Talk:Homosexuality

Edit request from Fletch1989, 26 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

In the United Kingdom employment discrimination has been expanded and it is now illegal to discriminate against any employee because he or she is homosexual. This was made possible by the Equality Act 2010. The Act furthers right to LGBT individuals and not only makes it illegal to directly discriminate against them but also indirectly and associative discrimination. It is seen as one of the most advanced pieces of legislation in western Europe. Fletch1989 (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done for the moment. Can you be a little more specific about the exact piece of content you want added and also provide a reliable source to back it up. That does seem like interesting content to add, but it needs a source and a proposed wording to fit. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Homosexual behavior in animals

The first sentence of the sub-category should be deleted; "Homosexual behavior in animals ... pair bonding, and parenting." There has been no citation for the longest time. It is therefore unreliable. The last sentence of the sub-category should also be deleted; "the animal kingdom ... been willing to accept." This link has been also been dead for the longest time.

This being said, the whole "Homosexual behavior in animals" sub-category should be removed and re-posted in the Animal sexual behaviour category sice it is a suitable one for the subject matter (unless we want to post a "Homosexual behavior in humans" sub-category there??).Эдуард Шерешевский (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I accept your point about the missing and dead citations, but let's stop being silly about this. The reason it's there is as a counter to those who want to argue that homosexuality is unnatural. An article like this is unavoidably controversial. To remove part of the story as you suggest is to change the POV of the article, something we must be really careful about. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:DEADLINK, article text should not be removed when a URL no longer works. In any case, I've fixed/supplied the two citations mentioned here. Rostz (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about the links.Эдуард Шерешевский (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

I can understand that this article is controversial, but, we should not put up "counters" because of it. I think that an article should be written without elements that act as "counters" since these are the factors that influence people's decisions (or persuades them). If people argue that homosexuality is unnatural we should not add counters like "Homosexual behavior in animals" to counter their thoughts (for some it is right, for others, it is wrong(just like a lot of other things in the world)).

This being said, if the "Homosexual behavior in animals" sub-category has been written to counter peoples believes, this article does not have a neutral POV. It should be deleted since we wouldn't want "counters" in every article on Wikipedia (to influence people), right? I also believe that the "Homosexual behavior in animals" sub-category has a much better place in the Animal sexual behaviour article. Эдуард Шерешевский (talk)

Again, you have to be really careful when considering anything that would change the balance of the article. The article does mention those, from many backgrounds, who claim or have claimed that homosexuality is unnatural. To remove text showing that it is natural outside humankind is removing relevant information. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you very much. Now I understand the "balance of the article" ideology. Just one thing what does "...those, from many backgrounds.." have to do with anything?Эдуард Шерешевский (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

Something else has come to my attention. To start off with, 6 out of 7 of the so-called reliable references for the sub-category [behavior in animals] are passage and excerpt from a biologist named Bruce Bagemihl. This biologist is also homosexual and he is also a gay rights activist. This does not sound to me like this article is reliably-supported and certainly does not represent a Neutral Point Of View. Check out my wall for a current discussion about this matter. Эдуард/Edward 20:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It is offensive to dismiss someone's words because you don't like what he does in his private life. That's sounds like pure bigotry. Discuss the words, not the writer. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

We should stay on topic and discuss the NPOV instead of inventing things and calling me a bigot. I believe that I have a valid point. Both sources in the intro paragraph claiming that homosexuality is widely encountered in the animal kingdom. These sources are A: A book written by Bruce Bagemihl and B: a magazine LGBT-interest magazine called The Advocate. *WP:NEWSORG states; When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others. When using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the author, and not to assert it as fact. The writer is a critical aspect in the identification of reliable sources. If an article is only based on books that he has written and news statements he has given, the English Wikipedia policy is being ignored. Эдуард/Edward 21:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be better to avoid using material from just one source, whether the writer is gay, Scottish or red headed. If anyone's relevant POV was on display, it was yours. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with your false accusation and your last statement. This is a relevant topic for many and an important one. This article should only represent reliable sources to prevent a POV from being in an article. What are the normal procedures in addressing a situation like this one, where the sources are actually just one? Эдуард/Edward 22:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( Disagreement over whether cited sources support that homosexual behaviour is widely or is sometimes observed in animals; dispute over whether author cited are RS given that he is gay. ):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Homosexuality and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

One possible solution to this impasse maybe to state that homosexual behavior has been observed without putting a qualifier on it. Content should remain in article with appropriate flag regarding lack of a reliable reference, and removed with consensus if appropriate time has passed without it having a reliable reference. Questions regarding the validity of the references belong in WP:RSN and a new discussion should be started there post haste.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. It does seem like the best option. Just to clarify, this is not a dispute because the author is gay. This problem links to the fact that "widely" is not the best term to be used here and that every citation linked back to the same author during that time period. Эдуард/Edward 03:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree that this is the best option. It is an option, and might be one way to put a stop to this present debate, which is an important step on the path to consensus, but the larger goal is the betterment of the article. I have added some more refs, by authors other than the one you consider unreliable, supporting the presence of the word "widely"; please go carefully read them. Bear in mind that removing the qualifier altogether does not make the statement neutral; "n has been observed" connotes and implies that the observation is an uncommon one. "Widely" does not mean "universally" or anything close to it, and the sources seem to support the notion that homosexual behaviour has indeed been widely observed in the animal kingom, i.e., it has been observed in a great diversity of species. Not just in primates, for example, nor even just in mammals. Whether the refs you object to are RS or not is a separate matter; we've now got a wider range of refs to support the assertion, and I believe they support it strongly enough that "widely" is accurate and correct. Let the consensus-building proceed! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Poorly written, constructed, and sourced articles are more likely to attract complaints and confusion about how to resolve them. The best option is to rewrite the entire article. Removing this one section, or flagging it with a cleanup template, is a short-term solution that does not improve Wikipedia. --Moni3 (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to disagree with your first sentence as a general principle, but the obverse is not necessarily true: debate over wording does not necessarily indicate poor writing, construction, or support. I'm not sure your comment applies to this what we're discussing; can you elaborate? How specifically do you reckon this section is poorly written, constructed, and/or supported, please?

I'm finding it challenging to think of a reason why you would suggest a whole-article rewrite. Surely it's got deficiencies and problems and needs work—the status of most Wikipedia articles is "unfinished"!—but in its present form it's nowhere near the lower end of the article quality continuüm. It's got 204(!) references, an extensive bibliography, and an onrunning metadiscussion that can't be called stagnant or circular. So whence the push for a complete teardown? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, which is primarily writing large articles, 90% of content disputes are/can be solved by an article overhaul. The number of citations here does not necessarily indicate the quality of the article is high. Instead, more important factors are the quality of sources, how they are used (scientific sources to address scientific issues; religious sources to address religious ones, the more authoritative the better, etc.), the cohesion of the article: the fact that the article solidly summarizes the main points made by sources and does not read as if 300 editors have built the article over 7 years by fishing for a source to prove a personal point--which it does now, and various style issues being resolved would vastly improve this article. Any sentence that has 11 freaking citations is just outer limits unnecessary. The Lesbian narratives and awareness of their sexual orientation section is chock full of "lolwut", starting with that heading.

Homosexuality will not be uncontroversial in my lifetime, but it's very possible to write the article so soundly that complaints about it decrease significantly. Of course there is room in this article for homosexual behavior among animals. There are excellent sources that address this. But until the talk page visitors shift their attitudes from "(you) fix this sentence/paragraph/section" to "let's fix this entire article", it's not going to get done and instead we'll continue to argue about issues borne of bad writing and shaky sourcing. It's so common on this talk page that I don't think I'm out of line in saying that the folks who continue to argue here would rather argue than work to rewrite the article.

I've suggested for perhaps a year now that this article should be rewritten. I won't do it, though. I wrote the Lesbian article, the Stonewall riots, Harvey Milk, Save Our Children, and several others. I won't do this one. I would use the same sources and this information would be filtered through me and this is not the way a collaborative encyclopedia should be written. It would further take me 6 months to do and at least three trips to various administrative noticeboards and I'm pretty Wikipedia'd out to do this. I offered to oversee it and give tips and stuff, maybe write a section, but not the entire thing. --Moni3 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Moni3, Thank you! Эдуард/Edward 23:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to allow animal references here, perhaps we should make the reference neutral? Perhaps: "Homosexual behavior has been rarely observed" seeing as how it has been observed in up to 1500 species, out of how many millions? Overseer19XX (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. "Rarely" is certainly not neutral, it is your own POV. Your claim that homosexual behaviour has been observed in a tiny numeric minority of species may be technically true but it is without veracity; it is akin to saying we don't know that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow because we've only observed that phenomenon for a tiny proportion of the lifespan of Earth and Sol. Or, closer to the topic at hand, your position is like saying we can't know for sure that all Earth animals are oxygen-breathers equipped to live in 3-dimensional space with gravity that pulls us down, because we've only observed a numerical minority of species. Fact is, scientists—real ones, not the armchair variety—frequently, soundly, and with solid validity extrapolate to the animal kingdom as a whole from observations of a representative sample. That's what we've got in this case, so no, "rarely" would not be accurate. Nor is there a basis for altering the present assertion (which says "widely"); that's what five [[WP:RS|reliable] sources support. Remember, the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia isn't what we know (or think we understand, or believe, or seem to recall our preacher having told us on Sunday morning radio), it is what we can prove. I see you are a new Wikipedia editor. Welcome here. Please take a few minutes to read and understand how we do things here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well homosexual means one sex, bisexual means two sex. so if a majority did that we would have low birth numbers in those species. thou you can mention many examples, none of those pertain to this. the five sources will take me a bit, but when i have time, i will check them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overseer19XX (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Your premise as stated (sorta) in your second sentence is, again, theoretically true but practically irrelevant and not apposite to this discussion; nobody is claiming that a majority of any species is homosexual, so a refutation of that claim would be fatuous. I am having some difficulty parsing the rest of your comment; perhaps you'd be so kind as to restate yourself. Also, please remember to sign your comments on talk pages. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a loss of focus with the original issue here, which is still a problem in the sub-article concerning homosexuality in animals, whether or not the article as a whole would benefit from an overhaul, which I do believe it would, as it sounds biased in some ways (for instance I skim read the article on my way to the animal section and saw the foot-noted statement "homosexuality is a normal and positive variation in human sexual orientation" no less than four times through the entire article, and at a skim read. Once this premise is established it should not be oft repeated as it removes the appearance of neutral POV, and takes on a tone of an argument instead of fact-based research. Anyway, as to the animal kingdom section, to re-state and re-observe, as someone new to the "debate," I read the article and was interested in the sources, as multiple seemed to be cited. Yet, when I went to all the links, there is ultimately only one source for the entire article, the alleged observations of one man, Bruce Bagemihl , as the citations here on Wikipedia in that article lead only to his work or articles discussing his work or reviewing it. No other scientist's observations are cited in this article, which make it of questionable veracity. I've seen claims in the discussion page that there is excellent research confirming the work of Bruce Bagemihl. Then let's see it, by citing in this article and removing citations to reviews of this man's work, or articles in periodicals based on it. We should have citations to his original work, and the original work of other scientists whose findings corroborate those of Bruce Bagemihl. When "most" people (at least in my limited experience) read a Wikipedia article, they see multiple citations as a sign of multiple corroborative sources, and take this at face value without researching them, particularly when there are no flag headings at the top of the page or the sub-article mentioning a need for more sources. In short, even if all the assertions were 100% accurate, this sub-article is misleading because only one source is directly and indirectly cited multiple times, giving the impression of it having a neutral POV and being well-sourced, which is not the case at this point in time.

It is also interesting to note that while the sub-article has been heavily defended here by some, even though it is based on the cited work of one man, at least one of said persons scrubbed an addition to the page (read two discussion topics down concerning lifespan) because it was based on the work of one man....so why not have some consistency here and delete all assertions that have only one cited source, or leave both; but the one-sided handling has been noted. To quote from below: "Nope. Just because one whackadoodle wingnut says it, doesn't make it so." and that the statement in question might be true but must be "robustly supported by reliable sources." Yet, the Animal Sexuality sub-article stands with one ultimate source, and who determines who is and who is not a "whackadoodle wingnut?" There is definite questionability here concerning Neutral Point of View, as we let fly an article claiming homosexuality is widely observed in the animal kingdom, based on one source who is gay, while dismissing an argument concerning shortened lifespan for active homosexuals by another man who is not gay, and dismissed as an unreliable source. It certainly appears to be bias, considering the defense tactics used on the one hand, and personal dismissive slander jargon used on the other. - Black Fox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.57.167.125 (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's rather easy to understand if one takes a step back and thinks carefully. We're writing an encyclopædia here, which means we base our assertions on science and fact. Belief, opinion, preference, and religious dogma do not pass muster as support for assertions, except in articles about beliefs and religious dogma. RS requires that sources be reliable, so on matters of this nature we hew to the published work of scientists and researchers -- real ones with sound credentials, not religionists masquerading as academics. Moreover, we strive to avoid logical fallacy, which is why a complaint that this is "an article claiming homosexuality is widely observed in the animal kingdom (…) while dismissing an argument concerning shortened lifespan for active homosexuals" has difficulty getting traction. The one has nothing at all to do with the other; only one with an anti-gay agenda, usually based on an interpretation of one religion or another, seriously tries to cut together bits and snippets of what they perceive to be reality like this in an effort to demonstrate that homosexuality is abnormal, unnatural, unhealthy, a "lifestyle choice", etc. When one's opinion doesn't match the supported consensus, it's understandable that one would think he perceives bias. If one is not able to grasp and accept that this project is based not on what we know, or think we know, or believe, or prefer, or feel, or are told in Church on Sunday but on what we can prove, perhaps one's time is better spent preaching to his own choir at Conservapedia. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Changes due to repeal of don't ask don't tell?

<--Begin request--> United States (see Don't ask, don't tell) technically permits gay and lesbian people to serve, but only in secrecy and celibacy.

doesn't this need to be change in accordance of the repeal of don't ask don' tell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugottoknowme (talk • contribs) 19:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe in an article about homosexuality in the USA, but not in this global article. HiLo48 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It is important to note that the policy has been repealed at the political level in Washington but the policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell is still in full force and effect in the Department of Defense military branches, pending the on-going review of the Joint Chiefs concerning the proper and safe implementation of a repeal. Hence, while the Armed Forces branches have begun sensitivity training at all levels, each of these training modules ends with a re-stressing of the fact that the former policy of Don't Ask Don't tell is still in full effect. - Black Fox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.57.167.125 (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Lifespan/Paul Cameron

As you can see from this diff, I have reverted an addition by Urod (talk · contribs) in which it was (ungrammatically) asserted that homosexuals live twenty to thirty years less than the general population. Support for this assertion was two "studies" by Paul Cameron, whose grossly biased propaganda has been roundly denounced by numerous legitimate scientists, analysts, and scientific research bodies as methodologically flawed, ideologically rather than scientifically based, distorted and selective with respect to facts, and devoid of veracity. See for example here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Cameron's "Family Research Institute" is a SPLC designated hate group, see here. It may be legitimate to include assertions in this article related to lifespan, but they will need to be robustly supported by reliable sources, and Cameron doesn't count as such. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• • one of your sources is in itself a hate group.

SLPC. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/100325 Overseer19XX (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Er…no, sorry, J. Matt Barber and his bigotry brigade aren't a reliable source. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

He may be a bigot, that is not my point. I am stating your source is itself bigoted. Overseer19XX (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Just because one whackadoodle wingnut says it, doesn't make it so. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

is one of the most notorious incidents in the U.S.

REALLY? LOL. seriously, this is the most panderng thing i have read. women get raped and killed daily, mass murder occurs on those who are innocent. beltway sniper, son of sam, unibomber, 9/11, Connecticut home invasion murders, those are notorious. what we have here is just one more murder, out of 10's of thousands world wide every year. people die on a daily basis over money, as little as $20 in most occasions. people are killed for their faith, daily, worldwide. homosexuals were hung by noose in iran, with footage of the hanging, and someone has the audacity to say on their own that this is "is one of the most notorious incidents in the U.S." sorry, no. it has no more significance, or notability, then any others. please remove this independent authors thoughts. Overseer19XX (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is pretty bad. Instead of writing "LOL" on the talk page, why don't you crack open some books and rewrite it? --Moni3 (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

cannot yet. dont have the edits necessary. i would propose changing the aforementioned to, "is one such example" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overseer19XX (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have altered the text in question to remove the hyperbole and align with reality. However, your opinion that the murder in question "has no more significance or notability than any other" is not supportable. Please have a care not to fall afoul of WP:UGH. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:UGH???? LOL. I've been around this place a lot, never saw that particular guideline. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment left at GA2 nomination, closed months ago

This article tends to be subjective, since it's missing (scholarly) arguments to oppose homosexuality. More views from other perspectives should be added. Though there are some mentions, no specific opinions are presented with their relevant references. Also, distinction between homophobia and this criticism should be visible. Otherwise, this article would not seem to be neutral. Both sides should be clear from reading this. Whether it is religious view or (an)other scientific view, the major ones should be involved to convey the full picture. I was looking for this polarized interpretation but did not find it here. However, they exist on other sites, easy to find. Moreover, there seem to be some excuses for not including these variations - but then this article is incomplete and could mislead in certain aspects. Though I am not wiki expert and maybe I am writing to a wrong place without userId, dear administrator, please, place this to the correct place so that this can be acted on. Thank you, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.246.57 (talk • contribs)

Yes, well, you'll notice we also include no (scholarly) arguments to oppose any particular hair color, nor do we include any (scholarly) arguments to oppose this or that or some other eye color. We do have articles on sexism and bigotry and—yes!—homophobia; perhaps the (scholarly) arguments you have in mind — er, may we see them, please? — would serve well as exemplars in those articles. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You can change color of your hair. You can, not that easy as hair, change color of your eyes (seemingly via contact lens). However, you can't change your sex. So, you're trying to show us via your comparison something that is completely different in its kind. You can't compare hair colour to homosexuality (behaviour). A better example would be comparing culture movements.

The homosexuality article on wikipedia presents an unipolar view on the subject. But, there are other opinions for this topic. It should present these views as well, referencing to other articles, where a more comprehensive elaboration can be given. There should, at least, be mentioned other points of view. According to wikipedia, 2.2 billion people are christian. 21-23 % of the population is islamic. Both of these groups in most cases understand homosexuality as sin, or wrong desire, or even demonic activity. This needs explanation and also needs to appear in this article. For example, there should be some excerpt from Christianity and homosexuality as well as Islam and homosexuality. Include at least these (excerpts + "main article" or "see also"). Though you mention Islam and homosexuality, but, honestly, it's poor.

For example, what I googled out, there's a christian article stating that:

Three main studies are cited by “gay rights” activists in support of their argument2Hamer's X-chromosome research,3 LeVay's study of the hypothalamus,4 and Bailey and Pillard's study of identical twins who were homosexuals.5
In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, “the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results”.6 There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person's genes. (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html). But, there are many articles that don't support homosexual movement. Article Homosexuality should at least mention some points.

People looking for this kind of article are usually looking for as much comprehensive answers as possible. This article should serve as a "parent" to other ones, like those I have mentioned. For example, this article: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/ is more bilateral than this one on wikipedia. One would think s/he might find here something relevant for this topic, eg. "What is the impact on children risen by homosexual parents" or something like that. I was looking for this answer, for example. Either the world lacks this kind of research or it is missing in your article...

I miss also some more elaboration on connection between HIV and homosexuality, eg. http://sti.bmj.com/content/83/5/397.short.

Without the other views, this article is one-sided. It is presenting the gay rights and freedom, that is OK. And, on the other hand, it should show that there are also different public opinions based on this or that... I believe you understand what I mean. - Where are cons and pros? Or, do we have only pros? Wikipedia is full of articles that provide bilateral standpoints. However, this depends on your interest - if your intent is to propagate homosexuality or to inform about it. Those are two distinct approaches. I don't propagate this or that view, but I would like to see other opinions than homosexual one. Do you see what I mean? --213.151.217.147 (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a single one of those articles would meet the standards of reliable sources. However, I'm sure you could use it in one of those other Wiki-encyclopedias that publish bigotry based on no science at all. BTW, just to randomly pull out one of your junk articles, California courts have found that there is NO scientific evidence (and when I mean no, I mean none, nada, nichts, zip, zero) that show homosexuality has any effect on children. That's a right wing meme that has no place in an encylopedic article. Except to show how bigotry works. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Come on. You were really fast that you read all the articles. There's only ONE that would not meet the standards of reliable sources. You neglected wikipedia articles I mentioned and also scholar article on http://sti.bmj.com/content/83/5/397.short. Moreover, you sound abusive. I see more people commented this article to have a hidden agenda. It seems it's right. This way you can't prove it's not. 213.151.217.149 (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a limit to what sensible editors can and should do. Responding to the bigotry and lack of logic on display in that long post of yours is beyond that limit. If you regard this response as abuse, I don't apologise. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it amusing that the bigotry of the IP editor is so clear. But to make his/her point, he resorts to a personal attack of being "abused." Otherwise, it's got not much to offer. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeating the word "bigotry" does not make you smart. If you think everything else than homosexuality is bigotry, I will leave you in that illusion. Guys, I don't know why you appeared here. I did not talk to you. If you need to attack, pick up some forum. I think you are shocked by the christian article. Okay, jump over it and don't be that afraid of it. Rather, don't look at it. It's okay. I was pointing to something different. Some understood, others felt it personally. "California courts" have found that there is no scientific evidence... BUT, again and again, there are OTHER evidences. Read, eg. http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/6908.html or http://sex.sagepub.com/content/8/2/153.abstract. These articles are something that is missing in your unipolar (lobbying) approach.... I don't have userid because I don't usually do this and don't plan to do it anyway, since this kind of articles will be prevalently subjective anyway. 213.151.217.145 (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A fucking strawman argument. Outstanding. Another unreliable source. And of course, you ignore the vast number of sources that really trample your assumptions. So, you should review WP:NPA, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:VERIFY and WP:DICK. Enjoy, and have a nice day. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I do have to admit though, he's got me thinking about these "prevalently subjective" articles. I'll share with you when I've figured out what on earth it means. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Rigid homosexual that does not receive any other view than faith in sodomy will never put any criticism here. Leave them playing and thinking they ate all the truth and don't bother with their own religion. They have chosen to believe it's correct. They will present their view and impose it over mankind. This is nothing new, history surely tells us so. Some people always show up and some men will declare they are in fact women and some women will pretend they are men. Similarly, some black people will think they are white and horrible singers will think they sing like a bird. If these guys would at least read the articles you pointed out - http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/6908.html is supporting their view. And yes, wiki this article is subjective and contains many unreliable sources supporting their blind understanding anyway. 195.212.29.188 (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is awful. No amount of attempted witty repartee or sweeping generalizations about gay people in general will change that. Admit the article is terrible and fix it. Use excellent sources. Websites addressing the sociology of homosexuality, or homosexuality in scientific terms hosted at religious sites are not excellent by any stretch of the definition. And surely there is a better way to address anon IPs who are obviously conservative Christians mostly ignorant of Wikipedia policies (which are employed in this article haphazardly, to say the least). --Moni3 (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC) (a "rigid homosexual" with no faith in sodomy)

Excellent point; there's no better way to improve an article than to bitch and moan on its talk page that nobody's working to improve the article…right? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, touche and zing, right? Bullshit.

If there's someone working to rewrite this article, who is it and where is this effort? Otherwise, what is the point of your comment? To get me to shut up about this on this talk page? Someday your hopes and dreams will come to fruition. In the meantime, while this article is still awful, people will come to this talk page to voice their opposition to this article because it's poorly written with marginal sources, and of course even if it were expertly written with excellent sources it would still attract similar questions and comments. From this entire thread, it looks like the response from this article's watchers would be to mock and attempt to humiliate new editors. It just avoids having to fix the problems inherent in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

A rewrite would be wonderful. I'll see how much I can help in my next holiday break. But no amount of rewriting will prevent the ignorant bigots from attacking homosexuality on these pages. And here I emphasise that there are two forms of ignorance. There is that which comes from innocence and lack of exposure to a set of knowledge. It can be cured. Then there is the far worse form, fuelled by an irrational love of one narrow source for all knowledge, usually a church and/or a single book, which leads to people choosing ignorance as a path for life. Such a position is the antithesis of the goals of a project like Wikipedia. People on that path have little to offer here. Being mocked here is probably the least of their problems. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely know what you're talking about. Bigots and people who are truly ignorant about homosexuality will come to the article. Quite possibly, people who have had numerous homosexual experiences are the ones making the most noise about homosexuality here and elsewhere. But as the article stands now, the discussions about the quality of the article accomplish nothing. Anon IP makes a comment that seems ignorant or bigoted, but could be based truly in having no knowledge of what experts say about homosexuality. The article does very little to remedy this. This article's watchers don't do much to improve the article so they cannot defend it. Instead, they attack the Anon IP. No one really gets educated about homosexuality, which is an interesting result in light of the fact that this is an encyclopedia designed to inform.

Fixing the article, however, will improve this situation. Fewer people will complain about the article because it will be less confusing. Those who will comment, however, either have a point about improving something that needs to be clarified, or they haven't read the improved article at all and are just going to complain because it's Wednesday. Improving the article will also help its watchers respond to these comments dispassionately and engage talk page commentators to achieve an actionable edit or shut down the ridiculous ones with as little noise as possible. If you absolutely know that the sources are the best you could find and the article was written as neutrally as possible, you just don't need to say much except "there's the source, go read it". If they're determined to be disruptive, that's their deal and Wikipedia has ways of handling them. --Moni3 (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

My point, Moni3, is that if the state of this article bothers you so very very much, you ought to pick up a goddamn mop and bucket and set to work instead of bitching about how nobody's picking up a goddamn mop and bucket and setting to work. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? Not to sound so existential, but why me? Why should I do this? I've already written the Lesbian article, Harvey Milk, and Stonewall riots, giving me an interesting perspective in what happens to editors, articles, and talk pages when one person takes on a rewrite.

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. One person should not be tasked with the responsibility of defining homosexuality to the English-speaking planet with access to the Internet. If your reasoning is that I should take this article on merely because I complain about it, how does that give me the insight and expertise to do this by myself?

In my experience, I've observed that one person writing an article does not, in fact, show how it is done for others to see that it is easy enough if you are dedicated to achieve it. Instead, it makes talk page watchers lazier, for some reason. Possibly because so much work is put into acquiring and summarizing the best sources that article talk page watchers, instead of feeling compelled to ignore the problems of poorly written article and attack the editors and passers-by who complain about it, disengage entirely and leave the entirety of the work of maintaining the article to the lone editor who wrote it. It's rather like participating in a group project at school when no one else in your group shows up. See this three-week clusterfuck on the Lesbian talk page about a single sentence in the lead. There are 585 watchers for that article. Note the same three or four editors in that discussion.

Despite all this, my purpose in commenting in this thread is not simply to berate you or anyone else who hasn't worked on rewriting the article, but to refocus the energy in this discussion. Of course people will complain about the tone and comprehensiveness of this article because it's so bad. But you and other editors are completely missing the point in blaming these complaints on bigotry and ignorance. It's not that simple. The article itself promotes ignorance and it should be improved. Sure, I understand that knuckle-rapping in my comments doesn't really foster the kind of enthusiasm and leadership to motivate others, but I've tried the other approach. I've offered in the past to oversee a collaborative effort to rewrite it and did not get a response that would have been manageable or favorable. So what's really the priority of these talk page watchers? What else am I led to believe than editors would rather argue with each other than do real work to improve it? Seriously, I'm asking for some insight here. --Moni3 (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor Amendments Made

I have made some minor changes to the wordings of some sentences in order to reduce any bias within the article. These changes are not designed to encourage any prejudice for or against homosexuality.

That was POV rubbish, and has been reverted. Your claim that "... many gay and lesbian people attempt to function well..." is taking a non-biased perspective is nonsense. You clearly disapprove of homosexuality and cannot even write about it coherently. Please don't change the article in that way again without gaining some consensus for your views here first. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the positioning of my post in the 'talk section,' I am new to this and still learning how it all works. The reason for my changes is this article almost seems to read as an advertisement in favour of homosexuality - rather than simply detailing what the condition is and its effects. You describe my contributions as 'POV Rubbish' but I fail to see where I have said anything which opposes those who fall within this group... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwesternhog (talk • contribs) 01:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you also describe heterosexuality as a "condition", as if it needed to be cured? HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have you bothered to read the cited sources corresponding to the original text that you made "minor" amendments to? You actually changed/deleted the meaning of the sources, which indicates that you're introducing your own biases in place of NPOV representation. AV3000 (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(another edict conflict)Jwesternhog, if you're going to edit Wikipedia, I'd suggest that you read up on WP:NPOV. You may believe that homosexuality is an illness, as opposed the vast majority of educated, trained, and knowledgeable health care professionals, but the reliable sources do not support your fringe opinion. Your comments could be classified as homophobic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Roman Emperors?

In the subsection History: Europe it is asserted that "all the [Roman] emperors with the exception of Claudius took male lovers". The passage has no citation, which we would expect it to have if there existed some reliable source that supported this sweeping assertion. Perhaps this is because no such reliable source exists? There were dozens of Roman emperors over hundreds of years, and I can think of several off of the top of my head who were never known to have had homosexual relationships. In fact, the article goes on to contradict itself by mentioning a couple of sentences later that the emperors Theodosius and Justinian decreed that homosexuals be punished with death.

Basically, I think that the sentence should be removed, or at least reworked with a more specific (and honest) statement and citation of reliable sources.Volkodlak (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the logic of your arguments against the claim you object to, but I totally agree that the claim should be cited. HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's quite simple - the assertion that all of the Roman emperors (except Claudius)took male lovers is factually wrong.Volkodlak (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The claim is a garbled version of Edward Gibbon's original statement pertaining to the first fifteen emperors: "Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct." Source: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 1, ch. II, footnote 31. With the exception of Augustus, this "incorrectness" included sex with other males. It would be difficult to classify these emperors as homosexual in the modern sense, though. Tiberius is a good example. He basically doinked anything that couldn't escape fast enough, regardless of sex or age, including infants; Suetonius is quite graphic in his account. Tiberius could probably best be classified as "all of the above". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I came across the Gibbon quote in the wikipedia article on Hadrian, where it seems somewhat incongruously inserted into the text, but only have an abridgement of "Decline and Fall" so couldn't examine it in context. I still think that the passage is misleading - a claim by Gibbon that must, I imagine, draw heavily on Suetonius, is turned into a sweeping assertion. The lack of a citation is a big problem. Someone with a knowledge of the period reads the claim, and it immediately raises suspicion (all the emperors?). If there were a citation, then they could look up the relevant quote in Gibbon, do some research, read the pertinent passages in the "Twelve Caesars" and decide for themselves whether the charges against Julius Caesar were politically motivated or based upon an actual love affair with Nicomedes, etc. They would have access to the context, which is all-important. In my humble opinion, the text should read something like this:

"According to Gibbon, of the first fifteen emperors, all except Claudius took male lovers at one point or another (citation). The Hellenophile emperor Hadrian is renowned..."Volkodlak (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be going beyond the source. Gibbons said that their "taste in love" wasn't "entirely correct". While in most cases, Gibbons did have same-sex relations in mind (based on the accounts of Roman historians, including Suetonius), he certainly did not think this true of Augustus, whose rumored accusation of sleeping with Julius Ceasar by Marc Anthony was dismissed as political slander even by Suetonius. Augustus' "incorrectness" was of the heterosexual variety. He routinely commited adultery, and even "as an elderly man he is said to have still harboured a passion for deflowering girls, who were collected for him from every quarter, even by his wife".

The only emperor who Roman historians SPECIFICALLY state actually PREFERRED males to females was Galba. Suetonius writes that "in sexual matters he was more inclined to males, and then none but the hard bodied and those past their prime". The others appear to have been what we would now call bisexual, or "pansexual" in the case of Tiberius.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"That would be going beyond the source." - Yes, I agree; even as I suggested the sentence above the Augustus thing bothered me a bit. I was trying to condense the information as concisely as possible to avoid a wordy rewrite. I'm really just looking for a starting point here. I myself don't have a great expertise in the sexuality of the Roman emperors, but as a student of history, and with an especial interest in the period, the sweeping generalization bothered me. If the above suggestion goes beyond the source, the claim as it currently stands isn't even sourced, as well as being misleading and confusing. Perhaps the sentence in question should just be eliminated, or, since the rest of the paragraph focuses on the contrast between emperors such as Hadrian and later Christian emperors regarding attitudes toward homosexuality, should be replaced with a statement such as:

"Roman emperors over the years displayed contrasting attitudes toward homosexuality. The Hellenophile emperor Hadrian..."

Any suggestions?Volkodlak (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Innate Bisexuality

Unless somebody can come up with any scientific evidence for this one then I don't see why it's in here. Freud's views on homosexuality can go in the section on historical views, but if he didn't do peer reviewed scientific research on it, it has no place in the modern scientific views on etiology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.57.33 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The word "Synonym"

Under "Etymology", the first sub-category is "Synonyms". The text then proceeds to list words which are most definitely not synonyms - homoerotic, metrosexual, etc. The phrase you're after is "Related Terms". MycroftRH (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Curing Homosexuality?

Okay this'll likely start a flame, but why's there nothing about people being cured\freed\turning their back on homosexuality? There's stuff about coming out of the closet, not precisely converting to homosexuality I realise, but why not the reverse? And no I'm not saying everyone's straight and that some are just confused but it's an area that's missing. 203.25.1.208 (talk)