etc) are used to describe any anti-sodomy laws or opinions, thereby slanting the article in favor of one side. Raul's citation was of a specific passage rather than merely a generalized complaint. There are many "weasel words" and uncited claims in support of one viewpoint, such as (for example) in the passage: "Many argue that the discrepancies between public and private admissions regarding sexual orientation are due to negative societal attitudes regarding same-sex intercourse." A vague phrase like this would be promptly deleted if it presented the opposing view. Other specific examples: I believe it was IntellectualProp2002 who cited specific examples in which countervailing scientific theories are not being allowed, such as in the section on genetics (see his comments if you want specifics; I'm not going to repeat the entire thing here again) and also regarding the Kinsey studies (which are controversial and disputed rather than being universally accepted). Someone recently mentioned the pictures and specifically cited them all one by one, to which I would add that the chief problem with the "irrelevant" pictures is that they are all chosen to support one side of the argument: there are plenty celebrating homosexuality, such as the "Youth seeking his father's advice on choosing a lover", the "Köçek with tambourine", the "Young men sipping tea, reading poetry, and making love", etc, etc, and none which represent opposing views except the inevitable ones designed to emphasize the theme of "oppression". There is also a persistent attempt to claim that homosexual sex was supported by religions which actually opposed it: for example, even the section on medieval Catholicism is still worded in such a way as to make it sound as if the modern division in the Church was the case even back then, although all the official doctrinal sources from that era uniformly and harshly condemned homosexual sex. Specifically, the article lists a handful of cases of sodomy and then feebly admits that "Other Christians of the time were critical of homosexuality" - as if the latter group were in the minority (!) It refuses to admit that Aquinas' views in the "Summa Theologica" were the chief official position rather than merely one man's opinion - all mention of that was censored after it had been added at several points. Originally, that section went so far as to claim that the medieval Church _approved_ of homosexuality, and it took a great deal of effort to even allow the inclusion of excerpts from medieval doctrinal sources to show what the medieval Church actually said about the subject. Much the same thing has been the case with Judaism and Islam - for the latter, it actually claims: "...in Islamic countries, male desire for attractive youths is widely expected and condoned as a human characteristic." (oh?) The list can go on and on: the chief problem with giving specific examples, in fact, is that each example by itself isn't going to be terribly meaningful, since it's the overall pattern which is the problem.

Now, if the other side isn't even going to admit that specific examples have been cited, as I just did yet again above by including excerpts from the article itself, then the process of reforming the article will be truly hopeless. 66.216.226.34 9 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

WP:AGF WP:Civility--Tznkai 15:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Alrightly then, breaking these outside of the rant

"In the United States laws remained on the books persecuting non-heterosexuals in some states until 2003",

Fixed--Tznkai 15:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"Many argue that the discrepancies between public and private admissions regarding sexual orientation are due to negative societal attitudes regarding same-sex intercourse."

Can't figure out which passage this is supposed to be--Tznkai 15:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"Other Christians of the time were critical of homosexuality"

This whole section needs to be rewritten.--Tznkai 15:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"...in Islamic countries, male desire for attractive youths is widely expected and condoned as a human characteristic."

I recall reading this in various articles. I see no problem here, a citation wouldn't hurt. Not going to remove because I don't think this under contest by people who would know. (unless you're an expert on islamic tradition and law?)--Tznkai 15:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

this user is a troll, he is attacking anything he can, he obviously hasn't researched ANYTHING. The Q'uran has a citation right below that of being in Paradise attended by male virgins, that is the citation. 67.41.236.211 03:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Claiming that Islamic theologians routinely "condone" same-sex attraction or orientation is truly astounding given that so many Islamic clerics and scholars have strongly condemned it, such as in the following quote from Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi of the Islamic Society of North America: "Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption... No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education." (see: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_isla.htm and http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/homosexuality.html among other sites containing this quote).

As currently written, the section on Islam distorts the actual teachings almost beyond recognition by making it sound as if same-sex attraction or orientation is widely accepted as perfectly normal by Islamic theologians, which it clearly is not. 66.216.226.34 05:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Checking those out now. In the mean time, please stop flinging around accusations of bias and the inevitable opression of your viewpoint. It isn't making you seem any more credible.--Tznkai 15:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely everything specific you have mentioned has now (July 9) been addressed. Cite more if there are any. 67.41.236.211 22:25, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll assume that was meant as a joke, given that your 'improvements' made the wording even more slanted. 66.216.226.34 22:48, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, once again cite specific examples why the edits were even more "slanted". 67.41.236.211 00:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Now I know you're just playing games, but I'll play along once again by patiently pointing out that adding a few comments with the usual "homophobia" invective, and similar stuff of this sort, is not "improving the neutrality" but quite the reverse. 66.216.226.34 03:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

here we go AGAIN. BE SPECIFIC!!!!!!!!!!! 67.41.236.211 03:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, here we go again. To repeat: specifically, you had added the inflammatory and POV term "homophobic" to describe countries with policies you disagree with, thereby making that section far less neutral than it was before. I would add that the original call for improvement for that section, which you claimed you were responding to, had specifically objected to the lack of references and use of the weasel phrase "many people" - which you left intact while adding the aforementioned inflammatory phrase, all while claiming to be "helping" to improve the article. You now deleted an entire section consisting of several paragraphs without giving any justification for deleting so much material - and then ironically accused me of being a "troll" for restoring it. 66.216.226.34 04:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

No I did not. Can you actually READ?! I am beginning to wonder..... I stated people in homphobic societies may remain in the closet. Can you refute that? ABSOLUTELY NOT! And yes PEOPLE MAY BE CLOSETED, that section does not need specific examples. You are just a sadistic troll. That new paragrpah is questionable and has no citations, something you seem so keen on, or should I stress the seem (funny how you are only interested when you feel it can bother others). And the Q'uran views homosexual intercoure in itself lust, however homosexual attractions is NOT against Islam. Many Islamic writers have wrote about male beauty and love and the Q'uran has male virgins who are beautiful in Paradise. START RESEARCHING AND QUIT BEING A THUGGISH TROLL! From this point on I will revert everything that you do on Wikipedia unless your behavior becomes acceptable. 67.41.236.211 05:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I assume this is the user who was formerly known as "Apollomelos" until his bid for adminship was rejected by editors who, to quote one voter, noted that he is an "abusive user". I've tried to be polite with you, but now that you're following me around and deleting even private correspondence with people on their talk pages, it's clear that this has crossed the line into harassment. Now *that* is troll behavior.

On the Islam issue: I cited (farther above) a specific comment from an Islamic scholar which is indicative of the actual views on the subject taken among Islamic theologians. On the other issue: my objection to your use of the term "homophobic" was that it is POV and inflammatory, and certainly anything but neutral. My comment about "weasel words" was simply a response to the rationale you yourself have given for deleting so many additions: if that's to be the rule, then it needs to be enforced consistently. 66.216.226.34 06:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I have said it once and I will say it again. This user is a troll: 66.216.226.34. I would not be surprised if it was intellectualprop's i.p. address. Notice how this person added the original research conspiracy theory and refused to discuss it until engaging in an edit war where they reverted nearly seven times in 24 hours on July 7. Not to mention a few days ago when they did the same exact thing with the NPOV notice and before that on the "repararive therapy" links. 67.41.236.211 8 July 2005 04:42 (UTC)

I am neither IntellectualProp2002 nor a "troll", and I would submit that the most guilty parties in the recent edit wars are those who have been seeking to remove material, not those of us attempting to restore it. I would also point out that I didn't initially add any of these new additions, but have merely been trying to keep them from being deleted. 66.216.226.34 8 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)

Please self rm your statement and take it to WP:AI.--Tznkai 8 July 2005 04:44 (UTC)

Why? That is Wikipedia Alphabetical Index. 67.41.236.211 8 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)

I meant WP:AN--Tznkai 8 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)

The scientific evidence I am speaking of is listed in the permanent section with links and some links are at the bottom of this article on androgen. Mainly that sexual orientation is innate (a finding in humans), homosexuals have physiological differences (findings in humans and animals) and that up to ten percent of mammals may be exclusively homosexual (a finding in humans and animals, i.e. the sheep study for one). Any more questions? And one thing I would like addressed in the introduction is the impact on laws regarding homosexual acts as capital offence, i.e. meaning that homosexuals must be celibate and bisexuals must be in heterosexual relationships. At the moment it contains the sexual impact but not the human. Do you see what I am saying? It focuses on sex while ignoring the human person and in accordance with the mainstream permanent view a homosexual is a person and a physiologically different one at that, much more than a sex act. These laws did more than ban homosexual acts, they forced an entire class of people into mandated celibacy. 67.41.236.211 8 July 2005 05:06 (UTC)

I was just curious, as noted, I tend to like refrences and supports, and I try to be fair to all sides of the debate. I see where you're going with the banning sexual acts, but I think thats implied by having homosexual sex=death penalty. To go further is to show a critique of the law and its impact, and I'm not sure if that is POV. It might be salient and NPOV if listed as a common critique, but it should probably go into a diffrent article. Homosexuality is rather long as it is.

Can you quote one specific sentence or paragraph you disagree with, and explain why? And by quote, I mean directly quote. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)

Modification of the intro paragraph

Before I set out a critique of the present intro, I would like to know whether there were any specific reasons why the old one was found wanting. Specifically, was it in contravention of particular wikipedia standards, or was it simply not to the liking of the user who changed it? Haiduc 8 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)

It was awful - one of the worst on Wikipedia. Lists are bad writing - the intro had one. "See also" is both depricated and bad writing - the intro had a half-dozen of them(!). It also utterly failed to introduce the article, but served as more of a launch-pad towards a bunch of other articles (which is what the article - not the introduction - is supposed to do). The prose was disjointed, and had no continuity from sentence to sentence or paragraph to paragraph. In short, it was just terrible. →Raul654 July 8, 2005 01:07 (UTC)

Fair enough. I never thought much of it stylistically either, so your input (fresh blood, so to speak) is welcome. However, in the process some of the important content has gone missing, and some of the new information introduced is so generalized as to be misleading. It is a mistake to take a complex subject and try to compress it into a couple of quick sentences. Better to be a bit more vague, since the nature and history of what we are discussing here has proven so fluid. I will take the form of the new intro and combine it with the content of the old, hoping to find a happy medium. Haiduc 8 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)

The introduction *is* supposed to be generalized, and is supposed to be written in such a way that someone unfamiliar with the topic can easily grasp it. That's the primary purpose of an introduction.

Now as to missing important information -- if there is information missing from the current one (which is entirely possible since I haven't read this massive article in its entirety), I'm perfect OK with people adding it back. I'll be hanging around to rewrite any bad prose that gets inserted, but surprisingly the changes to the intro since I wrote it have been generally good. →Raul654 July 8, 2005 01:22 (UTC)

Pictures

Uh. Are all these pictures needed? I just find it a bit much personally to have tons of pictures of anything. Most of them don't seem to be adding to the article much.--Tznkai 8 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)

They were used here in a feeble attempt to circumvent the bad prose, probably. If you would like to discuss here particular pictures which you feel do not add to the content then we could go further with this. Haiduc 8 July 2005 10:38 (UTC)

My listing of the pictures and my thoughts follows. If I say "relevance?" I know it is relevant in general, but how is it speciifcily useful, notable, and informative isntead of just taking space?

1. Picture one of Zephyrus and Hyacinthus is without context and large

2. Karl-Maria Kertbeny is not important enough to homosexuality as a whole to have an uninformativie picture.

3. "Researchers tend to find many gay and lesbians living in enclaves..." Is fine.

4. "Squawk and Milou" also fine. but I like penguins.

5. "The rainbow flag is widely used as the symbol of gay pride.": Fine.

6. Homosexuality laws of the world: Fine

7. Same-sex unions in North America: Put it in the same-sex marriage article.

8. Same-sex unions in Europe: Put it in the same-sex marriage article

9. "A soldier joins gay pride events in Jerusalem, Israel": Not sure why this is important, but its not a bad picture

10. Burning of Sodomites: One or two of these may be pertinent.

11. The Fleet Is In: Relevance?

12. David and Jonathan: Discussed adnasuem elsewhere. Leave it for the main christianity and homosexuality article Redundancy with Burning

13. "Youth seeking his father's advice on choosing a lover": Relevance?

14. "Köçek with tambourineEntertainers and sex workers,": Large picture. Relevance?

15. "Ancient Greek representation of male love.": Relevance?

16. ""The Gay Deceiver"": Relevance

17. "Young men sipping tea, reading poetry, and making love" Relevance?

18. "Dance to the Berdache": Intresting, may be more appropriate elsewhere.

19. "Samurai and kagema": do we really need a picture for each?

20. "Roman man and youth in bed" see above.

21. "Shah Abbas I of Iran embracing his wine boy" relevance?

22. "Consecration of the Anglican Communion’s first openly noncelibate gay Bishop," Very notable. Tiny thumbnail. Keep.

23. "An estimated 700,000 participants (AFP) march through Paris, France, chanting "Marriage, Adoption, and Equality" during 2005 Gay Pride festivities." Sure.

24. "An example of Japanese Yaoi." Relevance?

Can ANYONE give me a decent reason why we have 24 pictures? Surely some of these can go.--Tznkai 8 July 2005 18:15 (UTC)

Tznkai, in the first place I take exception to yout position that "fewer pictures is better." It strikes me as indefensible. The point is communication, and pictures are an exceptionally effective tool. That being said, there may be some redundancies. The three maps side by side are annoying. But until someone with the requisite skills (you?) produces a unified world map, I think they should stay. As for the others, each one illustrates a particular aspect of the discussion, in context and in a relevant place. As for the fact that there are other articles which may need these pictures, fine, but since the publishing of pictures is not a zero-sum game I do not see what concern that is of ours. Haiduc 9 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)

Sometimes less is more. My position is a style one, which is that pictures are not inherently good or bad, neither is text or information. The vast majority of these pictures I believe are of limited usefulness. Furthermore, aside from the fact I think its a bit much aestehtically, pictures tend to rake hell on how articles appear to readers. I think articles should be comprehensive, not exhaustive.--Tznkai 9 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)

I agree that sometimes less is more, but sometimes an adage does not fit. The pictures from other cultures are invaluable since they are an unmediated reflection of those societies. All the verbiage that a modern writer could generate, and even translations of primary sources, which are (if you have worked in this field) so prone to adulteration, cannot compare with the effectiveness and accuracy of an image from the society being discussed. "Esthetics"? You have your opinion, I have mine. They differ. "Exhaustive"? You could write a twenty-volume encyclopaedia on this topic. What you have here does not even begin to scratch the surface. "Rake hell"?! There are plenty of articles here with plenty of pictures, and I have never had any problem looking at them. I can't imagine what you could be referring to. Can you indicate somewhere in the rules of this project where it says that having fewer pictures is preferable to having more pictures? Haiduc 01:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, we had an edit conflict on muhammed involving a map of conquest in the middle east that managed to cluster three edit links on top of eachother. To answer your further points, no, this isn't about "rules" or even "guidlines" or policies. This has to do with my opinion on what makes a good article, like any other wikipedian. I think the purpose of a good encyclopedia article is to have a breif survey of the facts and significant opinions. I don't think we need to prove relentlessly that every culture has some art somewhere that involves homosexuality (usually between men I may add, slightly slanting the data). Honestly, I think we could lose half of these pictures and maintain the article, possibly make it better. 1,2,7,8,11 all strike me as things that we wouldn't really miss.--Tznkai 15:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Your reference to edit link clustering is spurious since that is not the case here, and is a problem of incorrect positioning not of number of images. As for "proving relentlessly" I think it is better to let those cultures speak for themselves through their images than to resort only to (arguable) reformulations. Yes, we should illustrate the topics we discuss, it is a far more effective and respectful form of communication, respectful of the topic and of the reader. It brings us closer to the spirit of the project, which is that the editor should be as transparent as possible. And it speaks volumes to the LGM's you are so fond of. Haiduc 20:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

To follow up to your selection of pictures, #1, Zephyr and Hyacinthus, is emblematic of the topic. There seems to a loosely followed pattern of including emblematic pictures in articles here, and this is a good choice by my lights. #2 is filler and could certainly go. Whether is should go is another matter. #7 and #8 should be integrated into #6 as alternate pictures. #11 seems a bit spurious and could be sent to the article on Cadmus. Haiduc 21:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Same sex marriage in Canada

over here in canada, same sex marriage is laegal, nationwide. :-D we are the third country to accept this sorta thought. should that go somewhere? Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)

Probably. Give me a perma news link and we'll stick it in modern developments.--Tznkai 8 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

here you go.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/06/28/canada.marriage.reut/ Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)

Not sure if I read it right, but I think its not quite official law just yet?--Tznkai 8 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)

i watched C-pac ( they broadcast the house of commons for al lto see) when the law was sworn in. all that it needs to be permanant is royal aprooval, more or les a rubber stamp. Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)

Recent deletion

However, Homosexual activist groups have finally admitted that their claim that 10% of the population is "gay" is false. This admission took place in a Friend of the Court brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2003 in the Lawrence v. Texas, known as the Texas sodomy case. In this case, homosexuals are trying to have the Texas law against sodomy declared unconstitutional by the Court.

In footnote 42 on page 16 of this legal brief, 31 homosexual and pro-homosexual groups admitted the following: "The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al, The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian."

I've deleted these because I think it's too much detail for the opening area and because there are a number of POV issues in it:

The groups you cite probably do not self-identify as "Homosexual activist groups", "homosexual groups" or "pro-homosexual groups"
"Have finally admitted" and "admission" is POV
Attributing the "claim that 10% of the population is gay" to these groups needs justification
The phrase "activist groups" in the first sentence doesn't quantify the number
Identifying as gay, lesbian or bisexual is not necessarily the same as being gay, lesbian or bisexual
The groups you cite are not necessarily representitive of the world's gay, lesbian and bisexual community, in particular they are likely to be all North American organisations. By far the majority of gays, lesbians and bisexuals are likely to live outside North America.

There may be further issues.

Ben Arnold 9 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)

Don't forget use of weasel words. This section was ridiculously POV. Axon 9 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)

And even if one gay rights group did state the number of homosexuals and bisexuals is 5% that is a minority view. Exit polls from the year 2000 counted a full 4% of gay and lesbians, and that is ONLY public admissions. We have many people who live in the closet. Not to mention many people who are bisexual may restrict themselves to heterosexual relations just as many homosexuals may not idetify as gay and be celibate. The nature of their attractions is still there. For example sheep which have no anti-gay religions a full 6-10% are homosexual and there brains are different. 67.41.236.211 22:29, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

"The "Kinsey Report" consisted of a volume on male sexual behavior published in 1948, followed in 1953 by the female volume. Disclosing that heterosexual monogamy was honored more in the pulpit than in practice, the Report was hailed as a "milestone of science." Kinsey's co-authors and close intimates were Wardell Pomeroy, who died in 2001; Clyde Martin and Paul Gebhard, both still living. Kinsey's male report claimed that 85 percent of American men had sex before marriage, 70 percent had sex with prostitutes, 10 percent were exclusively homosexual. His figures were undermined when it was revealed that he had disproportionately interviewed homosexuals and prisoners (many sex offenders). When he rejected proper sampling procedures, his Rockefeller Foundation funding was cut off." -- Kinsey as Pervert, American Spectator 38, no. 3 (Apr 2005), p. 42-44, ISSN: 0148-8414.

Stating that most people believe that 10% are and not saying "but the validity of this number is widely disputed...." is not NPOV.

There have been numerous studies fixing his flaws with the same number as well as its been confirmed in other mammal species. A fringe contests that. 67.41.236.211 23:55, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Gebhard and Johnson (1979) developed a basic sample; that is, all the interviews conducted with postpubertal individuals except for those "from sources with known sexual bias" (p. 4). They defined these sources as groups "which we knew to be substantially biased in some sexual way before we began interviewing its members" (p. 4), and they provided the following examples: "the Mattachine Society, the occupants of homes for unwed mothers, prostitutes employed by a famous madam, personal friends of individuals known to be sexually deviant, and patients in mental hospitals" (p. 4). This left them with 11,246 from the original sample of 18,216. Of those excluded, two thirds were convicted felons, most of whom were in prison at the time of the interview. About one tenth were recruits from homosexual groups (as opposed to those in the basic sample with homosexual experience). In all, about one third of the sample was recruited because of a particular sexual interest. Thus, Kinsey's conviction that the taxonomist could eliminate all bias in the choosing of cases can be shown to be flawed.

Furthermore, the remaining basic sample was distorted. For example, according to the data reported by Gebhard and Johnson (1979), 84% of the men were college educated. This included many who were college students at the time of the interview and who were younger than age 22. Most of the working-class men in Kinsey's sample, on whom he based much of his best known analysis, had been incarcerated. In an interview, Paul Gebhard told me that Kinsey did not believe this was a problem because he assumed periodic incarceration was the normal plight of all working-class men. Of the noncollege men remaining in the basic sample, 40% were below age 18 and thus not old enough to have attended college when the interview took place. What they did subsequent to the interview is unknown, but probably some of them attended college. These are but a few examples of the problems ensuing from the nonrandom sample.

Julia A. Ericksen (May 1998). "With enough cases, why do you need statistics? Revisiting Kinsey's methodology". The Journal of Sex Research 35 (2): 132-40, ISSN: 0022-4499.

Also, the following article by the Journal of American Statistical Association, found issues with his report.

W. G. Cochran,F. Mosteller, & J. W. Tukey (1953). "Some statistical problems of the Kinsey Report". Journal of the American Statistical Association, 48, 673-716.

If you think that mentioning the fact that kinsey's numbers are disputed is irrelevant, the best thing to do would be eliminate the mention of the Kinsey report in the introduction altogether, because as it was presented, it was a POV.

-- BMIComp (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed sections

State-sponsored violence against gay men and lesbians occurs largely throughout those cultures under the sway of the Christian, Judaic and (to a lesser extent) Islamic religions.

Need a citation using those exact words, or need a refrence and we'll refactor to de-pov--Tznkai 15:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree the above section requires citation, but we should not remove the link to Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered in the meantime. Could we work it back into the article for the meantime? Axon 18:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's be careful with the citation game, since if that was required of every sentence in the wikipedia all writing would grind to a stop. If you have a problem with the historicity of this statement explain what it is. Here is a "softer" formulation: Historically, state-sponsored repression of gay men and lesbians has been documented primarily in those cultures under the sway of the Christian, Judaic and Islamic religions. Haiduc 20:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the sentence, I even agree with it, I just agree that it also requires backing up with citation. Axon 07:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

In pre-industrial western societies same-gender sex was generally accepted by the lower classes and the upper class, less so among the bourgeoisie, though most professed to consider it immoral. However, with the rise of urbanisation and the nuclear family, same-gender sex became less tolerated and even outlawed in some cases.

Removed undersuspicion of breaching WP:NOR, need a refrence.--Tznkai 15:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not write that so I do not have references. However I remember reading similar material over the years. If you are not familiar with the concepts (and the ones in the above paragraph) I have to wonder about your knowledge of this topic. It is not fair of you to force other editors to spend time familiarizing you with material you should have studied before attempting to edit an article such as this one. Especially when you are taking the liberty of removing text and then questioning it, rather than the other way around, which seems less high-handed and more considerate of others' work. Haiduc 21:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Section in need of rewrite: Christianity

The attitude of Early Christians toward homosexuality has been much debated. One side has cited denunciations of sodomy in the writings of the era, such as in the Didache and in the writings of Saint Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Eusebius, St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and in doctrinal sources such as the "Apostolic Constitutions" - for example, Eusebius of Caesarea's statement which condemns "the union of women with women and men with men". Others claim that passages have been mistranslated or they do not refer to homosexuality. Some Christians maintain that the Bible, principally in Leviticus 18 and Romans 1, denounces homosexual activity as a sin, in the eyes of God an "abomination" — a term used to describe a wide range of offenses, from incest and bestiality (sex with animals) to the eating of prohibited foods.

Among the prominent Christian figures known to have had same-sex relationships, Richard I of England had a relationship with King Philip II of France, Ralph Archbishop of Tours had his lover John installed as bishop of Orleans with agreement of both the King of France and Pope Urban II, and a number of popes and cardinals, especially during the Renaissance, also shared the popular tastes for handsome youths, so prevalent at the time in northern Italy.

Other Christians of the time were critical of homosexuality. St. Thomas Aquinas denounced sodomy as second only to bestiality (sex with animals) as the worst of all sexual sins, and St. Hildegard's book "Scivias", which was officially approved by Pope Eugenius III, related visions in which same-sex relations are condemned as "perverted forms".

This entire section needs to be rewriten. Ambigious pronouns, confusing structure, over wikilinking, lists of names, incoherent writing, and flat out confusing passage.--Tznkai 15:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)