Talk:Homosexuality

"Sissyphobia"

Does anyone here think that "sissyphobia" is worth mentioning in this article? The book that proposed it does not seem to be particularly notable, so I've proposed that article for deletion, but maybe something can be said here about this. Note that this "phobia" doesn't have anything to do with homophobia, although it's linked from there, because this supposed "phobia" is exhibited by gay men that don't like effeminate partners, I gather. Maybe something could be said in the social construct section here or perhaps in Queer theory, not necessarily using this neologism? I confess, I haven't read the latter article. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The article describes it as if a matter of taste or preference, not an irrational fear, making "sissyphobia" a misnomer as well as a neologism. That article seems like a good AFD candidate, and there doesn't seem to be much reason to propagate the misnomer on Wikipedia. I'm still waiting for those into making up new sex-related words to give the illusion of having discovered something different to propose "neologismism" and "neoportmanteauillia". BitterGrey (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits to History / Middle East

Hi everyone. I am a graduate student working on the Wikimedia Public Policy Initiative and I am working on expanding the History section for the Middle East in particular. I noticed that it is lacking in citations and could be expanded to be more thorough in general. I have a a draft/outline in my Sandbox that I am developing. As my focus is specifically the Middle East, I intend on splitting the current section "Middle East, South & Central Asia" into two parts, as my sources do not address Central and South Asia in particular.

I am also new to Wikipedia, so any comments would be more than welcome, here or on my talk page.

ParisianTaupe (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As I look more at the issue of homosexuality in the Middle East from a historical perspective, I think that some sort of conversation and context is lacking in terms of using current categories of identity and retroactively attempting to apply them to historical accounts. I think that it's a valid scholarly debate to say that "homosexuality" has always existed, that is, relations between same-sex partners are nothing novel. But our ideas about sexuality in general have changed greatly in the last few centuries. You can be "homosexual" without engaging in sex, whereas some might argue that in the ancient world you were defined by what type of behavior you engaged in (sodomites committed sodomy, etc). These terms carry a lot of weight, but it also seems that these terms are more loaded and political today than they were historically.

I am wondering where the appropriate place to publish material surrounding this academic discourse might be on Wikipedia. Initially I was thinking that it would fit appropriately in the history section. But perhaps a different article might be in order? I don't feel that this topic is covered sufficiently elsewhere (please correct me if I am wrong!). There is a lot of scholarship about this, especially as it relates to the Middle East. How might one go about framing a new topic for this (if, indeed, one might be warranted).

I know that emotions can run high when confronting such things as identity, but I think reflections on such things are important.

ParisianTaupe (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"Homosexual behavior in animals is also widely encountered" sais the article... how can that be when the same article admits only 1500 species do have homosexual behavior in almost 3.000.000 to 30.000.000 species? is 0,00008% "widely"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.132.29.238 (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an important topic that probably warrants its own page, given the complexity of the arguments and information ParisianTaupe wishes to convey. We talked about where his own page might fit within the larger subject on Wikipedia and about the challenges of fitting his contribution into the existing framework. I suggested that it might be easier to focus on the ways in which homosexuality has been viewed over time since it's somewhat difficult to define terms in order to do the research from the contemporary perspective. Ismee (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Ismee

GA nomination is grossly premature

It really is. This article should be quick-failed. I'm astonished that Destinero nominated it. --Moni3 (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop be astonished and start to be constructive and write concrete points to be improved. --Destinero (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I already have. There are unsourced sections in this article, large chunks of copied information serving as quoted material (I haven't even checked for copyright violations in the prose), completely unnecessary and distracting lists of multiple references, a lack of coherence about the points the sources make, a section consisting only of bullet points, the very odd and confusing Lesbian narratives and awareness of their sexual orientation section topped off with the completely bizarre caption in the image "Lesbian girls", print sources that need to be cited to the page number, unreliable sources that need to be replaced, and on and on. It is very clearly an article that dozens or hundreds of editors have made small edits to without considering the continuity of information in the entire article.

There's simply no way around it: the article must be fundamentally, radically, and critically rewritten by someone or a group of someones who start with Human sexuality textbooks for an outline and move to more specific sources to flesh out the details in the article. Most of the newspaper articles should be replaced. It will take a massive amount of work. It should be done by people proficient in English.

The article clearly does not come near GA standards. Destinero, if you want the article to be GA, then work on it with intent. Don't just remove improvement tags and dead link templates to nominate it. By nominating this article when it is premature, not only do you put unnecessary burdens on the GA nomination process, but it does no service to the article itself. Become familiar with GA or FA criteria. Read the details involved in the sourcing and writing of a GA or FA article for a topic is complex as this one. Nominate the article when it exceeds the GA standards. Do not nominate it with the hope that a nomination will spark a flurry of interest and editing, hoping for improvement. --Moni3 (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Rules

This article violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View Policy, probably the most important rule. It does not even meet Wikipedia's requirements or rules, neither does it reflect a global view on the subject in most sections, outdated, not one single negative thing about it, and some other issues. We strongly disagree with the article! And request an immediate edit with fair representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XxDestinyxX (talk • contribs)

Anyone is able to edit Wikipedia. I'm sure you can understand that this article gets a lot of vandalism, so it is partially protected from new and unregistered users. Once you get a few edits under your belt, you are able to participate as anyone else does. The first step in doing that is obtaining reliable sources. Wikipedia mirrors information provided in reliable sources per this policy. Inserting information that is not covered in a source is considered original research and is forbidden.

So what parts of the article do you disagree with? Please provide specific passages and the source material that refutes it. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

And who is "we"? Drmies (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"...not one single negative thing about it..."? Well, do you feel the need to add a negative perspective to the articles of heterosexuality, sex, birth, life, gravity, earth, space etc?--DVD-junkie | talk | 19:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(Semi)Protected Page

I wanted to add a link to exit poll under the Demographics section, but couldn't because I'm a noob and this article is protected. Thanks. 98.154.177.118 (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)some guy

Why would you want a link to exit poll? HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Negative aspects

Can someone please tell me why zero negative aspects of homosexual activty are cited in the article? There are a myriad of negative effects of homosexual activity (i.e. diseases, etc.) that are completely ignored. Is there a reason why this article is pretending that homosexuality is completely normal and healthy? ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)ou

Well, if there were "a myriad of negative effects" of homosexuality undoubtably health care organizations would let us know. The same health care officials who state "that homosexuality is completely normal and healthy". Disease, for example, is a risk, not of homosexual activity, but of unprotected sex which can affect anyone, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

You might like to add a paragraph on negative aspects to the article of gravity, though. If there weren't gravity some people wouldn't fall on their heads – which might adversesely affect their reasoning.--DVD-junkie | talk | 05:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't have any negative aspects I want to add to the gravity article right now; it's this article that is in desperate need of revamping. There are several sexually transmitted diseases that have a far high prevalence in unprotected homosexual relations than heterosexual; and any claims that homosexuality is healthy is blatantly untrue. In fact, the New York Blade News, a gay newspaper, stated that "Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases. . . . Scientists believe that the increased number of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practices by a growing number of gay men who believe HIV is no longer a life-threatening illness." [1] Another example of negative aspects is the high prevalence of mental health problems. "Among the sample as a whole, there was a distressingly high prevalence of life events and behaviors related to mental health problems. Thirty-seven percent had been physically abused and 32 percent had been raped or sexually attacked. Nineteen percent had been involved in incestuous relationships while growing up. Almost one-third used tobacco on a daily basis and about 30 percent drank alcohol more than once a week; 6 percent drank daily. One in five smoked marijuana more than once a month. Twenty-one percent of the sample had thoughts about suicide sometimes or often and 18 percent had actually tried to kill themselves. . . . More than half had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed." [2] There are also a myriad of other credible studies and reports done signifying numerous negative effects of homosexuality. [3] ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

DVD-junkie's comment about gravity is irrelevant to this discussion, but the issues surrounding negative or positive effects of homosexuality should be placed in the appropriate context. First, this article is a mess and it should be rewritten. This is old news to anyone who frequents this talk page; I post this view frequently. World Net Daily is not a reliable source per the WP:RS policy. There are negative aspects associated with any kind of behavior. Epidemiologists, psychiatrists, and licensed psychologists write about them as they address all kinds of groups of people. The article should reflect the body of research associated with behavior and homosexuality. It should not support a positive or negative view of that behavior or weight one side of research over another. Currently, the article is a jumble of sections that are randomly placed, have little coherence or continuity, and reflect the dozens of editors who have added to the article instead of a solid review academic literature written about homosexuality. So, Christos, your point is a good one, but rather a small part of the very large mess this article is in. You should know that WND and taxtyrrany.ca sources are unacceptable for this article and little else on Wikipedia, however. --Moni3 (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

ΙΧΘΥΣ - The risk situation you describe is very much that of advanced western nations (I'm guessing USA in your case), simply because in those countries HIV has been largely restricted to the gay community. But in much of Africa it is a huge disease of the heterosexual community, because that's where the disease is. The risk is one of unprotected sex, not homosexuality. This is a global community. Your perspective is not global. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused as to how the New York Blade News is not a reliable source? New York Blade News, a gay newspaper, stated that "Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases. . . . Scientists believe that the increased number of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practices by a growing number of gay men who believe HIV is no longer a life-threatening illness." Now although this statement may not apply to everywhere globally, it still should be a valid criticism of the homosexual lifestyle and its health effects. ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

New link for Homosexuality page

hi could someone link to this wikipedia page at the bottom of the homosexuality page. it helped me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.247.38 (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83 chat 04:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)