Talk:Homosexuality

Health hazards

A woefully poor amount of information is included on health hazards. AIDS played a huge role in the history of gay sex, and it is all but completely ignored. This section needs to be expanded. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

By all means, make sure any statements made about homosexual sex should apply to sex between women as well. --Moni3 (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a place where we can strive for equality between the sexes. Men will never get cervical cancer, etc. Haiduc (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand your statement Haiduc. Yes, men cannot get cervical cancer. However, AIDS isn't exclusive to men, or to a specific sexual orientation. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not mean to be argumentative, I just think that men's and women health realities are so different as to require two separate discussions with no need for any parallelism between the two. NOt that this has to be strategized one way or another, let's just bring stuff in and see where we end up, that's all. Haiduc (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's true. However, I have heard many times someone's rationale for some kind of negative statement that has a practical effect against homosexuality is that gay sex is harmful: AIDS is the reason homosexuality is immoral. Anal gonorrhea is the reason same sex marriage, gay teachers, or giving gay partners insurance benefits is bad practice. Well, it's not. Gay sex includes women having sex as well men having sex safely and responsibly. Any section listing the dangers of gay sex needs to include the dangers (or lack thereof) of sex between women. --Moni3 (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. And in the same vein perhaps we should document the fact that the harmful aspects of gay sex are not limited to gays at all, and that in particular anal sex is something that is widely practiced by both gays and straights, and likewise reflect the fact that there are very many gays (and straights) who have no interest in anal sex at all and enjoy other forms of intimacy. Haiduc (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is transparent. I don't think any discussion is needed. Dybryd (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it's transparent. AIDS probably does deserve somewhat more attention in the article, primarily because of its impact on gay culture and its role in the increasing political consciousness of LGBT communities in the 1980s and '90s, but it has no connection to homosexuality per se. Rivertorch (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry gentlemen, but this sort of thing is over the top. It is like writing an article about the Titanic and avoiding any meaningful discussion of icebergs the icebergs that sank it because icebergs have nothing to do with ships. I have in my house the parting gifts of my dead gay friends, whose loss was and is devastating to me personally and to the gay community and to the human community. AIDS is a defining event no less than Stonewall, maybe more so than Stonewall, it is a reality that has to be confronted in this article, together with the unsafe sexual practices that fueled its rise, practices which if they were not irresponsible in the heady days of the seventies are certainly irresponsible now, as is clearly recognized by thinkers and spokesmen in the gay community (see [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/us/29rofes.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/H/Homosexuality&oref=slogin this).

At the same time we need to mention that there is nothing intrinsically "gay" about these practices, I do not think that this section should be allowed to become a foothold for agenda driven attacks on homosexuality. Haiduc (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I sympathise with your points, Haiduc, but to continue with your analogy: the Titanic article should indeed mention the effect of one particular iceberg on this particular ship (perhaps in detail), but a long section on how icebergs form and their historical impact on marine life and shipping would be rather out of place. So we don't need loads of information about AIDS in general here, but something about its impact on late-twentieth-century gay culture would seem appropriate. garik (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely with you, garik. Haiduc, I'm not quite sure what you're saying is 'over the top' - the comment you were responding to said "AIDS probably does deserve somewhat more attention in the article, primarily because of its impact on gay culture and its role in the increasing political consciousness of LGBT communities in the 1980s and '90s". Doesn't that fit with what you think the article needs? Olaf Davis | Talk 13:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed by the intelligence in the debate, but take it from an old fart: the only way to incorporate the above concerns, all of which are necessary for balance and comprehension, is to deal with this stuff in a main article, not in a short subsection. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, it should be dealt with in the main article and summarized in a short subsection. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Were there any women on the Titanic? Of course, have a section on AIDS. But don't pretend it's a "health hazard" either specific to or general to "homosexuality". The modern western gay male perspective tends to overwhelm general coverage of homosexuality on Wikipedia anyway.

This article is not called male homosexuality or modern homosexuality or American homosexuality (or, if you'll pardon a little talk-page POV slippage, non-monogamous homosexuality). I suggest a section called "HIV and AIDS in the gay male community."

[ETA: heh. I just checked the blue link in my list above ... and it's a redirect to this article. Maybe the two things are synonymous after all.]

Dybryd (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone can explain why the subsection AIDS and STDs among Western men who have sex with men is beneficial to the article, it should be removed. This article is about homosexuality, not Western homosexual men and certainly not Western homosexual men who have sex with other men. There is an article entitled Men who have sex with men, and that is the appropriate place for such content (although it would need some work before being added there). In fact, there is a link to that article in what has been added here. This is analogous to the Heterosexuality article's going into detail about the increased risk of cervical cancer to straight women who have many children or whose partners are uncircumcised. That would be inappropriate, and so is this. My good faith is substantial and I am hesitant to revert without discussion, but I am detecting some major POV problems with these additions and would like to see an effort at consensus before content so peripheral to the topic of the article is permitted to stay. Rivertorch (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the need for a world-wide view. That was one of the reasons I said it needed expanding. In a couple of minutes I was able to find tons of information both about women and men outside the western world. A good discussion about the dangers of receptive anal sex among men should also apply to all men who have sex with men around the world. Give it some time. It won't be hard to find even more information.

I also agree that this article isn't just about homosexual men who have sex with men and homosexual women who have sex with women. In fact, one of my complaints is there is woefully poor amounts of information on homosexual men and women who are either celibate or just have opposite sex partners. However, I do think it is related. If we can have sections on art and literature about same-sex couples, instances of same-sex couples in history, parenting by same-sex couples, laws allowing and prohibiting same-sex relationships, Melanesian same-sex rituals (which seem to have NOTHING to do with orientation) as well as same-sex behavior in animals, we can most certainly talk about health effects of same-sex intercourse. I mean really, if same-sex marriage is legal, it doesn't matter if it were two lesbians or two bisexual women getting married. Yet we include it in this article. In my understanding, homosexuality is both about men who have sex with men/women who have sex with women as well as same-gender attraction. If needs be, we could make that distinction and cypher off portions of this article to the appropriate buckets. For instance, most of the causes of homosexuality are about same-gender attraction and not about people who have same-sex relationships.) But I just don't see that happening any time soon. Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Joshuajohanson, this material is fundamental to the article. My only suggestion (other than some broadening of the discussion) is to indicate earlier in the discussion that it is not the mere fact of same-sex relations, but casual anal sex with multiple partners in particular that has been the vehicle of these epidemics. Haiduc (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So are we then also going to go into the BENEFITS of same-sex intercourse? Prostate stimulation, better oral sex than from female partners, blah blah blah. I really don't see the place for this in the article. If we are going to be fair and balanced, then we would also need to go into the reasons why homo-sex is beneficial to one's health. It's tangential (not to mention highly POV) and should be in another article. Furthermore, if you're referencing AIDS, casual anal sex is not the cause of the epidemic in most of the world. As said above, does the Heterosexuality article go into the dangers of straight sex?Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, man-on-man anal sex IS the cause of the HIV epidemic in most of the world. But if you're going to hold the opposite position, you'll have to supply some pretty good references! I've got mine ready - have you got yours :-) Bushcutter (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You say that with such confidence, but on what basis? Currently, 60% of AIDS sufferers are in Sub-Saharan Africa, where heterosexual intercourse, blood transfusions and other routes are the most common causes of infection, and where the number of female sufferers outnumbers the number of male sufferers. So yeah, let's be clear on our terms. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

See Current CDC statistics for the U.S. [1] Transimission Category -- Estimated # of AIDS cases in 2006. High-risk Heterosexual Contact 11,754; Injection Drug Use 6,795; M2M Sexual Contact, 16,001; M2M & Injection Drug use 1,803. Although it is close, these stats show that M2M transmission is LESS than Heterosexual transmission and intravenous drug transmission in the U.S. Atom (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But there are also more people who have straight sex than gay sex. Percentage-wise, M2M transmission way outdoes straight sex, putting them in a special high risk category. Also, that was 2006. In 2008 they estimate that over half (53%) of the new infections will occur in gay and bisexual men. And I don't think anyone is arguing drug use isn't also a high-risk category. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But again, we're getting way off topic. Some mention of AIDS and its impact on gay people in the West probably has a place in the article, but a "health hazards of homosexuality" section? Hardly. You'll notice there's no comparable section in the heterosexuality article. NPOV means that we don't pander to the desire of homophobes to fill up every LGBT-related article with irrelevant information designed to push an anti-gay agenda. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it, I really don't think AIDS has a place in this article. In gay community, yes. But there's no inherent link between homosexuality and AIDS, except that HIV was first observed in gay men. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm with you up to that point. I agree that AIDS should not be a focus in this article. And it should cetainly be in gay community as AIDS and a lost generation of gay men has had such a dramatic impact on the gay community. I'm not sure how it could be left out entirely -- even though I am not sure how it would best fit. Atom (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Receptive anal sex is the most "successful" mode of transmission from one person to the other, and only MSM can have receptive anal sex, get HIV, and then perform insertive anal sex on someone else. That being said, I agree that it has more to do with same-sex relationships than homosexuality and it is already covered on that page. A gay man who does not have same-sex relationships is not in a high-risk group like MSM are. In the Talk:Homosexuality#Redundant_information section, I have already suggested deleting this as well as other redundant sections that are specific to same-sex relationships. Since no one commented, I was going to delete this whole section and the other sections on same-sex relationship, but then people started commenting here. If you object to this section being deleted, please comment in the redundant information section. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Exploding Boy, per my earlier comments. Let's kill the section. Rivertorch (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The section should stay. MSM (sex) is clearly a pattern of homosexual activity, and the main source of the spread of HIV in (sub-Sahara) Africa. HIV lives and thrives in the rectum. HIV is extracted from a male rectum by means of a penis with a foreskin, and is delivered to both male and female rectums later on, where it is absorbed by the unique, specialized virus-absorbing tissues of the receiving rectum. To imply that it's needle sharing addicts who propogate HIV in Africa is silly and deceptive. It's Africa homosexuals in places like Zambia & Mozambique who get drunk and have forced sex with youths who create this uniquely African homosexual plague. According to the one of the CGD's broadcasts on the spread of HIV in Mozambique, the favourite method of spreading HIV is getting drunk and having sex, including homosexual sex, with many people each night. Homosexual entertainment really spreads HIV big-time. Bushcutter (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Flat-out lies about HIV. The principle vector of HIV in Africa -- in most of the world, in fact -- is heterosexual intimate contact. HIV enters the body through the mucus membranes, and a vagina works just as well as a rectum. HIV can also enter the body through cuts and abraisons, such as the ones that can occur on the penis during vaginal intercourse; that is how female prostitutes pass the disease on to men. HIV "lives" in the bloodstream. And "specialized virus-absorbing tissues"? I don't suppose you have any cites from actual peer-reviewed research to back up any of your absurd claims? Or are YouTube videos the very best you can manage? TechBear (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not just flat out lies, but I think we can say obvious trolling too. Exploding Boy (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

When you see nonsensical phrases like "specialized virus-absorbing tissues", "uniquely African plague", and "homosexual sex", is it even worth responding to? (Rhetorical question. Obvious answer: yes. Silence could be mistaken for consensus.) Rivertorch (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My investigation regarding homosexual behavior has led me to many health findings that are not documented in any of these major topics view on this site. That brings into focus who the writters are that score these so called "fndings." It is evident that, although it is not politically correct to identify such findings, I find myself in need to set the record straight and therefore I will identify some of the health hazards associated with this lifestyle. First, it has all kinds of sexually transmitted diseases. There are too many to list. All of which are incurable, but many are uncontrollable, AIDS being the KING of them all. Second, there is a high degree of promiscuity associated to praticipants. It is recorded that 75% of all homosexuals are sexually active with more than 100 to 1,000+ partners in ones lifetime. This is extremely out of the normal for a civilized society. The average heterosexual has just a one, two, or three in his or her respective lifetime. Many of which have only one. Third, all the hurtful practices associated with the act of homosexual behavior. Such as fisting, which tares the rectum of the receiver. And let us not forget "rimming" which creates feces, bacteria in the ingesting male. A medical doctor said that every weekend in San Francisco there are young men that come into the emergency room looking for medical attention due to rectal trama. "It looks like hamburger meat." This is not safe sex! Fourth, is the domestic abues of both men and women homosexuals. Men are 6 to 8 times more likely to be offended by one's parter than heterosexual couples, while even worse are women 8-10 times more likey. Fourth, is the rate of death of the gay community. Men and women are likely to live 20-40 years less than heterosexuls, thirty being the most accurate. No one is talking about this tradegy. Fifth, is the alcoholism, illegal and legal drug abuse associated to the gay lifestyle, most us which is to dim the pain of self abuse.

Now, why have some of these facts not been recorded? "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS." I encourage you to check the facts before you drink the punch.

Map Changes

Joshua,

The map of the world with the Illegal/Legal information was correct before you changed it. Note the original file on the Wikipedia Commons.

Under the Section that said "Homosexuality Legal" and listed subheadings of "Same-sex marriage" etc..etc... the subheadings, albeit a a bit misleading, were to show areas in which it was not only legal to be homosexual but various stages of "acceptance" among the country (ie: some accept homosexuals to the extent where they are given equal rights of marriage).

Your changes showed that same-sex marriage in, for instance, Saudi Arabia is punishable by death. In actuality, the institute of "same-sex marriage" does not even exist in Saudi Arabia, so how can one be put to death for it? Rather, the map is showing that by BEING homosexual you are put to death. Just as in many countries being discovered to be homosexual can result in prison time.

Just a thought...the map needs to be re-worded, but as it stands now, the "new titling" of "same-sex marriage legal" and "same sex marriage illegal" is incorrect. --Nsaum75 (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The new title was actually "Same-sex relationships legal" and "Same-sex relationships illegal", not same-sex marriages. Saying homosexuality is illegal makes it sounds as if you can get the death penalty for a homosexual orientation, when in reality you would only get it for having a sexual relationship with a member of the same sex. I agree that saying same-sex marriages are illegal doesn't make sense. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Joshuajohanson, In actuality, in many islamic countries, if you are homosexual or are suspected to be of homosexual orientation, then you do get the death penalty. If they find you having sex with someone of the same gender, it only makes it that much 'easier' to prove your homosexuality and punish you. --Nsaum75 (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not true. You may be spuriously charged with a crime such as sodomy, but "being gay" isn't illegal. In fact, Islamic law requires four witnesses to the act, making successful prosecutions unlikely without circumventing the law. em zilch (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How Islamic law is applied/interpreted/etc, however, is up to the clerics/judge(s) in the matter, as well as the country in which it occurs. Of course, if we listen to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, there are no homosexuals in Iran. --Nsaum75 (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, "Islamic Law" as it were, is perverted in the actual written law of many of these countries, and moreso in how it is enforced. A recent execution of an Iranian teen comes to mind, and I'm pretty sure there were no witnesses to any act.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we know for sure that the actual laws prohibit a homosexual orientation? That is quite the accusation for these countries, and I think we need to have good sources before we make that assumption. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, you're right, the laws usually only forbid homosexual acts, not being homosexual. See Homosexuality and Islam as a guide. Note that advocating for the LGBT movement or similar things may also be illegal in some countries. Note also that in many cases, any sex outside marriage is illegal, both for the male and female partner even if enforcement isn't always equal and the punishment is not always as harsh as the punishment if homosexual acts are involved. It's also important to remember that given the secrecy and lack of transparency in many countries, precisely what is happening in them is unclear and many people, for a variety of reasons spread misinformation. See for example the case of Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni where it has been claimed they were executed for consensual sex, but that doesn't appear to be what actual happened (the actual case may still be disturbing to many but it does emphasise IMHO how easily misinformation can be spread). In other words, don't assume something is true just because you read it somewhere. This is precisely the reason why we need excellent sources, and not just someone's random opinion based on their understanding of the situation/law/Sharia. On a tangent, Transsexuality in Iran may be interesting for some. Nil Einne (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

See also the case of Makwan Moloudzadeh who was executed for rape. Again many details of the case are disturbing but contrary to what it sometimes claimed [2] he was accused of rape, not consensual (homosexual) sex. Interestingly enough also, Ahmadinejad may not have actually said there are no homosexuals in Iran. [3]. P.S. for a completely different albeit unsourced take on the Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni case, read [4]. Nil Einne (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

See Sharia as that is primarily the source of homosexual persecution in Islamic countries. On a country by country basis the governmental law varies, but in most Islamic countries (all but Turkey??) Sharia overides all other laws. Atom (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think any reliable information we have about countries making homosexual orientation illegal would be very valuable. However, we can't report guess-work, and I am sure many of these countries for which the map says homosexuality is illegal is in fact only same-sex relationships which are illegal. I have started a discussion of this at Image_talk:World_homosexuality_laws.svg. If no one objects over there, I will make that change over here. Also, right now the map is in the same-sex marriage and civil unions section, but this also has to do with making same-sex relationships illegal. I want to move it to the same-sex relationships section. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any countries where homosexual orientation is illegal? I don't know of any. But there are indeed many countries where 'homosexuality is illegal, for example, Jamaica, Trinidad, mmost muslim countries, etc. Bushcutter (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. The APA states "sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality." According to the lead, "Homosexuality refers to sexual behavior with or attraction to people of the same sex, or to a homosexual orientation." Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and saying certain countries make a sexual orientation illegal is misleading. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Saying certain countries make a sexual orientation illegal is not misleading, but just true. It's obvious that outlawing homosexual orientation, that is outlawing homosexuality, doesn't make any sense. But don't forget that those countries which declare homosexuality illegal do not have any common sense when legislating. They enact laws punishing homosexual orientation because they represent backward societies; they don't have any kind of serious council or something like that to get advice from when enacting laws. They enact nonsensical laws based on religion, backward traditions, feelings or just popular outcry. Mreq (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. It is possible to outlaw homosexual acts, and many countries do so. However, there is no way to outlaw homosexuality in and of itself; in the absense of any overt act, how is the law supposed to know one's orientation? TechBear (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I'm proposing that the split article Homosexual orientation be merged back into this one. Both articles are now too long, and in any case they contain mostly duplicate information. In addition:

• The "new" definition of homosexuality is exactly the same as the one for "homosexual orientation". Both refer, by the sources given, to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to" people of the same sex," ie: "sexual behavior with or attraction to people of the same sex"

Homosexual orientation does not equate to sexual behavior with people of the same sex. If that were the case, homosexual orientation would be a choice, because we can all choose our sexual behaviors. That would be like saying a Catholic priest has decided not be heterosexual anymore because decided to be celibate. The APA has said "Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors." [5] Now, homosexuality includes a homosexual orientation, so hence it includes the enduring pattern definition, but it also includes sexual behavior, where homosexual orientation does not. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• This article is bloated with information that isn't needed in it. I think editors here have fallen into the common trap of over-analyzing homosexuality in relation to heterosexuality. While the Heterosexuality article isn't perfect, it's nowhere near as angsty and cluttered with extraneous information as this one. There'll be plenty of room in this article for any new information in the homosexual orientation article once all the extra stuff here is removed.

It seems like merging the two two articles would make this article more bloated. This seems like a good argument not to merge. Let's first declutter this article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is also a lot of duplicate information just in this article (eg: etymology is discussed twice).

But there isn't a lot of duplicate information between the two articles. There is some, but that can be easily fixed. Like you said, the split was pretty new. I don't see how having a lot of duplicate information just in this article will be fixed by merging the articles. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• There are no Bisexual orientation, Heterosexual orientation or similar articles.

Those articles are probably small enough so that the three aspects of bisexuality and heterosexuality can be covered in one article. That doesn't mean they might not make those pages in the future. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• We already have articles on Sexual orientation, Sexual identity, Human sexual behaviour et al.

Homosexual orientation contains a lot of information that is specific to a homosexual orientation, such as homophobia, psychological view of homosexual orientation, and laws protecting people with a homosexual orientation. Just because we already have articles on those topics, doesn't mean we can't go into how those topics specifically relate to a homosexual orientation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I realize this split has only recently occurred, but it happened without sufficient discussion and over at least some editors' objections. Discussion is needed. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The split has never made much sense to me, except in regard to shortening the article. I said when the proposal was made that the three principal meanings identified in the lead are intertwined and that it would be difficult, if possible at all, to break one of them out from the other two. Summarization of each section with accompanying multiple new articles (e.g., Homosexuality in history, Homosexuality and religion) would be more logical, I think, and more easily accomplished. However, it might be better to let the split run its course and see what we end up with before attempting to weld any of it back together. Clearly, there will be critical pieces missing from the article. It may be that a total rewrite will be indicated. Rivertorch (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The lead gives three distinct definitions. It says "Homosexuality refers to sexual behavior with or attraction to people of the same sex, or to a homosexual orientation." Note that it uses or, not and. I completely agree that the three definitions have a lot of overlap, and I think the different pages reflect the overlap. However, the definitions are still distinct. When you talk about whether homosexuality is legal in a certain country, you aren't talking about whether the sexual orientation is illegal, but whether same-sex relationships are legal. When you talk about causes of homosexuality, you are talking about what causes a person to have a certain sexual orientation. See my inserted comments. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

While the concepts of homosexual behavior, orientation and attraction may overlap considerably with one another, I agree with Joshiajohanson it is very important that these aspects of homosexuality be carefully distinguished for the purposes of describing and explaining homosexuality as a complex phenomenon.--Agnaramasi (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That may be what the intro says, but in fact there's really no difference between the two so-called definitions, and in fact a whole lot more quality references would be needed if you want to claim that there's enough of a difference between homosexuality and "homosexual orientation" to warrant two distinct articles. Joshua: you seem to be mixing up homosexuality (which is to say, (homo)sexual orientation) and (homo)sexual behaviour. I think that there's a lot of this confusion going on in this article in particular. "Homosexuality" means "homosexual orientation" (or would, if "homosexual orientation" wasn't a weird neologism) just as "heterosexuality" means "heterosexual orientation." Two distinct articles are unnecessary, confusing, and repetitious. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the significance of "or" rather than "and" in the lead. Either conjunction would work, grammatically and logically. (Or should I say grammatically or logically?) This is a huge topic and I confess to feeling occasionally overwhelmed by its breadth and all of its intricacies, so let me just address two points. First, the legal status in certain countries, just like the "acceptance status" in certain subcultures such as religious bodies, does not hinge only on relationships or behavior; in many cases it hinges on accusations and/or admissions of homosexual orientation. In many cases, it is quite enough to say "I'm gay" to be condemned to death or kicked out of church or whatever, regardless of whether one is now in, has ever been in, or plans to be in a relationship. And even on the behavior front, what many would consider "homosexual behavior" need not be sexual behavior at all: as I noted in an earlier thread, being gay is about lots more than the gender of the person(s) one has sex with—it also has a lot to do with the gender of the person(s) one does nonsexual things with (like falling in love, for instance). "Sexual orientation" is something of a misnomer in that regard. Nonetheless, while it may be useful to make useful distinctions between orientation and attraction or behavior, they are immutably linked because homosexual orientation means (among many other things) a propensity for homosexual attraction and behavior. In any event, I did suggest letting the split run its course and then reevaluating how things stand. There's just too much in flux to go back and forth between splits and merges so quickly. I suspect we'll see another proposal to merge sometime soon. I may well support it then, but I oppose it now. Rivertorch (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality and homosexual orientation are definitely different, but they are very closely interlinked. Also, a lot (if not most or all) of the info on the homosexual orientation page is stuff your average wikipedia browser would (I believe) think to find on the homosexuality page. However, I agree with Rivertorch - leave it as it is unless it leads to problems. Darimoma (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary uses both definitions.[6] I also think the average wikipedia browser would think to find a lot of the stuff on the same-sex relationships page on this page. The problem is there is no room. The article is already too long, even with the two spin-offs. The most important things should be summarized and placed in the homosexual orientation and same-sex relationships paragraphs. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not overly impressed with the American Heritage Dictionary as a source. I'd like to see some quality references for the way you're proposing to use these terms. A Google search for "homosexual orientation" brings up page after page of religious websites and links to the new Wikipedia article. Can you document where the terms "homosexuality" and "homosexual orientation" are explicitly differentiated in a scholarly source, such as the Journal of Homosexuality?

It seems very strange to me that you're so concerned with terminology on the one hand, and yet so willing to mix concepts on the other. Why, for example, should the Homosexuality article contain information from Same-sex relationship? Why should the Homosexuality article be the repository for information on gay sex, rather than the Human sexual behaviour article? Ditto HIV/AIDS? And why is a separate Homosexual orientation article needed when we already have Sexual orientation? Where will this splitting end? Pedophilic orientation? Pansexual orientation? Zoosexual orientation? We need to be clear on the difference between sexuality (that is, sexual orientation; you'll note that Sexuality currently redirects to Sexual orientation) and sexual behaviour. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an important distinction between homosexuality as a behaviour and as a sexual orientation. How is a homosexual identity at all the same as homosexual sexual practices? They may be related, yes, but they certainly are not identical. A person can profess a homosexual sexual orientation while not engaging in homosexual sexual practices just as easily as a person can engage in such practices and profess a heterosexual sexual orientation. Perhaps the best way of naming the splitted articles would be "Homosexuality (sexual orientation)" and "Homosexuality (sexual behaviour)" in order to avoid introducing the odd phrase "Homosexual orientation" altogether. But I do think that the distinction itself is beyond question. An important reference would be Foucault, who argues in The History of Sexuality that homosexual sexual practices only became associated with a homosexual identity since the 19th century. This distinction is not confined to Foucaultian discourse, however. It is, I'm sure, axiomatic in most contemporary psychological, sociological, historical and philosophical discourses of sexuality.--Agnaramasi (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The point of view taken by Rivertorch seems eminently sensible to me. Why not improve this article and its subarticles first, and then reconsider the merge once this article is well structured and concise? Obsession with definitions (on all sides) is not helpful while the article is so weak. Geometry guy 21:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between homosexuality as a sexual orientation and homosexual behaviour as a type of sex. That's why we have the Homosexuality and Human sexual behaviour articles. Surely no one's suggesting that this article should be a reincarnation of Gay sex? Exploding Boy (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There hasn't been a lot of activity here lately. If no one objects, I am going to remove the banners from the articles. This doesn't mean this discussion can't be picked up at a later date. Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Opposite sex relationships

This section currently uses the acronym "LGB", where simply putting "gay & lesbian" would make more sense. It is not unusual for bisexual people to have opposite sex relationships, as this is part of their orientation. The use of the acronym implies that bisexuals, too, date opposite sex people as a means of cover-up, which would be highly incorrect and may fall under an unintentional case of bisexual erasure by whoever wrote that paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.119.71 (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Well spotted. Darimoma (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Homosexuality is basically the attraction in between the people of the different sexes ,while this kind of things are common and are now welcomed even by the government of many countries ,but it is not that openly discussed in the India due to various social stigmas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.208.36 (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The "homosexuality" article is not impartial

After reading the article titled "Homosexuality" I found that it lacked the usual standard of impartiality found on wikipedia. The points put across in the document especially to do with religion were misleading and biased. It has no information about why some religions and countries are morally against homosexuality. It also has no information about the risk of HIV, AIDs and other related STDs and illnesses which are directly linked to homosexuality and that seriously diminish life expectancy and personal health and hygiene

for further discussion on the point please contact me at "doctorjohndavies@googlemail.com" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.66.188 (talk • contribs)

You may be more comfortable with Conservapedia. seicer | talk | contribs 13:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The main reason for this is the length of the article. It's already longer than one would hope for in a WP article, so some info is just linked to on other articles. There is a fairly decent explanation of protestant reasons for opposing homosexuality on the Religion and homosexuality article, which is linked to in this article, and the health risks are specifically linked to gender - thus you'll find more on them on the Men who have sex with men and the Women who have sex with women articles. I think the religion section is fairly NPOV (a couple of comments could maybe do with some brief explanation of counter positions, but that's about it). If you have any specific comments, please do give them here. I can understand that you'd appreciate us to email you, but it's better if we can all see the discussion going on (plus no one has to reveal their email address to complete strangers).Darimoma (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Americas section

While the Two-Spirit identity was vastly common throughout the continent, if not universal, to call it the most common form of same-sex relations is presumptuous I would say. It is most likely that most homosexual activity took place within male-male or female-female identities and that the third gender was also expressed but not on the same scale. The Two-Spirit was a "between-gender" identity...neither male nor female but a combination. Homosexual and bisexual men who identified as male likewise not engage in this transgender role but would seek out relationships as men with other men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.249.252 (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. If you have a source for this, it should be incorporated into the article. Rivertorch (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality is biologically speaking, a defect which can be cured genetically, isn't it?, is there much dispute about that?. Rodrigue (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In a word, no. First homosexuality is not a defect. Homosexuality is, biologically speaking, genetically determined, just like your skin color, hair color or eye color, and can be changed, long term, just as easily. Generally genetic traits cannot be changed, you are born with them. It is theorized that some homosexual behavior or inclination can be environmentally influenced (as opposed to genetically) but this does not speak about it from a biological perspective. Some behavior learned from the environment can be changed through environmental conditioning. But then, why would someone want to do that? It would be like if you learned to write with your left hand, why would you want to force yourself to write with your right hand, and not your left hand? Atom (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, these kinds of questions are probably best fielded at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous. Atom (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Micov's edits

The edits by User:Micov on Homosexuality were removed because of a few flaws in presentation; however, the information still seems relevant and backed-up. Any objections to putting them in (in the right place)? Darimoma (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The problems were multiple. The writing was sloppy, sweeping generalizations were made, at least some of the conclusions drawn were almost certainly beyond what was supported by the sources, some of the studies were really old, some of the wording came across as scare tactics, and, perhaps most importantly, the level of detail, perhaps even the topic itself, doesn't doesn't lend itself to inclusion in a general article on homosexuality. Anal sex, maybe—not homosexuality. Here, it is way peripheral. As was pointed out recently on this page, heterosexual behavior is also associated with various health problems. So what, I ask. We're an encyclopedia, not a catalog of worst-case scenarios for various populations.

Speaking of recently, I'm not sure who sicced the bot on this page nor do I have the time right now to research it, but given the number of discussions we keep returning to, 30 days is too soon to archive. Rivertorch (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

She left me a message on my talk page asking for assistance with that. I see no problem with it being introduced appropriately. I think it needs to be more concise, and the citations should be checked. You could help him with that. Others may have objections to the balance of neutrality. That can be worked out after the others issues are worked out. I put it at Draft of edit for Homosexuality article if you want to help her edit it for inclusion. What section do you think is most appropriate? Atom (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That information is specific to men who have sex with men and the main portion should be on that page. I think it is related to homosexuality, but only so far as same-sex relationships are related. I do not think it should be implied that someone is at higher risk just because of their sexual orientation. There is a small section on sexual behavior, and I think a brief mention should be included there. It should include other health problems mentioned on the MSM page. It should be brief and not overwhelm the other topics. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I put the content on a subpage of her main page and edited it. After editing it is improved, but still needs alot of work. I haven't checked the citations to see how reliable they are. I figured, after the edit, she could follow up and tighten it up and put it on the page for others to critique if she still was motivated. Here is what it looks like -- at User:Micov/Homosexuality draft.

"Anal sex can be an important risk factor for intestinal parasitism.[13] High rates of intestinal parasitism are found in MSM throughout the world.[14] The prevalence of amebiasis is approximately 4% overall in the United States, however the prevalence of E. historylitica or E. dispar in the gay population of New York City and San Francisco approached 40-50%.[15] Guardia lamblia and Entamoeba histolytica have long been regarded as 'exotic' organisms, but are 'hyperendemic' among gay men attending STD clinics with up to 20 excreting cysts."[16] In a controlled study 67.5% of 200 homosexual men but only sixteen percent of 100 heterosexual men were found to be infected with intestinal parasites"...These findings suggest that the male homosexual community may be an important reservoir of potentially pathogenic protozoa."[17]"

Keep in mind I don't agree with the viewpoint or research. My first thought would be to research the citations to make sure they are reliable, then make it read a little better, and then, since it is too technical, try to simplify the language. Atom (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality in ancient Celtic tribes

A section for this should probably be added under Europe so as to not limit it to just Greece and Rome. A few Roman historians point out homosexuality in Celtic tribes. Although the details and sources listed under the ancient Celtic articles are scarce. Can anyone obtain more information before adding this to the article? Ceejus (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

tone

I came here to look for a list of dates of decriminalization of homosexuality. Wikipedia does not appear to have this, beyond the handful of dates mentioned under "Politics". I cannot help but note that this article is in an abysmal state in terms of encyclopedic tone and neutrality. I am not going to invest time trying to fix this, but can editors please try to observe a minimal semblance of writing neutrally? It is clear, of course, that the "LBGT" articles are mostly written by "LBGT people", but please try to make this circumstance a little bit less painfully obvious. First of all, discussion of legal issues needs to be disentangled from the generic rambling discussion of societal attitudes, "oppression", etc. Assume that the reader is interested in mere facts, not political sermons. The constant implication that the position of the majority is "wrong" raises giant WP:REDFLAGs. You cannot present this as the justified fight of a tiny minority who was "right" all along against evil mainstream society who was "wrong" all along. WP:DUE says that mainstream positions should receive precedence. It is highly dubious to state "the gay community first began to achieve actual, though limited, civil rights". Civil rights are for citizens, not "communities". The "right" here referred to is the single issue of the legality of homosexual acts, which was not a civil right prior to the 1960s, and which is now a civil right in most countries. Etc. Frankly, the entire article would need to be rewritten from scratch to get rid of the inherent bias present in every turn of phrase, and I say this not because I want to see any sort of "anti-gay" view given more precedence, but simply because it hurts to see such blatant violation of Wikipedia core policy. You can state the same facts in neutral language, please try. --dab (𒁳) 14:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Where to start? If you had checked the recent history of the article and the archives of this talk page, you would have seen that enormous changes have taken place here in recent months, including a split into two separate articles, major rewrites of disputed sections, and myriad discussions about neutrality, some of them stemming from a GA review. Much work remains to be done, and I agree that a complete rewrite is probably called for, but I cannot agree with the reason you give or, indeed, with anything else you say. For starters, your assumption regarding the LGBT status of WP editors is unfounded, absurd, and patently offensive in that it implies a correlation between alleged neutrality problems and sexual orientation. You go on to advocate disentangling things which are thoroughly interrelated, see "political sermons" where a diverse crew of editors have detected none, and suggest the article assigns "right" and "wrong" positions where it simply does not. You then put forward the idea that civil rights apply only to individuals, not groups, which aside from being demonstrably false is fringe in the extreme. To add injury to insult, at least one of your edits to the article introduced a serious grammatical error. (I'm having Internet problems and am not going to attempt a revert. Anyone else?) Sorry you think the editors who have been working so hard on this have done such a piss-poor job in terms of NPOV; believe me, more than one or two of us have tried very hard to get it right. Rivertorch (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rivertorch. Also how can you claim to know the "mainstream" position on this issue? Are you simply assuming the mainstream is homophobic, or do you have a source?--Agnaramasi (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a job for... {{sodoit}}! But seriously, let's all play nicely, kids. Dissenting viewpoints are critical to the collaboration process, but dab; a less accusatory tone is probably in order here. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 08:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

9 References?

9 References for the 2-7% homosexuality rate in the intro section seem excessive. 5 at most seems good enough? Inseeisyou (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd vote to keep the 9. The only disadvantage (I can see, at least) is that the article looks slightly messier. Slightly. I think it's fine. Darimoma (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC) indented added by ~ L'Aquatique[talk] to improve readability