Talk:Homosexuality

Norwegians and homosexual sex

This article contains this passage, "However, according to a survey, 12% of Norwegians have had homosexual sex." I think that this is undue (there's no good reason to mention Norway in particular), and it is cited in a very misleading way - as though it had some relevance to the percentage of the population that is homosexual. As there is a difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, it does not necessarily have any such relevance. This fact should be removed from the article, or relocated somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.150.49 (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the comment above. The proportion of the population that has had homosexual sex has no necessary relevance to the proportion that is homosexual, as sexual behavior and sexual orientation are different kinds of things. Since no one has objected to this proposal over the past week, I am going to remove this material from the article. Devil Goddess (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Can

Someone explain why we have two article for both Homosexuality and Homosexual orientation? Aren't they the same thing? 76.29.116.172 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If you search the archives of this talk page, you'll see that after much discussion the article was split into two. Several reasons were behind this, the most compelling of them being that the article, which was undergoing GA review, was way too long. To answer your second question, homosexuality, as the lead paragraph states, "refers to sexual behavior with or attraction to people of the same sex, or to a homosexual orientation." In other words, "homosexuality" has a broader definition than just the sexual orientation. Incidentally, the split was controversial, and I suspect we will see a merge again sometime down the road. Rivertorch (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The American Psychological Association joins the American Psychiatric Association in defining homosexuality as a category of act or desire expressed by an individual. see In Re Marriage Cases. --ElderHap (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC). edited by ElderHap (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

Why is there so much use of the awkward term "same-sex" throughout this article? We have a perfectly good adjective for this: homosexual. Why concoct such an awkward term when there is a much more common and elegant term for the same thing? It sounds really strange to use "same-sex" as an adjective to me. It's like calling identical twins same-genome twins or something... Feichangdao (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is about homosexuality itself, and is designed to be read by people seeking information about homosexuality. Therefore, we should avoid over-using the term as if it were an already defined value. Same sex attractions and relationships are central features of homosexuality, and therefore appropriate reference points. forestPIG^(grunt) 21:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The line about historical figures in the Homosexuality needs to be removed because it is unproven.

"Many historical figures, including Socrates, Lord Byron, Edward II, Hadrian, Julius Caesar, Michelangelo, Donatello, Leonardo DaVinci, and Christopher Marlowe had sexual relationships with people of their own sex."

This line needs to be removed based on the fact that there are no proven facts that Leonardo DaVinci was a homosexual. The only grounds that even point to homosexuality is that he was brought up on sodomy charges (common to the 15th Century to discredit political, scientific, and family oppositions) charges by opposing, jealous scientists and artist. Leonardo was found not guilty. If anything this evidence points to the fact that Leonardo did not have sexual relations with men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyoa1fan (talk • contribs) 03:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if Leonardo is inappropriately included, that would hardly justify removal of the entire line. As to whether it's inappropriate, that's hard to say. There are some grounds other than the ones you mention, although they're hardly conclusive; neither is a not-guilty finding by a 15th-century court conclusive. The underlying problem here is that conclusive evidence of who was doing what with whom 500 years ago is generally impossible to come by. Historians, biographers, scientists, fellow artists, self-professed soul mates all peer through the lens of their own eras and make guesses, some of them informed by considerable circumstantial and anecdotal evidence, some of them just guesses. How much does it matter? Is it important that sexual orientation or sexual behavior be described accurately in the case of historical figures? If so, why? Leonardo is widely believed to have been romantically involved (although not necessarily sexually involved) with members of his own sex. Perhaps we should reword the sentence to reflect that, and throw in a relevant citation. Rivertorch (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some re-writing is in order. I don't think that anyone will claim that Socrates had sexual relationships with boys, though it is very clear that he desired them. Haiduc (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Asexual-Leonardo Di Vinci for all arguement purposes was Asexual. While the arguement of Heterosexuals and Homosexuals has been so heated we have forgotten other forms of sexual orientation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.188.25 (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

We definitely need extra citations here. What about changing it to:

Many historical figures, including Socrates, Lord Byron, Edward II, Hadrian[29], Julius Caesar, Michelangelo, Donatello, Leonardo da Vinci, and Christopher Marlowe are believed to have had romantic or sexual relationships with people of their own sex.

Emphasis mine and should be removed if it's to be added to the article. There are quite a few names on here that are based on anecdotal evidence; this merits their inclusion but not the definite term "had." I'll look online for sources and encourage others to do the same. Graymornings_(talk) 03:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You're probably on the right track, but I see two potential problems: (1) "believed to have had" is weaselly (weasellous?); (2) romantic relationships may be more easily documented than sexual ones, so the "romantic or sexual" wording applied to a group of historical figure is imprecise. I think the key here lies in the citations. I have had little luck so far with either online sources or my own books at hand, but I'll keep looking. Someone with full access to a good university library could make a difference here. Rivertorch (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right -- "believed to have had" is a bit weaselly and could definitely be worded better. We do need to imply, though, that some of these relationships are poorly-documented and that scholars have debated them. Ideas?

I've actually got access to the library of Williams College, which is biggish and has a good English lit collection. (Our rare books library supposedly has some important Byron stuff, but it's closed for renovations -- might be working there in a month, though.) We've also got online access to most journal articles. I'll look around for sources, and if there's anything you'd like me to look up, I'd be happy to find it for you. Graymornings_(talk) 22:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm hoping to have a little more time in the next several weeks for this article and its forkish sibling, Homosexual orientation. I keep coming back to the unfortunate fact that good evidence for the sexual/affectional orientation of long-ago people, not to mention the exact nature of their relationships, will often be completely absent. (This is just as true, of course, for historical figures generally held to be straight as it is for the ones mentioned in this article.) In many cases, what we're seeking to report here are educated guesses, theories, and sometimes just plain conjecture—which is fine, as long as the people whose guesses, theories, and conjecture we're repeating are notable and/or scholarly. Rivertorch (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I've found out so far:

• Socrates: The Socrates article says surprisingly little about this, which is something that could be improved. The article Charmides deals with this issue in the context of the Socratic dialogues.
• Lord Byron: Seems solid. The Byron article has good sources for these assertions that we can copy into this article. See the Lord Byron article's section on this.
• Edward II: The Edward II article gives it a mention and cites Cantor's In The Wake of the Plague as a source, but I don't know how legit this is. I'll go to the library and give it a look.
• Hadrian: Well-documented, although curiously not mentioned in the Hadrian article. Anthony Birley's Hadrian: The Restless Emperor has more info.
• Julius Caesar: Unclear. It's very likely that questions about his sexuality were rumors started by political rivals. Scholarly sources sparse.
• Michaelangelo: Whether he had romantic relationships with young men is beyond question; however, he may not have had sexual relationships at all. The Michaelangelo article has cites we can use.
• Donatello: Inconclusive. Historians disagree. Article has cites.
• Leonardo da Vinci: Was prosecuted under sodomy laws, but acquitted. Scholarly articles sparse, but seem to indicate that there's not much evidence.
• Christopher Marlowe: Historians disagree. Article has cites.

The main question is whether we can say conclusively that these men definitely had relationships (romantic or sexual) with men. It looks like we can't for most of them, although Byron, Hadrian, and Michaelangelo come close. We can certainly say that all of them were suspected of being homosexual, but to say that all of them had relationships with their own sex would be overreaching. More research a-comin'. Graymornings_(talk) 03:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion

Silly Rabbit, don't you think you need to discuss something before you single mindedly decide something to be not up to your taste and delete it. If there are no references or citations, then you ask for them before you go about deleting text. Deletion of text by another editor, without a discussion, upon one's own whims and fancies is a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia.(Masculinity (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC))

It is true that Wikipedia has a policy of WP:BOLDness that allows people to edit articles boldly, possibly against the existing consensus. However, it also has the guideline of WP:BRD: specifically, if you are bold, and then reverted, then you should discuss. Now this deletion was not based on my "own whims and fancies" (see WP:AGF), but was rather based on WP:NPOV as I indicate in the edit summary of the reversion. The edit was clearly intended to push a particular point of view, which probably does not represent the majority point of view among scholars. If it turns out that this is the majority point of view, then perhaps it can stay in the article. But without references to mainstream sources, no one can make that determination.

I have noticed that some editors who, when confronted with this problem, will often attempt to build a case for the added material by seeking sources that conform to their own point of view. This is also not entirely acceptable. What would be ideal instead is to write the section from sources. A good place to start might be to find one source, mainstream enough that it is beyond reproach, which treats the problem of historical concepts of sexuality. Then to find a source (hopefully also beyond reproach) dealing with essentialism and constructionism in this context as well. The paragraphs you wrote on this topic, in addition to continuing in the polemic vein of the historical section, further seem to be an original synthesis of published ideas, which is not permitted under policy. Writing the section from mainstream sources and being careful not to draw any original conclusions will help to avoid these issues. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

More. I think the article is lacking a discussion of queer theory and the essentialism versus constructionism debate. I do not think that large portions of the article should be rewritten from an explicitly constructionist point of view however. What would be better is to write a short section, in summary style, giving the main viewpoints, and adding it to a later section of the article. Perhaps at first this could go into the Law, politics, and society section. If enough material accumulates, then maybe there will be consensus to develop a Philosophy section. However, I think other project members should weigh in on this, since they might have better ideas about what to do. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Silly rabbit that the revert was in order. In addition to containing questionable, unsourced opinions, Masculinity's edit appeared to remove sourced material—without discussion, no less. Leaving aside for the moment the alphabet soup of WP policies and guidelines and being wholly pragmatic, anyone who has watched this article for a while should know that major changes without prior discussion and reputable sources are likely to be reverted. I'm not arguing that that's good or bad in general, just that it's the reality. Rivertorch (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality in animals

I have checked over the years and I am yet to find a study done of animals in their natural habitats that are homosexual. The 'reported' ones have always come from some zoo or wildlife areas. THis I think has made the argument weak.

If i'm incorrect can someone plesae point out such a study. Stating that two penguins in captivity bonded and raised a child you gave them is not proof for me.

Dogs have taken kittens and allowed them mto suckle after the kittens mother died so that I think is not a good example. Their are animals that the father cares for the baby while the mother hunts, even birds that the male partner will sit on the egg for a while. 72.27.26.233 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the sources in the Homosexual behavior in animals article? --Moni3 (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Especially Biological Exuberance by Bagemihl. Haiduc (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I second the original poster's argument. The whole parent topic is still unproven as to whether it is a chosen action or biological predisposition. Animals can't talk and tell us they are or aren't homosexual, either, and all the current research suggesting a few rare homosexual occurrences in animals can usually be linked to bisexuality or gender confusion, not strictly homosexual behavior. This shouldn't be stated as fact but rather keeping in line with the parent topic as hotly debated and debatable. Cutterx2202 (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So, like the first poster you are jsut going to state a lie, (that this behavior hasn't been observed in the wild, when it has) instead of dealing with the reality?Kairos (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Military

{{editsemiprotected}}At the end of the military section it states the British military has had no problems since allowing homosexuals into service and then cites a newspaper. This is extremely unlikely, as even minor problems are bound to have occurred. A stronger citation is needed or a rewording to state that there were no large reprocussions as of yet. Something like, "The British military, which removed their restriction against gay service members in 2000, has yet to experience the feared results on a large scale.Cutterx2202 (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Find proof that problems have occurred and then we can change the article. Your belief that there MUST be some problems says more about you and your beliefs than anything else.Kairos (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I rejected the edit request as no consensus for the change.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Addition to subsection on homosexuality in European history

I think this article should include a few sentences about (and a reference) to Allan A. Tulchin's highly-publicized article of 2007, in which this historian of Medieval France (Shippensburg University) presented evidence that a form of same-sex civil unions existed in the Middle Ages, not only in France, but in other areas of Europe, as well. Here is the citation: Allan A. Tulchin, "Same-Sex Couples Creating Households in Old Regime France: The Uses of the Affrèrement", The Journal of Modern History 79 (September 2007): 613–647. Discussion of the article appeared in The Week, Science Daily, and many other news sources. Tulchin argues that "affrerement" (translated as "enbrotherment") was a common legal category in which two men could live together, pool their resources, and basically function as a married couple. Given the fact that the current page says very little about the Middle Ages, and in light of the attention garnered by the article, I think the research deserves a mention. The article is easily locatable online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavlovscat567 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Pavlovscat567 (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I received a suggestion that this information should be included in the article on the history of same-sex unions. I agree. I also added the info to the page on the history of sexuality. However, I still think it's worth including a reference to Tulchin's work on this page. Tulchin speculates that "enbrotherment" relationships were sometimes sexual, sometimes not (you can image the difficulty with the historical sources). That being the case, it would relate to "sexuality" more directly. People should take a look at this article in the Journal of Modern History and give feedback. Thanks! Pavlovscat567 (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Could this "Enbrotherment" have been created as a way for two young men to cope with the cost of living? Sort of like having 4 or more roommates to help yo pay the rent in college happens today?? Though, some of them would have likely become sexual in nature anyway..... Kairos (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Born Eunuchs

i think this should be incorporated into the article http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/contents.htm ~kp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.124.0 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Eunuchs are gay? Very doubtful, and self-published by someone of dubious credentials on the subject. No. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

it's a very thorough thesis and extensive research in global cultures, with source references and original language citations thus very relevant ~ kp