Talk:Homosexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tranhtruong (article contribs).

Disputed recent changes

@Lazy-restless:, I have already noted my objections to some of your recent changes here. It is rude of you to continue making the same changes, without explanation, after an objection to them has been stated. Part of your recent addition reads, "Some including Orthodox Judaism, Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Sikhism and Zoroastrianism teach that homosexual desire itself is sinful". That addition is not acceptable. It must be either removed entirely or properly modified and qualified. It is blatantly false to claim that Christianity uniformly teaches "that homosexual desire itself is sinful"; there is no single Christian body with any ability to promulgate such a teaching (I also believe that your addition misrepresents the position of the Catholic Church). This is a highly complex subject, and per WP:NPOV we cannot responsibly present the opinion of a single source as unqualified fact. Your addition is an embarrassment and the kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a poor reputation. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, that unacceptable addition is cited to this, which appears to be part of a legal briefing. It is bizarre to think that it is acceptable to use such a source in this manner. The source in any case makes no claims of any kind about what Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, and Zoroastrianism teach about homosexual desire; it is obvious that the addition by Lazy-restless is not properly cited, represents personal opinion, and must be removed. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I took all that my edit informations from Religion and homosexuality article. You can cross-check it there. - Lazy-restless (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Look, you just aren't seeing the problem here. I don't know why, given that it is perfectly simple. It is a basic and fundamental principle of properly citing article content that a citation that follows a statement has to support the statement. Your addition adds a set of claims about how various religions view homosexuality, and immediately following that added material is a citation to a legal brief that does not support those claims. Is that acceptable? No. For perfectly obvious reasons, that just isn't how things are done here. It confuses things and undermines the integrity, reliability, and quality of the project. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Lazy-restless It is worth noting that WP:Reliable sources explicitly states that a Wikipedia article may not be used as a source in an article; you need to go back and use the original references.Finney1234 (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Freeknowledgecreator:: I'm not sure what this was about, but in your first comment it says "Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity, which are two very specific denominations of Christianity that set their own rules.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 07:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Historically discouraged by many religions

@MrX: You reverted my edit to the lead, but I still think it is appropriate to mention religious opposition to homosexuality in the lead. The goal of the article is to summarize cultural attitudes as well, not just scientific findings. While I should say by religions, I mean Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; I don't know of other religions that have historically opposed homosexual behavior. Although you said it's not an accurate summary of the article, this is mentioned several times. From history: "In cultures influenced by Abrahamic religions, the law and the church established sodomy as a transgression against divine law or a crime against nature." From Middle East: "Homosexuality is illegal in almost all Muslim countries." If you think it should be worded differently, that's fine, but it's definitely relevant. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 07:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Naddruf: We should reflect a global view, not just the view of Abrahamic religions. Even within Christianity, there is wide variation among its constituent churches. Assuming that the Religion section of the article is a faithful summary of sources about the subject, the lead should reflect it. Something like:

"Religious views about homosexuality vary. Some teach that homosexual desire itself is sinful, some believe that only the sexual act is a sin, others are completely accepting of gays and lesbians, and some encourage homosexuality.

Admittedly, this is not a subject that I have researched a great deal, so we may want to seek input from WP:WikiProject LGBT studies. - MrX 🖋 11:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: Yes, that is perfectly fine. I didn't say all Christianity, or are Judaism or Islam were opposed to homosexuality now. I just made a general statement about the past. When you say the article should refelect a global view, that is true, but there is no reason not to mention particular attitudes like this, specifically as followers of Abrahamic religions are more than half of the world population.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 15:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

-Furthermore, I agree with you that this sentence doesn't belong in the article: "Current authoritative bodies and doctrines of the world's largest religions view homosexual behaviour negatively."—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

TheeFactChecker (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Should a criticism section be added?

No. Johnuniq (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020

Citation [154] does not support the proposition in the previous phrase. The article cited is a discussion of the politics surrounding the declassification of homosexuality in The DSM. A better source should be found, or this citation should be removed. Parriswashere (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Equivamp - talk 01:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Add this paragraph after the statement that many believe homosexuality is not caused by social influences.  : "Many psychological sources and studies, show models of parent and child social interactions, which greatly influence learning homosexual behavior and orientations (no matter how early in life it is learned) are abundant. Beyond the old Freudian Oedipus and Electra complexes are men and boys, who do not know a caring and loving father, yet who yearn for him, the helicopter mother, loving her son in the place of romantic relationship with her spouse or other, the boy who is labelled "gay" by his peers in a particularly vulnerable time in puberty or preadolesence. These are just a few of the many extremely influential factors, which may make a child or man think they were born gay. There are a lack of scientific methods in claims that individuals cannot change this largely learned behavior and orientation of homosexuality. Such traditional treatment since the 1970's has trapped (and "defined") many, who need to be freed from the traditional psychological definitions of the 1970's that there are scientifically proven inborn or largely natural causes of the very complex social human behaviors and psychological orientations labelled "homosexualty" or "being gay." Signed, Stephen Hoskins 2601:480:4081:C2D0:2C2E:3D57:B7A:938A (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Introduction. Sex vs Gender

Both sources for the introduction do not support the addition of gender. I point to Merriam-Webster and Oxford personally for the definition. Not to mention sex is in the word but that's beside the point

Thanks, (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverted here and sourced here. This matter had a long discussion years ago. Other than the big discussion at Talk:Sexual orientation#Definition and misinformation (permalink here), I am not getting into another big debate about it years later, in a time where a new discourse on the matter has developed. But I will alert WP:LGBT to this section you started. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

And fix your signature. Currently, people can't see what your username is unless they see you in the edit history or use the mouse to hover over your signature. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)