Talk:Homosexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homosexuality article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

	To-do list for Homosexuality:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Further develop history sections. Summarize laws. Add more political ramifications. Add more coverage to times of persecution. Add NPOV safety/health tips section. The article is too long and needs reducing into a basic article stating what homosexuality is, with the whys and wherefores in separate sub pages. Removal of duplicated material within the article. Shorten the introduction. Change some of the existent theories from 'it is likely' to 'it has been suggested' or 'some researchers have theorized.' Add references to studies such as the following: Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons. Reduce number of templates Clean out/Add less repetitive and less sexist pros and cons. Must investigate "homosexual" behaviorial acts amongst social mammals further. It is widely accepted and understood by zoologist and biologist alike that the behavior is one (male or female) showing domination over another. It is not, according to most, done for sexual purposes; it is to show dominance.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class.

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Homosexuality, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Homosexuality (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

edit

Archives

July 2003-August 2003 August 2003-April 2004 April 2004 April 2004-July 2004 August 2004-October 2004 October 2004-March 2005 March 2005-June 2005 June 2005-July 2005 August 2005-December 2005 January 2006-August 2006 September 2006-January 2007

Contents 1 Not getting it 2 Too many boxes 3 Split into separate articles 4 egalitarian, gender-structured, age-structured? 5 Non controversial problem 6 Bieber Statement 7 Homosexuality in specific subcultures 8 Cause 9 Discussion of "Cause" is very premature, and silly 10 Scapegoating 11 Why are "homosexual" and "gay" two separate articles? 12 Why is not there 13 Suicide Section 14 Evolutionary Models 15 Bieber -- title? first name? 16 "Homosexualities"?

[edit] Not getting it

Don't know how to do this so here goes:
Why is the revised article not available at location Homosexuality. The Homosexuality article is vague, broad and biased in comparison to the revised article --Ismailova 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, can you explain? Joie de Vivre 19:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that you prefer the older version? You are free to implement changes based on individual sections. If you are suggesting major changes, it would be better if you discussed them at the Talk page first. Sometimes changing an article does not improve it, if you think this article lost something, please tell us how it could be improved. Joie de Vivre 17:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many boxes

I just removed the "Sexual Orientation" box, as the info in it is generally covered in other boxes on the page. Aleta 00:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split into separate articles

"Homosexuality" is an unfortunate umbrella-term which refers to both male love and female love. Note: Japanese has no term for "homosexuality," but it does have words for male love and female love.

I think we should split the whole thing into two articles. "Homosexuality" should offer the reader a choice between "male love" and "female love."

These are not the same. Just as one example, the "issue" of "homosexual promiscuity" is a male issue only.

At least, I suggest that we all wake up to the fact that "homosexuality" is just a silly word invented in the 19th century, as something more positive than "sodomy." The pagan cultures preceding Christianity had many more interesting terms for erotic relations between persons of the same sex.

[edit] egalitarian, gender-structured, age-structured?

The "egalitarian, gender-structured, age-structured" distinction plays a prominent role in the article. Does it deserve to? I'm not a scholar on this topic, but I've never seen the distinction outside of this article. Is there consensus amongst scholars that this is a defining part of the framework of how we should think about homosexuality? If not, I propose phasing it out. Fireplace 21:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be cited more rigorously. Murray, in his "Homosexualities" (2002) has an extensive discussion of the topic, and presents a lineage of thinking that supports and leads up to his work. Also, you can see another example on the U of Amsterdam website, here. Haiduc 04:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Haiduc. You reverted a change I made to the article on Homosexuality, specifically the removal of the third paragraph which is restated later in the article. I removed it from the introduction because being placed in the introduction gave it—I believed—an undue weight in the article. Given that the anthropological perspective stated is only one of the various ways of talking about homosexuality, it seemed strange to place it in the introduction, particularly as the idea of homosexuality as expressed by these anthropologists is pretty far from normal usage. They suggest three models in societies - one egalitarian, one gender-structured and one age-structured.

In contemporary use, you could argue that each of these three categories could be equally well used about heterosexual relationships (one where partners are equal, one where they are confined to gender roles and one where there are large age differentials between the partners, the latter being normally what we call paedophilia). There is no such passage in the introduction to the wikipedia article on heterosexuality however. I would suggest its presence in this introduction makes it see like homosexuality is an societal construct (which is debatable), that anthropology is the right way to explore it (which is highly debatable) and that it in some way is conflatable with completely different axes of identity - dom/sub, masculine/feminine, age-differential and the like. Particularly with regard to the age-differential aspect, I note that there is no written piece in the heterosexuality article which gestures towards heterosexual paedophilia (by far the more common of the two).

My suggestion was to remove the paragraph from the introduction, where it took on the apparent characteristics of notable truth, and to leave the exact same subject material in the section on anthropological views of homosexual relationships later in the page, where it could be contrasted with other interpretations and categorisations from other discipliens.

Posted by User:Tecoates at User:Haiduc's talk page, moved here for convenience.

I cannot speak for what is in the heterosexuality article, and I do not think that it is tenable to completely equate same-sex relations with opposite-sex relations, from any point of view other than orientation. Functionally, however, and socially, and historically they have clearly occupied different spaces in human experience. As for privileging anthropology, I am not sure what to say. It certainly falls within its domain, much as a discussion about the Rocky Mountains falls within the domain of geography, though it may well be covered also by botany and entomology and archeology and what not. But one has to make an editorial choice, and certainly we should attempt to have as wide a view of same sex relations in the introduction as possible, which is why I opted for that formulation.

To have the article begin with a narrow definition of homosexuality that describes well its construction in the modern West and relegates its other aspects to areas reserved for arcana seems somewhat ethnocentric and to be avoided. And finally, I am afraid that your insertion of the pedophilia red herring is completely off base. We are talking about homosexual behavior here as manifested in history. With few exceptions (Melanesia, perhaps) relations with little children were not the main focus of men's attention. Relations with adolescents, yes, but as you are probably aware, adolescents are welcomed into the gay community today pretty much everywhere, the list of gay youth programs is immeasurable, and as long as they are of legal age it is nobody's business who falls in love with whom. Ours included.

Finally, the partition of homosexual expression into various forms goes back a long way, is not only Murray, or Roscoe, who use it and teach it, and is commonsensical to boot. Haiduc 18:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I make it clear again here that I have no desire here to remove any of the content from the article, merely to put the paragraph on homosexuality as viewed by anthropology in the section on anthropology. As to your comments on homosexuality and heterosexuality being conflated, I repeat that it's pretty clear that there are different cultural ways of structuring heterosexual relationships that are (1) egalitarian (2) defined by different gender roles or age (3) age differential. You could argue that our current western culture is egalitarian, orthodox islamic countries are gender-based and ancient greece was age differential, for example. To single out homosexuality rather than sexuality in general for this kind of analysis emphasises homosexualities non-normativity, and to single out anthropologies contribution seems to be rather ridiculous given the amount of other material on sexual orientation that could inform the article.

I contest the idea that this is somehow ethnocentrically western to declare that homosexuality "refers to sexual interaction and / or romantic attraction between individuals of the same sex" or that "in modern use, the adjective homosexual is used for intimate relationships and/or sexual relations between people of the same sex, who may or may not identify themselves as gay or lesbian". In fact I see absolutely nothing in the first two paragraphs that privileges western attitudes except, perhaps, the concept of homosexuality itself which is—as stated—a fairly modern notion (and the notion being described in the article). That it doesn't touch on the various ways that society has framed homosexual relations through time is a problem with the article, although not with the introduction, any more than saying that an article on women that doesn't start off with a description of the various roles they've had in society is somehow ahistorical or privileges the present. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tecoates (talk • contribs) 11:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Non controversial problem

The section "Homosexuality" in Terminology of homosexuality has a {{main}} that points to Homosexuality, and the Homosexuality article has a {{main}} which points to Terminology of homosexuality... I'm not sure how this should be resolved. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it even a problem? That seems to be the optimal situation to me. garik 10:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Modified by garik 10:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bieber Statement

The statement that he made in 1976 is ignoring a causality problem. He said "that a boy whose father is warmly related and constructive will not become homosexual," this is referring to the idea that one follows the other (namely the becoming of a homosexual because of a destructive father), while there is the possibility that the father is becoming destructive because of the development of his son. The correct statement from his data would be "in a household where there is not a destructive father, there will not be any homosexual sons of that father." 69.221.232.40 02:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Although, of course, that statement is just a non-studied belief and while I can see the educated thought process behind it, common knowledge and life experience has taught me that that statement is not true and that possibly the exact reverse could be more likely JayKeaton 14:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid it's rubbish. garik 14:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuality in specific subcultures

Hi everyone! I'm tempted to add a category/paragraph to the article that outlines views and acceptance (Or lack thereof) in specific non-religious subcultures; I.E: The Rap community. Does anyone agree that this would be a good idea, or would it contribute to overloading the page with irrelevant information?

Just asking here first as it's best to get a wider view of a change as opposed to just going ahead with it and starting an edit war, IMO. :-)

GayGoth 12:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

(P.S: I do have a registered account, although not in this name due to reasons of annonymity - I'm pretty much a closet case you see. :-|)

Don't really think it's that important. There's lots and lots and lots of subcultures that involve homosexuality, to list any in particular would make the article too long. 66.240.35.207 18:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. :-)

Harepusbrenning 19:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cause

Why is the cause of homosexuality not here? (It is a genetic disorder caused by too little testosterone being delivered to the male foetus. --My Name is Snowball 15:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The possible causes of homosexuality are very hotly debated, and are discussed in the article. Note that what you claim to be the cause is contradictory: you say it's genetic, but caused be environmental factors. Either way, I've not seen any good evidence for this. I hope you're not just trolling. garik 15:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC) modified by garik 15:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Because that is not the only possible theory. There is no known "cause" for homosexuality at this moment in time, and therefore it isn't in this article. If you can find verifiable links by all means input the above theory, however if the links aren't reliable they may be removed. Jacobshaven3 15:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• There have been tests done with homosexual identicle twins seperated at birth. When one identicle twin is gay there is a 50% - 70% chance the other is gay. The enviroment seems to have little to no impact on a child at all. --My Name is Snowball 15:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• • This would seem to imply a 30-50% effect from environmental factors - that's pretty large in my book, hardly "little to no". Now, just what those factors may be... I doubt we're anywhere close to teasing out all the potential factors. Aleta 02:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'd also like to point out that it IS a genetic disorder. Saying it isn't is like saying dyslexia or sickle cell anemia isn't. It is a genetic malfunction which offers no benefit. --82.36.177.31 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• • DIsorder is a highly loaded term. At the level of the individual clearly it would have an adverse affect on that person's ability to have children, but at the level of the gene it has been well argued by some geneticists that any genetic component to homosexuality must necessarily afford close relatives with reproductive advantages. It this were not the case it would disappear from the gene pool. As someone has said below in the sickle cell anemia example, a gene that has evolved for a very specific reason can create disadvantages for some proportion of its carriers. In the meantime, gay people can clearly have very rewarding lives and you could argue that the combination of traits concerned may benefit society more widely (I'm a bit sceptical about assigning gay people particular creative or aesthetic or artistic ability, but many other people are not), so again 'disorder' seems a bit rich and complex. Moreover other people have argued that the genetic component may be evidenced in utero, with the mother's manifestation of her genes resulting in a proportion of gay children. These children may carry the genes for this kind of effect without it actually having any effect on them themselves, and non-gay children may pass it on to their children in turn.

• Don't be silly. Homosexuality was the norm amongst the Spartan armed forces in ancient Athens. Would you have us believe that they all carried the "gay gene"?! The association is a category error. --Nmcmurdo 23:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Any scientific proof available? Futurix 02:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not great other examples either - sickle cell trait has known benefits of protection against malaria. Aleta 02:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole idea it's a genetic disorder is quite unscientific really. Unless every homosexual or bisexual (is that a genetic disorder as well?) has had an identical genetic mutation, then most of them must have a family background of homosexuality, since that's the only way a Genetic Anomaly could occur. Plus, if that was true, every child who had a homosexual or bisexual parent would have to also be homosexual or bisexual, or would have a very high chance at the very least. This has already shown to be not true in studies. I'd also like to add that if a child doesn't receive the usual amount of testosterone, that's an Environmental factor, not a genetic one. Jacobshaven3 10:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading a book by Alan and Barbra Pease, I think it was called "Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps" it may be outdated now but some research was carried out for that that supported the idea that homosexuality was genetic and that it is ingerited from the mothers side as the "gay" gene is located in the X chromosome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.177.31 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 18 February 2007.

Well, I'll keep a look out, but such research sounds quite outdated and it could be a POV account. If the "Gay" gene is connected to the X chromosome, then every lesbian must have at least one homosexual parent. (If the gene is dominant then one parent must also be homosexual, and if it's recessive both parent's would need to carry the gene, meaning the father would be homosexual since he only has the one X chromosome. Although this is OR, I think it explains how, unless the currently accepted theory of Genetics is wrong, that the idea of homosexuality being genetic is quite difficult to adequately explain.Jacobshaven3 01:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Found the book! It says that they believe the 'gay gene' is 50% - 70% dominant. They go on to say that this explains how a gay's family members like brothers, cousins and uncles are sometimes also gay. (because homosexuality isn't actually all that common 1 in 20 people are gay(interessting fact here -> homosexuality has the same occurence as red hair and freckles.) 82.36.177.31 17:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just two small snippets from first review of this book I found:

"Unsubstantiated, unsubstantiatable, or just plain wrong"

and

"pseudo-scientific tabloid trash".

Looks like you have a better chance of getting reliable information from "The Sun" then from this book ;-)

Futurix 01:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Studies done about gays are so totally biased that rigid scientific studies really never stand up to long term scrutiny. Additionally, you all should know that this whole debate really chills relationships between people of the same sex, and by extension embitters relationships with people of the opposite sex as well. If you can't have close relationships with people of your own sex, it's going to be a lonely life, especially if you find yourself in an oversexed subculture. People all over the place are so demoralized by this discussion for this reason. That's a big reason we have such high suicide rates among youth these days.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.173.99.16 (talk)

To say that homosexuality is genetically determined (to whatever degree) is not the same as saying there's a "gay gene". Let's say, for example, that there are 10 genes that influence sexual behaviour, and that each of these genes come in 10 different versions, and that the actual expression of these genes is influenced by 10 different environmental factors.... Well, already you can see that the actual sexual behaviour of the adult is a non-trivial consequence of the interaction of a large number of causal factors.

And in reality, there's probably thousands of genes that influence (to some degree or other) sexual behavioiur, and thousands of environmental factors that influence (to some degree or other) the expression of those genes.

Also, in response to the comments about in-utero exposure to testosterone being environmental or genetic: the response of the fetus to testosterone is determined by the genes of the fetus (the testosterone itself is an environmental factor, the respose to it is genetic); but the production of testosterone by the mother is a genetically determined response to previous environmental factors, possibly the gestation of male fetuses (so the testosterone is a genetic factor, the environmental trigger being male fetuses). CaughtLBW 16:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of "Cause" is very premature, and silly

I am posting this as a man who has always been interested in the cause or causes of homosexuality. It was only very late in the game that I realized that the question itself was incredibly biased.

What "causes" heterosexuality? Discussion: none.

Now, let me back off a bit and ask you to think about two other species: the Bonobo chimps and the dolphins. Bonobo chimps live in a bisexual riot. Dolphins are gay (at least the most common species). But nobody at all is asking about the "causes" of "homosexuality" in Bonobo chimps, or in dolphins.

No, the question always returns to us. And by "us," I refer to the Christianity-obsessed populations of the world, who know, from Divine Guidance, that "homosexuality is wrong." Knowing this, just as they know (more correctly) that measles and polio are wrong, they have set off on an obsessed search for the "cause."

Well, folks, we don't know "the cause." These genetic arguments are amusing to some extent (and I speak as the editor of "Twins and Homosexuality: A Casebook"). The twin evidence is something that must be taken into account.

But so must the following. There is a guy who has discovered one "cause" of homosexuality in males. It concerns the number of OLDER MALE BROTHERS. Evidently some mothers get tired of birthing boys, and with every older brother the chance for the current male baby to be gay increases by 33 percent.

Forget for a moment whether this idea is correct or not. (I believe it might be, speaking as #3 of 4 brothers.) But here we have an entirely biological explanation of male homosexuality which does not involve that fabled Gay Gene! (We were all closing in on it 10-15 years ago? What happened?)

Nature is complex, and human nature is even more complex. I think that (rather than trying to find the "cause" -- although I would welcome that when it comes) we would do much better to try and deal with the following facts:

1. Every major society around the world is overwhelmingly based on heterosexual marriage and the family (90-95%).

2. Every major society around the world has a vibrant and exciting gay community. This society may be mostly overt (San Francisco) or mostly covert (Tunisia), but it's always there. Gay boys start to seek out this gay community around the age of 17 or 18, sometimes earlier.

These are FACTS.

Why does it happen? Why is the sky blue? Why are the dolphins gay? Why is it fun to go swimming?

It might surprise some readers here to learn that we do not understand, at all, how the genes for eye color result in the actual eye color of children. Put another way, in the case of eye color (or hair color), the path between genotype and phenotype is utterly unknown. Good luck with human sexuality!  :-) JaafarAbuTarab 16:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think from a mainstream scientific point of view, at least, the cause of heterosexuality is relatively trivial: it tends to continue the species. If our ancestors hadn't tended to mate and produce children, we wouldn't be here. In this evolutionary context, homosexual behaviour is more puzzling than heterosexual behaviour, since animals that are exclusively homosexual tend not to have children. The word "exclusive" is of course important and questionable here, as is the underlying assumption of genetic transmission. I would also stress that this is not the same as saying that homosexuality is in any way unnatural. In fact it recalls the issue of so-called altruism in evolutionary biology: cooperative populations are at risk of exploitation by selfish individuals (free riders), so we might expect cooperative individuals to die out. Yet many animals cooperate, and human beings stand out among them. There are pretty good evolutionary explanations for how such behaviour survives. By comparison, selfish individuals barely need explanation. My point is: the behaviour that on a superficial level seems more unexpected, or less likely to transmit itself to future generations, is the one that seems to require more effort to explain.

One more thing would appear to require explanation here: if neither homosexuality and altruism seems entirely to be expected on a superficial level, why do religions tend to promote only one of them?

I don't think the answer's all that difficult.garik 18:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're making a lapse of logic there. We understand why heterosexuality has evolved, because we can see the clear reproductive advantages it should give an organism. But that's not the same thing at all as saying we know what 'causes' it. To use an analogy, although we may understand the genetic imperative for functioning legs, understanding the process whereby genetic instructions are turned in utero and in independent objects into functioning legs is another matter entirely.

Truth of the matter is, the mechanisms that result in a heterosexual male or female are pretty far from well understood. In fact, homosexuality should be interesting here precisely because in observing the biological, social, psychological and genetic differences between heterosexual and homosexual people, we should be able to better determine how heterosexuality 'works' as well.

The reason people argue about the ideology behind studies of 'homosexuality' are because while you'd think it would be best studied to understand people generally and in more depth, the treatment of it as something that requires explanation where heterosexuality is somehow 'obvious' puts more emphasis on the understanding of divergence from a norm, and as a consequence always implies behind the scenes some suggestion that it's a flaw that could be fixed. You see this a lot in scientific practice where unspoken cultural assumptions are used to inform studies. Over time, the scientific process tends to weed this stuff out, but it can't remove individual unspoken and unthinking prejudice. A hundred years ago the assumptions were that white men were somehow a default human worth investigating as representative of humanity and that non-whites and women were somehow either bastardisations or sub-classes or deviations. You'd never see a study of a large population largely constituted of 'negroes' in the 18th or 19th centuries that were about understanding what it is to be human, only what it meant to be of that racial group.

Most gay people, while completely aware that of course their sexuality constitutes a disadvantage reproductively (and often socially) are very uncomfortable indeed with the idea that their experience of the world is somehow broken and could be fixed.

It's reasonable to argue that heterosexuality and homosexuality both have causes in that they're both the end results of large series of (probably mostly) biological, genetic and in utero hormonal factors. It's also reasonable to argue that the massive predominance of heterosexuality is the clear effect of evolution and the tiny proportion of homosexual people a more puzzling phenomenon that doesn't yet easily fit our models of genetics or evolution. It's not reasonable to inquire about the causation of homosexuality as if heterosexuality were obvious and natural. Both behaviours have lasted a hell of a long time through the evolutionary process and manifest in a whole range of different species. We should no more explore homosexuality in isolation than we should explore the cause of blue eye-colour in isolation from more general studies in eye-colour. Tom Coates 13:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right. I didn't read JaafarAbuTarab's comment as well as I should have. There is a clear difference between the reason something evolves and its cause in the sense of the mechanism behind it. I agree furthermore that in this sense "it's not reasonable to inquire about the causation of homosexuality as if heterosexuality were obvious and natural"; I continue to maintain, however, that it's reasonable to assume that from an evolutionary point of view the existence of heterosexuality is rather less surprising than the existence of homosexuality, at least on a superficial level. Again the issue comes down to the difference between cause as in the evolutionary reason why something might exist and cause as in the mechanism behind it. Good point. garik 13:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't agree more. It's clearly a bit of an evolutionary surprise that—so many millions (?) of generations down the line—any genes that would result in diminished reproductive success should still survive. The best explanations I've seen of this are that characteristics or combinations of genes that are present in overt fashions in gay men or women create reproductive advantages when present in different combinations in straight men or women - that is to say, if three factors are present then the child may be gay, if two are present, or four then the child will be straight and with a sufficient reproductive advantage to even out the imbalance. Alternatively, the genetic component that 'causes' homosexuality may be in the mother and may result in changes in the hormonal state in utero that in turn results in gay children with slightly more frequency. If those mothers were also more generally fertile than other women then it's conceivable that they might produce more children generally, meaning more who were likely to reproduce even if one of their children were gay. There are a whole bunch of possibilities. Tom Coates 13:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There are indeed. On a different note, it would certainly be pleasing and entertaining if there were more examples of religions actively promoting homosexuality in preference to heterosexuality. After all, I can think of at least one strand of Christianity that discourages sexual activity in any circumstances, so going forth and multiplying doesn't seem as high on priority lists as one might have expected. garik 14:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there have been some pretty odd religious cults through the years, including some of the weirder Gnostic religions some of whom believed that reproduction was a sin that trapped souls in a prison-like world. Some of them advocated frantic non-reproductive orgies. Needless to say they didn't survive very long. Tom Coates 21:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scapegoating

I find this section quite unsatisfactory. Either it should be renamed to something like "Persecution", or the examples need to be tightened up to show how they demonstrate scapegoating. My understanding of this word focuses on the aspect of blame, quite specifically. In the Knights Templar example, what were they being blamed for? The lack of money in Philip's treasury? The Nazis were "blaming" homosexuals for the "problem" of the diluted purity of the Reich? They also targeted Jews, the mentally ill, physically disabled, etc. for this general reason. When multiple groups are involved, it's no longer scapegoating. Were gays being "blamed" for communist infiltration in the 50's, or were they just lumped together with the godless communists? And finally, in Egypt, it's not clear at all how the burning of 8th century homoerotic poetry was part of a plan to lay blame at the feet of homosexuals. It just seems like a run-of-the-mill political maneuver to me, to mollify fundamentalists or get them off the regime's back.

Here are two classic examples of scapegoating: the Roman emperor Nero supposedly claimed that members of the nascent Christian movement were responsible for a fire that devastated the city of Rome, and subsequently a great campaign of persecution was mounted against Christians. Another example is the Jews in Europe throughout the Middle Ages-- so many unpleasant things were laid at their feet, I don't have a specific case in mind. It has to be blame for something *specific* (in my opinion), or it isn't scapegoating.

Look, homosexuals have been so abused in so many places over such a long period of time, can't we put together a more cogent section than this? Jlaramee 17:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the Americn Heritage Dictionary, A Scapegoat is " One that is made to bear the blame of others."

This is true of Homosexuals in almost all of the examples you give as non scapegoats. Even if several groups are made to blame, if they didn't do it and it covers another groups back, it's still scapegoating. Persecution is merely being treated poorly, but being blamed for something, which happened in Nazi Germany. It was blamed that the people in Germany were only weak because Homosexuals weakened German masculinity.

As for the other examples, sometimes the Ends and the Means appear different. Philip wanted their money, and tortured them to get it, but forced them to call themselves homosexual in order to justify it. Being homosexual was a scapegoat reason for him to torture them. Jacobshaven3 18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why are "homosexual" and "gay" two separate articles?

This has been copied directly from the Talk:gay page, garik said that he was going to bring the article here but obviously he hasn't so I have instead. Mrpowers999 22:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean bring the discussion here. It was here, and was archived. garik 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the history of both the terms, but don't they mean the same thing at this point?  Do 
they each need their own article?  (Asking at Homosexual as well.) Joie de 
 Vivre 23:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:Response here.  As 
you've posted this question twice, I think it's probably best to keep all responses in 
Talk:Homosexuality to avoid two discussions of the same issue. garik 23:56, 21 
January 2007 (UTC)
::Oh, that does make sense.  Sorry.  Joie de Vivre 01:23, 22 January 2007 
(UTC)

There are a hell of a lot of reasons why homosexuality and gay should be two distinct articles. The most obvious place to start is with the fact that while the two concepts clearly overlap, they have very different meanings and resonances. Homosexuality is considered to be a description of sexual activity between the same gender, whereas gay is considered to be an identity that some homosexual people choose to assume. Homosexual is considered by a lot of gay people to be a highly medicalised term, gay often considered to be one option, along with queer (for example) of the kinds of culture one identifies with. Gay people often, but not uniformly, reject the term homosexual, for example. Moreover, while you could argue that homosexuality is a concept that is understandable to all people, non-Western cultures have considerably more trouble with the idea of gay, having very differently structured relationships for same sex sexual relationships.

You can go further. The label of 'gay' and 'gay politics' is quite a contested one. There's a book called "anti-gay" protesting about the term and the movement associated with it. You could probably understand it as a difference like that between 'woman' and 'feminist', in that woman is supposedly a value-free category that is understood cross-culturally, whereas women choose to be feminists and there's a culture associated with those arguments, beliefs and ways of operating in the world.

Or you could look at the fact that homosexual behaviour is common in the animal kingdom, but that perhaps you wouldn't want to call those relationships 'gay' inasmuch as they're nothing like the way human homosexual pairings work.

But in a nutshell, the main reason they're different is because there are many different things to say about the term homosexual than there are about the terms gay and the queer and as a result any article that included them both would have to clearly demark the differences between them and their various meanings and history. And when you do that and you get long articles, the only sensible thing to do is to break them up.--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tecoates (talk • contribs) .

In any case, this has been discussed (albeit briefly) before—I don't think there's much support for merging them. garik 23:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is not there

"controversy" section in this article? Because homosexuality is infact perversion and a disease / mental deveploment malfuntion yet there is no mention of this. Just because difference is somewhere tolerated that doesnt make it natural or good, it just shows the weakness of the persons minds and lack of spine to resist the illness and temptations caused by it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

And why is this important is because i came here looking for few answers on the fact that what is wrong with people that are homosexuals and this article should have offered very clear ideas about that, but there is basicly none. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.248.159.240 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 4 March 2007.

That view was reasonably popular amongst western psychiatrists 50 years ago or so. It has fallen out of intellectual favour. But perhaps a section on the history of the idea of homosexuality could cover this issue. --Nmcmurdo 00:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A bit of a late reply, but nevertheless... It's fine if you think homosexuality is wrong. If you wish to express your views on some sort of whimsical knowledge about science rather than religion to make it sound more viable, then you go ahead and do so. Nevertheless, it is not a "fact" that homosexuality is a perversion or a disease anymore than it is a "fact" that homophobia is a view held by the ignorant twats still allowed to roam this planet. So careful on using that word (yes, using "infact" is just the same as "fact" on its own).

There certainly should be a theme of criticism throughout the article in compliance with an NPOV because it is, as with all things related to religion, ethics and morals, a possibility that homosexuality is wrong, sinful or whatever. But why should it be a prominent fixture within the article when other controversial minorities don't have such a section? For example, Black people?

Please remember that your homophobic views are clearly not in compliance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and therefore your opinions on new sections of this article should not be incorporated or considered. You thinking that homosexuality is "infact" wrong doesn't mean that it is. Quicker you realise that, quicker you get articles you're happy with ;)

Mentality 20:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What is sexual orientation? I hate to quote a liberal but Bill Clinton did say he did not have sex with that woman - Miss Lewinsky. I believe that Bill was referring to "oral sex" as not being sex. I believe he is correct. Bill knows this is an act of sodomy - oral sodomy. From a law perspective, Bill is a lawyer, sodomy is defined in two flavors: oral and anal. So I ask the question about sexual orientation and I keep coming to the same answer, sex requires one man and one woman. Two men or two woman can only engage in sodomy. They are no different than my desk and the floor lamp in my office. A desk and a floor lamp cannot engage in sex either. By definition this group of people are not engaging in sex and are non-sexual. The non-word homosexual should not exist. The non-word heterosexual should not exist. People are either sexual or non-sexual. Whether one looks to the Bible or to evolution sodomy is not sex. Sodomy is just masturbation in stereo. Marriage is an institution created to protect the children who are the products of sex. Sodomy is much less than sex and is actually a selfish activity for the creation of orgasms. The performance of sodomy by two men or two woman seems to fall in the category of a hobby. Sodomy is just like bowling, less painful, and should not require "special rights" bestowed by soft-headed judges. People have many types of attractions in their lives, food, nicotine, drugs, alcohol, and orgasms. I don't see where "attraction orientation" is being created by soft-headed judges - yet. I would like wikipedia stop catering to the gay mafia. "Homosexuality" does not exist! There are many people (male and female) who practice sodomy - big deal, it my be less scary than sky diving. This argument also erases the dreaded "homophobia" word as well. Being a really fat guy I laugh like hell when people refer to someone as fat in conversation then stop speaking, look at everyone in the conversation and then tell me I'm not fat. It use to hurt my feelings but I get a kick out of their behavior now. I love who I am. I get the feeling that same-sex sodomites are actually exhibiting some sort of mental illness when they created "homophobia." There will always be someone to call you queer, fag, etc just like there are people who run for the hills when I go to a meeting or interview for a job. Mommy, mommy there being mean to me boo hoo! I have no expectation of those people of ever accepting my tonnage. While same-sex sodomites continue to try forcing acceptance on a group of people who would rather die than have lunch with them. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. So there you have it - my opinion, now the next response will be some nonsense about "hate speech", etc... just like in the 1984 book - oh no its the thought police!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Godzilla1138 (talk • contribs).

Your entitled to your opinion, though I ask you. who invented the term "Sodomy". Who decided that "Sexual Intercourse" only meant sex between a man and a woman, and who decided that it was immoral to wish to orgasm for any reason other than procreation? the fact is, no one recalls exactly who, except it was in the Bible / Whichever religious book the religion in question uses. Who created the Bible? A group of people that wanted to control a mass of people. In the end, nothing is inherently wrong about two people of the same sex engaging in sexual acts. It's their choice. I am naturally attracted to Redhaired individuals. Other people might not be. It doesn't mean I have a disease or disorder. Or that I'm insane, or Evil.

It's your own choice who you like, who you want to socialise. But in the end. Unless you have attributable sources and citeable evidence. Theres no place for it on wikipedia. Jacobshaven3 02:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. Arguing that sex cannot exist between anyone but a man and a woman as they can't procreate is ridiculous. As has already been said, what about those who are infertile? And please don't start speaking out against contraception. Not using such things as condoms or birth control pills results in record high teenage pregnancies (as in the UK) and a wide range of STDs circulating the planet. Stupid religious people lobbying against condoms and the like have caused nothing but problems. Humans have always had sex solely for pleasure and studies have shown that dolphins do too!

If you even look at the Wikipedia article on sexual intercourse you will see that the definition of sexual intercourse includes anal and oral sex.

Unfortunately, history has shown that society doesn't change unless it's forced to. Women and black people never got their rights without a fight, and I strongly suspect had they never stood up to the constant discrimination that was used against them by ignorant people like you, we'd still see women without the right to vote, and blacks-only water fountains. So whilst I don't like the idea of "us" forcing ideas upon "you", it seems to be the necessary solution to end the decades of discrimination, attacks and depression that has scourged the gay community because other people don't think it's "valid". To prefer to die than have lunch with someone who is gay is just... well, stupid. Pitiful, in fact. Also goes to show what a disregard you have for human life, including your own. I'm sure God would be proud!

Mentality 21:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Who gets to decide which source is better than another? The APA had lots of citeable evidence until the shrink profession got taken over by the people who were being treated and then put it to a vote. No one at the APA went back and showed that the evidence collected up to 1973 was wrong. You have no citeable evidence that the authors of the Bible wanted to control a mass of people.

Biology defines sex as in procreation. Animals don't engage in sodomy. Sex by definition in science requires a male and a female. Where it's the Bible or Darwin sodomy is a dead end and calls into question whether the biological unit engaging in sodomy is malfunctioning. Is this malfunction insanity - it has insane effects on society. By the way I have red hair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Godzilla1138 (talk • contribs).

What is "sodomy", exactly? If you mean homosexual sexual behavior, you may want to consult Animal sexuality#Homosexual behavior as you are in fact incorrect. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is evidence that is peer reviewed and reputable, than it has a place and should be available. If there is none, then there may be a reason. I'm sure you are not the only person in the world with your views. As for evidence that the Bible was written to control people. I don't know of any first hand. It could be a made up theory (I don't know, I still believe it to be true). But other than the bible itself, (which never actually says sodomy is wrong, people have merely read into several stories and presume it means it), what evidence is there that Sexual intercourse in any way other than reproductively is wrong?

You say animals in the wild do not commit sodomy. (I hate that terminology mind you). I think the article: Animal sexuality#Homosexual behavior, would have evidence conflicting that.

I wonder. If entering a sexual act where reproduction is not an outcome. Do you see sex with a Condom, or sex between an infertile couple, as wrong and selfish? She all people only ever enter a sexual relationship with the sole intent of having children. And if they can't, should they just give up all together?

That's interesting to know, my ex had Red hair. Jacobshaven3 03:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't take the above comments too seriously. Besides, sex in biology certainly does not require a male and a female by definition. This is just silly. garik 09:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just clearing up a it of information back there, I believe dolphins do partake in homosexual behaivors. To me, sexual orientation is partially what you want, and partially invoulentary. You may be attracted to the same sex, but if you wish to deny this and live as a heterosexual, you are entirely allowed. I read somwhere that it may something to do with the hormones you recieve while in the womb. Homosexual women get too much testosterone, and homosexual men too little (I'm not sure if this is proven, but it makes sense to me). This causes them to devolpe differetly on a mental level, and become attracted to the same sex. Denying that something like this exists, and denying marriage between people is not morally correct. Would it be right to deny a man and a woiman marriage if they both have Bipolar disorder? Or ADHD? Or deny the fact that people can be these people can be different? I think not. Also, keep in mind that I am a conservitive, though an atheist too. anonymous

[edit] Suicide Section

Suicide is such a huge problem among gay youth (Pierre J. Tremblay) that I think this article needs more on it. This article is kind of long, so it might be best to put the issue in the coming out section ... but the coming out article makes no mention of suicide. We have good figures from public studies available, in fact, they are quite alarming and not generally well known. The Tramblay article cites 16 times the national average for gay youth aged 17. Not mentioning this fact is a genuine disservice to our community. Still, I didn't want to write a new section on an already long article without consulting the talk page first.

Qrk 04:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please contribute this important material. Possibly placing a new section between "Coming out" and "Sexual practices" may be appropriate. Haiduc 11:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Should it perhaps go in the Gay article? This one deals with so much more than those who self-identify as gay. --G2bambino 15:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolutionary Models

I am intrigued by the evolution models in a recent paper published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society. I'm hoping a writer with greater skills than my own can summarize this. Here is a link to the paper: http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gavrila/PAPS/h.pdf It also provides a nice literature review of the data. evo 02:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bieber -- title? first name?

Does anybody know the title of the book or study by Bieber that is referenced in the article, where it was published, and the guy's full name? The present version tells us what page the quote is from, but not what book!

It would be nice to get a source for the APA's criticism of the fellow as well, as that is completely uncited. DanB†DanD 22:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Homosexualities"?

Of course, there are numerous anthropologists who are social constructionists, but it is ludicrous to suggest that "numerous researchers" have suggested it would be a good idea call homosexuality "homosexualities" instead. Can we cite whoever it is did say it (assuming that this "numerous researcher" is not simply a Wikipedia editor)?

In general, there's a fair bit of slant to the anthropology section.

DanB†DanD 22:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all these are anthropologists who are saying that they need to be careful about recognizing the differences between different cultural manifestations of homosexuality in history. They are not suggesting that we ought to substitute the word 'homosexualities' for 'homosexuality' in our everyday usage in the West today. Rather, the linguistic prescription is obviously directed to the anthropological discourse about homosexuaity in different cultures and epochs. Second, I am removing the "dubious" tag because the different types of homosexualities are listed directly below along with clear citation of the anthropologist who identified them.--Agnaramasi 00:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)