Jump to content

User talk:Peculiar Light

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MatLocke (talk | contribs) at 00:09, 31 October 2009 (→On the SSM article reply and etc.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello Joshuajohanson! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! CobaltBlueTony 16:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Context Specific Therapy

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Context Specific Therapy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fireplace 23:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I just want to thank you for remaining civil during our discussions at Talk:Richard Cohen (lecturer) and elsewhere. I realize that we have differing views, but when people remain civil, as you have, it's much easier to find the balance. Thanks. Joie de Vivre 19:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Park Street Church

Please see Talk:Park_Street_Church#Category:Ex-gay movement. --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LDS Church & Sexuality

I must say I really like what you did to the homosexuality article of the LDS church. Very NPOV and lots of additional content.

Thanks!Joshuajohanson 23:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Feel free to throw this wherever you want (i.e. main page) and remove this text.
The Original Barnstar
I hereby award you this barnstar for all your hard work expanding Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Chupper 15:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Homosexuality. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 23:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be a pest, but I really was trying to represent Lisa Diamond's view the best I can. She did report that bisexual women report "significantly larger absolute changes in sexual attractions than lesbians." Looking back at my edit, I think my wording of "significant change" might have been misinterpretated as a large change, rather than a measurable change, which is how Lisa Diamond used it. I recognize my error and am satisfied with the way the article is written that she "measured changes in sexual attractions," since that is all that I meant by significant change. Still, I don't think keeping the same language as Diamond used qualifies as "personal analysis" simply because I failed to disambiguate her probable meaning.Joshuajohanson 01:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edit I was objecting to was this one where you changed the quote from the APA from "is not changeable." to "is not a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed." This completely changed the meaning of the sentence and was clearly not supported by the cited source. Gwernol 01:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although the problem has been resolved, I disagree with Gwernol. The text you changed was a direct quote from the ref'd text, and although I prefer the current version, you were well within the bounds of good faith and decorous behavior in making the change you made. I hope that you will gently push back by pointing this out to Gwernol.LCP 01:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LCP, please read the cited source, at [1]. It states "Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation? No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.". It is not acceptable to represent that statement with the text "is not a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.". This is the opposite of what the cited source says, and to pretend that the change was a direct quote from the source isn't correct. Gwernol 01:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gwernol, I do not know whether or not you will see this comment, but I did read the entire cited source. And as I tried to indicate and as Joshuajohanson points out below, the APA text actually does contain both statements. So firstly, it would be decorous for you to read sources more thoroughly before you censure other Wikipedians. Secondly, you may not agree with Joshuajohanson's take of the article, but because the article does contain both statements, he was within his rights to make the change. AND, since the second statement does not contradict the first, I don't think you can even say that he was playing fast and loose with the text. Were the text he used actually NOT in the APA article, then I think you might have had grounds to complain. But that was not the case. What was the case, in this instance, is that you and he had a legitimate interpretive disagreement and, without reading his source thoroughly, you warned him off. That is not conducive to a good Wikipedia. Thirdly, apart from the issue of the text, you seem to be imputing ideas to me that I have never stated and do not hold. I have never written anything to indicate that I think homosexuality is a mental disorder or to suggest that homosexuals try to change their sexual orientation, and so I do not appreciate the lecture.LCP 22:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The exact text of cited source is as follows, with my quote and the original quote in italics:
Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.
It has both quotes in there. I thought my quote was more general, whereas the original quote seemed to apply only to treatments to change sexual orientation. Right now the article has both quotes, which seems contradictory. Maybe there is something I am not seeing, but I still think my interpretation is at least plausible. Anyway, I think this is more of a discussion for the homosexuality talk page than my talk page.Joshuajohanson 02:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gratuitous assertions

Joshuajohanson, I am sympathetic to what you trying to accomplish. I think that, as someone who has left the homosexual lifestyle, you have a very important perspective. I also think much of the content of the homosexual articles is slanted by those who fear or chaff against anti-homosexual bias, and that the current cultural climate is hyper-vigilant about “homophobia.” Because of this, one needs to be exceptionally rigorous in ensuring that everything one asserts is true AND solidly supported. I would encourage you to strive to be more objective in your arguments. When you assert a position without warrant, as you have done on your reading of the IDC’s F66, your destroy your credibility. If it turns out that you’ve misread something or inadvertently but forward a flawed argument, you’ll gain more credibility by immediately giving way than by tenaciously holding on to an evidently flawed position.LCP 17:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what is going on then. I went to a regular doctor, who was licensed by the APA and received therapy to change my orientation. Maybe I'm not reading everything right, but I know they allow it because I got it from them. I have found nothing that shows they don't allow it. What does it mean when the APA says it "affirms the following principles with regard to treatments to alter sexual orientation."[2] What does it mean when they print an article arguing against efforts to ban it if it weren't allowed in the first place?[3] If it is not allowed, how is it that places like http://www.healinghomosexuality.com offer professional counseling? How is it that the ACA allows an article to be published that recommmends sending gays to religious organizations (mostly pro-gay, but includes ex-gay organizations like Courage International)[4].
What treatment is it that the WHO says ego-dystonic homosexuals may seek? I dropped saying they supported it, and even dropped saying it was reparative therapy in the article, and suggested that they say they can seek treatment without specifying what that treatment was or what it was for. How is saying patients may seek treatment different from saying they allow treatment? Combat law says the ICD-10 "distinguishes between ego syntonic and ego dystonic homosexuality, and specifically mentions ego dystonic homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality as psychiatric disorders."[5] After saying homosexuality was dropped as a disorder from the ICD-10, Dr. Martell said "related disorder “ego-dystonic sexual orientation” remains in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases."[6] The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission goes as far as to say "This diagnosis can allow families to commit young persons who are just “coming out” and experiencing guilt or uncertainty."[7] The Alternative Law Forum (a very pro-gay law organization) states the "ICD-10 clearly includes even ego dystonic heterosexuality as a disorder." It futher states the ICD-10 "distinguishes between “ego syntonic” and “ego dystonic” homosexuality and categorises ego dystonic homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality as psychiatric disorders. In ego dystonic homosexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality, the gender identity or sexual preference is not in doubt, but the individual wishes it were different and seeks treatment. In ego syntonic homosexuality, by contrast, the individual is comfortable with his or her sexual preference or gender identity. Psychiatric treatment to change the patient’s identity or sexual preference is warranted in the case of ego dystonic sexuality of any kind.[8]"
I am sorry, but I just don't even understand what anyone is talking about anymore. I would like to include these arguments in the talk, but I don't want to loose credibility. I don't see how I am "evidently flawed" or how these assertions are gratuitous. Can you enlighten me?Joshuajohanson 05:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how to respond. I do see your point and I sympathize. You must feel incredibly frustrated. As for my comment, it had to do only with what I personally saw regarding IDC F66. I think a big problem with the reparative therapy article is that it is so US centric. I noted this by the adding the disclaimer that currently sits at the top of the article. Perhaps you can start a thread pointing this out. OR, even better, perhaps you can craft a section titled something like, “International Views of Reparative Therapy.” You should first publish it on the Talk page and ask for input. If you have some solidly referenced statements, you should be able to get the section to stick. Also, I do hope that you will follow up on the Kinsey Institute. As I mentioned in a previous post, I believe that they hold a published theory of sexuality according to which sexuality and sexual orientation is much more fluid than the current APA view. Finally, check out Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM and Politics. Although the section would not be directly useful, I think you’ll find the information encouraging. Although the APA is a powerful and important organization, it is not the only authority in the world and it is not above politics. Best of luck. Please feel free to email me directly if you want some pre-publication feedback.LCP 01:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Joshuajohanson, I hope that you will continue to strive to not take it personally. Please try to remember, Wikipedia is not important in the big scheme of things. For the most part, it is just a great place to find information about things like French fries. Some of the non-controversial scientific content is suppose to be reliable too [9] [10]. Regarding the controversial topics, if you look at any of their Talk pages, you quickly get an idea of how partisan and ridiculous the articles tend to be. In other words, “it is a mean game for low stakes.” This might sound terrible, but to some extent, we Wikipedians are a bunch of losers, people who, for whatever reason, probably haven’t found a voice in more stable, reputable, or academic publications. I think the satire at the Onion sums up Wikipedia beautifully. It is quite fun: [11]. Regarding being a terrible person, I hope that you will remember that our ultimate value comes only from God’s love for us [12], and that He does not evaluate things the way we evaluate things [13]. For example, men cling to pride, and the world loves and rewards it when it is coupled with cunning [14]. However, pride is among the greatest of abominations to God [15]. In contrast, the thing with which you were afflicted is usually the result of run of the mill human weakness. And while people single out homosexuality as if it is something exceptional, in the divine scheme of things, it is probably not much different from heterosexual desire. This, I think, is why the Catholic Church refuses to call homosexuality a “mental disorder” and instead calls it an “objective disorder” [16]. Regardless of whether one has heterosexually or homosexually oriented sexuality, the Church exhorts us all to the type of chastity that is suited to our vocation. The Church states,
“The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech. Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy. Man's dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end” [17].
One of the ideas I love best comes from this text: “either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.” Finally, remember that you ultimately can’t do anything by yourself, for like everyone else, you are merely dust [18][19]. I exhort you to offer your sufferings to Lord [20] and to put yourself entirely in his hands through the Blessed Mother [21][22].LCP 17:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note! I am trying to validate my email, and then I'll send you a note. This might not be until Monday.LCP 15:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of OneByOne

OneByOne has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this organization or company might not yet be notable enough for an article. Please review Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the prod notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Mormonism in "Religion and Homosexuality"

I thought that you might want to add to the comments on Homosexuality and Mormonism; specifically, that Morman's believe that it is curable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexuality#ChristianityLCP 19:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of People Can Change

A tag has been placed on People Can Change requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- WebHamster 18:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


AfD nomination of People Can Change

An article that you have been involved in editing, People Can Change, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People Can Change. Thank you. AecisBrievenbus 12:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Price of weekends makes it look like a plug.

You might want to consider taking that info out.LCP 21:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Fireplace was the one who put in the price of the weekends, I think to emphasize how expensive it is, to back up his theory that everyone is in it for the money. I just added the UK price to emphasize that it is international.Joshuajohanson 21:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What was it, $600? That actually doesn't sound to bad if they can deliver what they promise.LCP 23:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus International help

As a Christian interested in the relationship between religion and homosexuality, thanks for your work here. Perhaps you've noticed that the Exodus article is direly unbalanced. I've tried on three separate occasions to work on it, but as someone who hates the organization, I couldn't bring myself to do it. I hope someone can. --Ephilei 22:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hi Josh. You got mailDocleaf 17:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fair use rationale for Image:MormonAdFamilyPhoto.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MormonAdFamilyPhoto.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Feel free to edit Richard and Joan Ostling or cite them. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the Family Category Removal

I agree with the principle in removing the "Homophobia" category from the Focus on the Family article; but I guarantee this will open up an ugly can of worms that will be very tough to get settled (See AFA Talk Page Archives for a similar incident). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Study at UW

Hi! I'm part of a group at UW in Computer Science trying to make editing in Wikipedia easier. I'd love to talk to you and other Wikipedians in the Seattle area about your practices. You can find my webpage at [23] and email me from there or you can post on my talk page. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayur (talk • contribs) 23:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon LeVay

You might want to take a look at the article on Simon LeVay. Your recent edit there perhaps hasn't come out quite right. Skoojal (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I don't know what happened.Joshuajohanson (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for uploading Image:One by One booth.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Homosexuality and Christianity. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ~ akendall 06:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Mr. Johanson:

Thank you for catching and correcting the inaccuracies on the Alan Chambers page.

Mojomama (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion therapy/reparative therapy dispute

Hello Joshuajohanson. As you may know, Whistling42 (who was previously 66.30.20.71) has been going through articles about ex-gay subjects and changing "reparative therapy" to "conversion therapy." In some cases, such as the article on Exodus International, this misrepresents the sources that the article is based upon, which talk about "reparative therapy", not "conversion therapy." I tried to solve this problem by using a direct quote from Exodus; Knulclunk agreed that this was the right thing to do, but Whistling42 removed the quote and reintroduced the misleading reference to "conversion therapy." Please take an interest in this matter and help end the dispute. Skoojal (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Homosexuality. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Maybe you guys should ask for a RfC on the content changes --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, let's waste energy on a big fake argument.
Josh is an experienced editor. He knows perfectly well what the issues are with his edit, and he also knows that when new content is disputed, normal practice is to work it out on the talk page rather than simply re-add it to the article.
Dybryd (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a talk page to discuss this. I do not know what the issues are with my edits. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left the same notice on Dybryd's talkpage. Over the past 24 hours I have watched both sides revert edits several times, either via the "Revert" function or basically cut/paste out sections the other has added. Since both sides seem to strongly disagree over the added/removed content, then it should be discussed in the TALK. And thanks for reverting your prior edit regarding "watching my page" or "are you in on this together" which could have been construed as a personal attack. --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

Sexual Identity Therapy

Joshuajohanson, on the conversion therapy talk page you asked me, "Skoojal, if sexual identity therapy isn't a type of conversion therapy, what is it? I thought it just wasn't a type of reparative therapy." I am replying here because I am not sure that your question is on topic for the page. Conversion therapy is usually understood as an attempt to cure homosexuals and turn them heterosexual. Sexual identity therapy doesn't attempt that, rather, following the wording of the article on the subject, it tries to "aid [mental health] practitioners in helping [lesbian, gay, and bisexual] people arrive at a healthy and personally acceptable resolution of sexual identity and value conflicts." Throckmorton seems pretty clear that sexual identity therapy isn't conversion therapy. Skoojal (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what is it? Joshuajohanson (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless this is going to become an issue of crucial significance, I'm not sure I should continue discussing it. Skoojal (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Food for zombies

Don't take this as uncivil, but quite honestly, many of your edits make my head want to split apart. But so do Ann Aldrich's books. Where Ann Aldrich had a mission to challenge lesbian identity, yours seems to promote a life of accepting your desires by refusing to act on them to as many articles as possible. I recognize that if I am passionate enough to think that your good faith and completely sourced edits make me think I have tumors growing in my brain, I should not engage in article talk page discussions with you because it is too close to what I have gone through. Civility demands I be detached. Discussing these issues away from an article intelligently, however, I think would be interesting. Providing my head doesn't explode and feed the zombies. --Moni3 (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My view of the world consists of having my head split apart and thrown back together with crazy glue so many times there is very little semblance to my narrow-minded upbringing. I learned long ago that the world does not fit into nice little compartments like we would all like to believe. As much as we like to believe that we have gotten away from the Leave it to Beaver family where everyone knows what is right and wrong and thinks alike, the truth of the matter is I feel we are starting to revert to the "everyone must think like this" mentality. I know way too many people who feel alone and isolated because "they must be the only ones like this", because they don't fit in this box that the world tells them they need to be in. Both extremes in the culture war like to paint a picture of the world where they are right and everyone who disagrees with them is crazy.
I think my background gives me a unique perspective. I grew up in Las Vegas, which has a very "anything goes" attitude. I thought it was very liberal. I then moved to the San Francisco bay area and encountered true liberalism. I was surprised at how close-minded they were compared to the Nevadans. Anyone who held a view other than the prevailing liberal attitude was looked down upon as backwards and confused. My world went from anything goes to my way or the highway. Talking with several of these people, I realized many had encountered close-minded conservatives, who also had a my way or the highway attitude. In their rebellion against these narrow-minded attitudes, I think they failed to realize their own narrow-mindedness.
You cannot compartmentalize people into little boxes. It doesn't work. Doing so alienates them. Especially in a field like sexuality, the experience of actual people varies wildly. By only documenting the 100% true gay through and through, you belittle the silent majority of gays who are not out and about.[24] Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with edit to Homosexuality

Given the flurry of activity at Talk:Homosexuality, you may easily miss my post there. In this diff, there is a dangling </ref> tag. I'm not sure whether the whole reference was supposed to be included in the edit, or whether indeed this material was even put into the proper section. Anyway, I thought I should let you know directly so that you can fix the problem, whatever it may be. Cheers, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Andrew Comiskey

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Andrew Comiskey, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Mormon

In case you do not have this article on your watchlist, you may want to review the most recent edit. You may have additional information or perspectives on the topic. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I do indeed. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Andrew Comiskey

I have nominated Andrew Comiskey, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Comiskey. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skoojal/Devil Goddess

User:Skoojal, with whom you interacted on some article a few months ago, created a sock to evade a block, user:Devil Goddess. That account has been working overtime editing, in some cases doing major overhauls of articles. You seem to be more aware of these topics than I am - would it be possible for you to review DG's edits to make sure they haven't caused problems? [25] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Conversion therapy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Please note that you have made three reverts in the space of a few hours. Rather than reporting this, as a gesture of good faith, I am advising you of this. Mish (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask Joshuajohanson to discuss the disagreements about the article on its talk page. It has been protected so that a discussion can take place, but there has been no proper discussion so far. Born Gay (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Traditional marriage movement

An article that you have been involved in editing, Traditional marriage movement , has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional marriage movement. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

You was there very battlesome. Positions: [26] "We believe that clients have the right to claim a gay identity, or to diminish their homosexuality and to develop their heterosexual potential." And Nicolosi in Reparative therapy of male homosexuality: „I do not believe that the gay life-style can ever be healthy, nor that the homosexual identity can ever be completly ego-syntonic.“ By oneself the term "gay lifestyle", "homosexual lifestyle". It seams that a man must go every weekend in a Disco and must cruise another man to be gay. And that there is only one "gay". It seems that gays can not change the behavior. But, they had done it in foretime, when they are more free. i.e. The much effiminate in the clubs goes away after around 1969. Then was hypermasculinity as other pendular movement. And now it is more in the middle. And about given scripts: I learned before my CO (1989), that partnership is only with women and with man there is only sex. I Learned this from the society and from my first no-gay-compagnions (same age). And gays are only old man who lust after young boys. After the CO, i had to rebuild and diverse my view of the gay world.

"There have been groups and there are still groups that try to force gay people to undergo unwanted therapy." For me NARTH and the others will force gay people to undergo wanted therapy. Because the one and only "gay lifestyle" is so bad. On their website, they cited many statistics, about how much psychic pathology gay people have. And only this. They will only show how much pathology gay mens have. There are no deeper views what are the relevant factors for this, from where come this, etc. (I had by i.e. an Austrian Study about suicidal in gay population. And there it states: This factor is so significant, and this so.. etc.) And they stated in their press release to the "new study" also: "The possibility of dissatisfaction also seems insignificant when compared to the substantial medical, emotional, and physical risks associated with homosexual behavior." And also Throckmorton write: "The NARTH report spends lots of time reporting on greater levels of mental health and health problems among homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals. [...] Joseph Nicolosi says that the only way you get SSA is to traumatize a child. The reparative impulse to find trauma behind every gay person is misguided I believe, conceptually and for sure empirically. Women have greater levels of mental health problems than men but we would not consider women inherently disordered. [...] And where do they want to go? [...] According to NARTH, gays ought to seek reorientation therapy because being gay is a risky life, full of health and mental health disadvantages. Their hypothesis is implied but hard to miss: reduce the SSA and reduce the health risks. The assumption appears to be that ex-gays will have better health outcomes than gays. One problem with this line of thinking is that there is no empirical evidence for it and some evidence against it. For instance, it is not possible to say that the modest shifts on the Kinsey scale were responsible for the shifts in health status. These folks were quite religious and religion is associated with enhanced health status. I suspect religious gays have a better health status than non-religious gays, on average. The point is we do not have evidence that sexual orientation status per se is what leads to the differences in health status. While I am on the subject of health status, I need to mention that there are other factors which NARTH ignored. One, gender non-conformity is strongly correlated with adult homosexuality and is also associated with poorer mental health. Two, homosexuals report higher levels of sexual victimization which is also associated with higher levels of mental health problems. And, three, no one can discount the possibility biological factors which associate with the development of homosexuality that may also influence the development of emotional problems (i.e., in the same way women are more likely to report depression than men)."

And i have now also read that Pentecostalism people have doubled depression than average Christians and Amish had tree times more derpressen than average people. And medical doctors have also more depression. And so on.

And there is a another staement from Nicolosi about the 1/3-sucess. He say 1/3 ist not motivated, because they go there for her wifes, her parents, etc. He make therapy for people who are more or less dragged to him. [27]

And NARTH spread the Message: Change is possible. You have a cohoice. etc. And very vew times, they clarify was change means. Mostly no change of attraction, of the orientation itself. More dismiss homosexual components than become more heterosexual. But the world hear only the first. Homosexuals can change. And they think that there is a full transition from homosexual to heterosexual. And then no rights and force. (Like a protestantic school in US, who said: Go to therapy or leave. Or what i read in an austrian catholic Forum: I have heard homosexuals can change.)

And compersion with alcoholics is bad,[28][29][30] because no later alcoholic (standard population, not bad influence) wish with 13, when he had not drinked a portion of alcohol, a "partnership" with his alcohol.

Also when i see, that they cited the Amsterdam-Study of Maria Xiridou from a clinic for STD for "the homosexual partnership". (this is a quick lacmus-test for me).

This study was in christian news reports and have the lowest partnership-duration ever in a study. This is why so many use it. But it can not be taken to show duration of partnership of "the homosexuals".
And the Netherlands are good, but they are not the "holy land" with no failing. That show also a school study from 1993 or 1994 from Drs. A. Kersten and Dr. Th. G. M. Sandfort. And they have also metropolitan and rural and gay migration. Bad inputs in the childhood don't all dismiss when someone goes in the liberal city. In Suisse this is also played with Geneve, which is liberal, but the gay scene is interesting for the whole french suisse and also for france.

And for this actions and vews they are for me anti-homosexual, and yeah they reach a border, after that i will call them homophobic. They will only show how bad SSA is and push the people to change. --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 15:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norway paper

Hi, do you have access to this paper? [31], if so, could you copy and paste me the conclusion. Thanks. Mish (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion therapy

Johanson - could you continue to be involved in the conversion therapy debate? Your views have been helpful. Hyper3 (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hints for Sexual Identity

(Via Decade-Search in Google Books.)

  • Second Half 19th century, mostly for human, also sometimes for animals and plants. Sometimes it seams that it comes from SEXual identity = biological gender identity. i.e. Sexual identity of Embryos. [32]
  • The use grows in the 1940s. Mostly Problems in sexual identity, confusing. Sexual identity as man or women. Near Transvestism/Transsexual (no really own theme to this time) and Homosexual. But to this time also vs. fetish. First time sexual identity of Adam and Eve when they saw them. It gwos in the theme of Child development, Adolescent Development. With 5 Years Gender identity, Adolescent: Sexual Identity
  • 1948-1953 Robert J. Havighurst, Theory of "developmental tasks", development of identity. One task for adolsecents is to form sexual identity

--Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 04:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from talk:conversion therapy

Joshuajohanson, I reply to your comments from talk:conversion therapy here again because I am continuing to find placing comments on the talk page difficult.

You asked, "Are you saying we shouldn't have a page for all efforts to change sexual orientation because there is too much material?" Yes, among other reasons. The existence of such massive amounts of material on this topic makes the task of organizing and presenting it all much too difficult, and the fact that there are no sources that deal comprehensively with all the different change methods means that it would be impossible to keep an article about them NPOV (that's difficult enough with conversion therapy, even though it is a narrower subject).

Regarding your comment, "Personally, it just sounds like you don't want reliable, referenced material on Wikipedia at all, whether under this article or under another article": it may not be your intention to make personal attacks, but that comment, nevertheless, borders on being a personal attack. My objections to your suggestion have nothing to do with some sinister wish on my part to censor Wikipedia. I cannot stop you from working on a single huge article that tries to discuss all change methods, and I would not dream of trying; it's just that I consider the task all but hopeless. I probably wouldn't have any interest in working on it myself. BG 22:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I misinterpreted your comments. I guess I interpreted your fear of becoming NOR and being unmanageable was an attempt to stop us from working on a single article that discusses all change methods, not simply a disinterest in working on it yourself. From my point of view, it seemed you did not want info on SOCE to be discussed either here or anywhere else. If that is the case, I would appreciate if you made that clear on the talk page. From what you wrote, it seems like you are trying to stop us from writing that article. BTW, I don't want it to be huge. I am imagining it to be more of a summary style article, with links to the different attempts, but I obviously can't promise anything since I will not be the only editor to work on that page. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page is bloated, and I find it difficult to comment there; I have nearly given up. I will be commenting on individual users' talk pages until that situation is fixed. I'm not trying to stop you from writing any article, just pointing out that it's not sensible to try to write the article you have in mind. BG 00:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There are other issues that need considering too - the quotation from NARTH in the lead, for instance. My position is still that it should be removed. What are your views on this? BG 23:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

NARTH does advocate conversion therapy, but it also offers other types of therapy as well. The comment "providing psychological care to those distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions" isn't even necessarily about conversion therapy. Both the APA and NARTH believe those distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions should be provided with psychological care, just the APA doesn't think conversion therapy is the way to do it. That does not come through on this article. This is one of the reasons I think a separate article would be wise. I do not particularly even agree with conversion therapy. I am a much bigger fan of sexual identity therapy. However, I think it should be clear what the APA says and what NARTH says about conversion therapy. I do not think this article currently does that. I think the edit by Hyper is misguided, but I appreciate him trying to accurately represent NARTH's views. I will bring up my concerns about the NARTH quote on the talk page or if you make clear that you are not trying to stop us from creating an article for SOCE. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual orientation change efforts

Joshuajohanson, I would strongly suggest that you move what you are doing here [33] to your user space. Working on your own version of an article is appropriate within user space, but I'm not sure how it is appropriate to be doing that within a talk page; I'm considering nominating the page you creation for deletion. BG 21:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to use my own user space because I wanted input from other people. I was following the advice given at Wikipedia:Workpages. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What that page says is that, 'A "sandbox" or "dumping ground" page associated with a specific article is useful in cases where an article is already reasonably developed (say, better than "Start") and as such can suffer deterioration by addition of sub-standard material.' That's clearly not the case here. Sexual orientation change efforts is not reasonably developed; it's only a redirect. Having something within your user space doesn't prevent people from commenting on it; I welcome comment on material within my user space, for instance. BG 01:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I think working on this page is the way forward. Thanks for getting it started.Hyper3 (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; I think there are numerous problems with that page. For instance, it states that "Coaches work like psychologists, but are not licensed and hence do not have to follow ethical guidelines set by professional associations, giving them more room to experiment." That was material that was in older versions of the conversion therapy article, but it was removed, because it was inaccurate. It's not good to see the same misleading content surfacing at another page. BG 03:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to work together to improve this article. If you have any more suggestions I would be more than glad to incorporate them. The page is still a workpage and can use a lot of improvement. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, that article looks to me like it is simply a holding-place for all the content that is too poorly sourced and insufficiently relevant to be part of Conversion therapy. Lots of leftovers from conversion therapy aren't really going to make a good article. However, I will look it over carefully, and make a list of suggestions. I probably won't edit it myself. BG 05:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy

Joshuajohanson, basically, yes I think the information should be there, but carefully worded so that it doesn't appear that it's the ONLY or BEST option. Does that make sense?--Boweneer (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with that. What do you think of the information presented on Talk:Sexual_orientation_change_efforts/Dumping_Ground? I have tried to be neutral. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joshuajohanson, I suggest that you add yourself to the list of parties involved in the dispute at conversion therapy here [34]. You are clearly involved in the dispute, and discussion is not likely to achieve anything unless you participate. BG talk 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joshuajohanson, sorry I never checked back here at your page re: the SOCE sub page of yours. I will look. As far as nonreligious *people* pursuing this, I'm sure there are some sources that say that, but I would imagine they are partisan. Just my opinion, and I think that there could be an effort there to make conversion therapy look "legitimate". As someone who is far off the beaten path, being "legitimate" doesn't concern me too much--personally, if sources discuss this as working for religious men, and some studies show promising results for religious men, great. I think an encylopedic article should note that, while noting that the majority opinion is that it is healthier for most LGBT people to change their religion rather than their sexuality. Again, put huge POV markers around everything I've said.
Oh, though I'm participating in this conversation on talk pages, etc., I don't really want to edit the articles themselves. I prefer editing less controversial stuff. ;0 --Boweneer (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joshuajohanson, Interesting article. Thanks for the link. However, I notice a few things in David's story that are warning flags to me as a gay man. Number one, an implicit assumption that there is a *gay lifestyle*. I can tell you that just like being a straight man in the U.S., being a gay man in the U.S. doesn't automatically lump everyone into one culture. In any case, I do think that a man such as this would be a tiny minority, because I think it is more common for a gay man to realize that the club culture and promiscuity are unhealthy. There are plenty of other lifestyle options.
However, I think this is an excellent source for either article (SOCE or conversion therapy), especially since I think reliable sources are scanty anyway. It's written in a fairly neutral style, and I like that. David has a good point in pointing out that pursuing this kind of therapy is a highly personal decision, and he is brave enough to confront not only the club culture and promiscuity, but admit that his reasons are his own, based on his opinions about how a child should be raised.--Boweneer (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual maturation disorder

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sexual maturation disorder, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.ipnic.org/psychos/66.0%20sexual%20maturation%20disorder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet?

Well now I've started with a sockpuppet case. I think I have uncovered evidence for Born Gay being the banned user Skoojal. Perhaps I am wrong, but if you look back you will see a very similar pattern of editing and commenting. Sigh. Hope I'm right, or I'll have to do a lot of apologising. See this and this and this.Hyper3 (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is bold. I would need to look more into it before I form my opinion. I have found some other similar edits on the Homosexuality and Psychology page. Born Gay seemed to pick up right where Skoojal left off[35]
  • Skoojal: "pathological models were in fact standard throughout most of the 20th century, not just the early part"[36]
  • Born Gay: "Actually pathological models were standard until very late in the 20th century (1973?), so it's quite wrong to suggest that they were restricted to only the early part of the 20th century."[37]
He has confessed. Hyper3 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather be gay than dumb any day

Joshua,

If you look at the revision history of your user page, you'll notice some vandalism. I added that using a couple of my other sockpuppets. Let me explain why: I don't doubt your claims of having overcome homosexuality and developed heterosexual feelings, but I also don't consider that much of an accomplishment. To be bragging about that is therefore rather laughable, in my view. There are more important things to care about, such as intelligence. Normally, I would consider myself above a cheap taunt such as calling Mormons morons, but in your case, I think that fits well enough.

You may have overcome your homosexuality, but you aren't going to overcome stupidity. Personally, even if being gay is a mental illness (an issue I am content to leave open; I take no position either way), I would rather be gay than plain stupid, which is what you are.

Your pal,

Skoojal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avalon57 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image of missionaries

Hi Joshuajohanson,
the image File:MormonMissionaries.jpg that you have uploaded from Flickr 2 years ago, is threatened by deletion because the license couldn't be verified as it is no longer visible on Flickr. In case you know or are in contact with the photographer, could you ask her/him for written permission, as explained here? --Túrelio (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be wise to leave a note at the image or at my talkpage about whether you will or will not contact the photographer. Remember, it is under speedy deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the SSM article reply and etc.

Hey Joshua, I first want to thank you for your ideas and help.

I want you to take a look at my newer revisions (only the first couple actual edits will be posted) and tell me if you think my edits/ arguments still have the same problems:

"Perhaps all the info on both sides, in the cases I mention, belong in a new section or article. Let me know your thoughts.

Unless my information can be shown to be irrelevant enough to not even justify being in a section of the article on why some oppose SSM on scientific and philosophical grounds (I say philosophical because the idea that laws of the state must be found to be a net gain to the society is based on political philosophy); then the solutions I see are to include them side by side with equally relevant information already in the article, delete that equally relevant information, or place both in new sections on opposition and favor of SSM.

I will briefly review some things learned in the section on my previous edits (if you have disagreements with parts of my review please just say here “I disagree with------ statement” but put your reasoning in the old section, that this one may remain fresh.

  • The way I have posted these edits is not the exact way I would have them appear on the wiki page- for example- the “based on the logic of others” and “based on my logic” sections, and the brief descriptions of why I included the edit, would not be in the actual article.

We have determined from the past debate that one of my sources was outdated and that I made a generalization about another- I have left out such things in my revision. Since I have been willing to admit when I was wrong, another has mistaken my honesty for stupidity; I hope such mistakes can be avoided in this fresh discussion so that no one need fear honesty in debate.

We have determined that the burden of proof rests upon me to support my statements. This is done by providing scientific sources that cannot be proven flawed in a way that jeopardizes how it is placed in the article (and we have covered that the burden of proof cannot rest upon me to prove that the study is perfect- as that is impossible for any one to do with any study or scientific evidence (ie. Newtonian physics- although proved by mathematic proof- have been overridden by Relativity- and that in part by Quantum.) My sources also must not be able to be objectively shown (not by opinion) to violate policies of authoritativeness. On questions of validity the burden of proof is passed when I fulfill the requirement of posting an authoritative source.

On questions of relevancy- Historyguy linked the article on logical fallacy of burden of proof- the conclusion of which reads: “The logical fallacy which she is exposing in this case is the attempt to argue that view A is to be preferred to view B because "B cannot be proven" when the burden of proof is laid on view B to an impossibly heavy level, and in particular to a level under which A could not be proven either. Keith Lehrer suggests that "generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology [the study of ignorance] is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side …"

We have also shown, by wikipedia policy, that if the portions already in the article are deleted, the burden of proof rests on those who wish it restored.

We have shown that because I do not have all knowledge, nor claimed to have such, one flaw in one study (if the claim to flaw cannot be shown itself to be false) still does not discredit my other information. I have done “my homework” on these articles all over again. If there were flaws in the studies or my statements about them I would love to address them on a case by case basis.


  • Here are my edits and the places in the article they belong near, and explanations of the edits.

The exact wording, in order to present it in the most fair way, is open to discussion.


A study on marriage statistics of opposite-sex married couples by researcher 1. Darren Spedale found that 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples marriage-like partnership status, rates of opposite-sex marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of opposite-sex divorce had gone down, contradicting the concept that same-sex marriages would have a negative effect on traditional marriages.[117]

Based on the logic of others- this should be removed as it applies to same-sex civil unions not same sex marriage (except in that the baseless opinion is added that the same results could be found if same-sex marriages had existed for the last 15 years in Denmark).

Based on my logic this should be amended to remove that opinion.


However, a study on same-sex partnerships in Norway and Sweden found that short-term divorce risks are higher (50% for gay men and double the risk for lesbian couples as it was for gay male couples) in same-sex partnerships than in opposite-sex marriages.[118] The authors stated that this may be due to same-sex couples' "non-involvement in joint parenthood" and "lower exposure to normative pressure about the necessity of life-long unions."[118]

This clarifies what the study found.


A multi-method, multi-informant comparison of community samples of committed gay male and lesbian (30 participants each) couples with both committed (50 young engaged and 40 older married participants) and non-committed (109 exclusively dating) opposite-sex pairs was conducted in 2008.[119] Results indicated that individuals in committed same-sex relationships were generally not distinguishable from their committed opposite-sex counterparts.


Based on the logic of others- this should be removed because it was not conducted on same-sex married couples and that it does not apply to same-sex marriages.

Based on my logic it should remain and other information and studies on the differences in same-sex couple relationships should be added. Such as: (but worded differently so it fits better in the article)

A study found that the mean number of partners among males rose from 15 to 18 per year, though the median fell from 6 to 5 indicating that this is due to increased proportions of men reporting high or very high partner numbers.

Davies P et al. Putting it about: health promotion for gay men with higher numbers of sexual partners. CHAPS Partnership and Sigma Research, London, 2002.

This shows a possible difference between same-sex and opposite sex relationships. (This last sentence was an explanation of why this edit belongs and would not appear in the article) (I would include a source on the numbers for opposite sex relationships- but then I would be accused of synthesis instead of the fairness I was trying to portray.)"

Now that I have probably lost other prying eyes- I want to get to that etc. I think it is very awesome that you are a 'recovered' homosexual. If I got the right impression from your other comments on this page- you are LDS yes? So am I :) My thoughts on homosexuality as a disorder may be helpful in modifying how you explain your thoughts on it to others: I believe that everyone has the genetic ability to be attracted to either man or woman. This ability varies in degree from person to person. (I first came to this conclusion from listening to a radio debate- where, by the logic of the professor opposing therapy for some homosexuals, this conclusion could be easily derived.) Some call it a disorder when a man is perhaps 80% leaning toward sexual attraction with another man because it goes against evolution and natural selection as probably all disorders do because they decrease the ability to propagate the race. Others see it as an addiction, where- just like porn addiction (from which I have recovered) an outside influence drives that increased desire toward the same sex by means of chemical persuasion. An addict is more open to this because of genetics. It should also be noted that science has shown behavior to be able to cause gene modification.

I forget if there is anything else I wanted to say...oh yes... I hope you will continue the good fight on wikipedia to have both views recognized on SSM. You have been better able to express yourself objectively than I have. I am limited to a short amount of time before I will not be able to further pursue this topic for 2 years- so please help me to expedite the edits ;) (MatLocke (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peculiar_Light&oldid=323016057"