Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Possible Caption Error

A picture on the page in the Modern Law section shows two men being hung in Iran for being lovers. It labels them as "Iranain Arab youths". This may be correct, but is anyone sure that they are of Arab orgin and that the person did not merely assume they were Arabs? Most Iranians are Persian, not Arabic.

Modifications July 4

I am contributing the following:

One modern example is the oppression of Alan Turing, an English war hero who is credited with cracking the German's Enigma code during World War 2. After the war ended he was caught in his private home having sex and was forced to undergo chemical castration by hormones under court order.

In the United States laws remained on the books persecuting non-heterosexuals in some states until 2003. Some laws outlawed the sale of liquor to three or more gay men while others legally mandated that they be celibate or face penalties including chemical castration. Police raids on places frequented by those who were not heterosexual was common, the most infamous being the Stonewall riots, in this instance gay men resisted government oppression and fought back. Even at the present time many states allow employers to fire an employee because of their sexual orientation or allow land lords to refuse service to non-heterosexuals.

While some premodern societies did not employ categories fully comparable to the modern homosexual or heterosexal dichotomy, this does not demonstrate that the polarity is not applicable to those societies. A common thread of constructionist argument is that no one in antiquity or the Middle Ages experienced homosexuality as an exclusive, permanent or defining mode of sexuality. This argument can be shown to be factually incorrect as evident in ancient Greek writing by Plato clearly showing knowledge of exclusive attraction. (John Boswell)

Michel Foucault and his followers have argued that the homosexual is a modern invention, a mental construct of the last hundred years. That is, of course, true of homosexuality as a scientific or psychiatric category. But it is a mistake to presume that earlier ages thought merely of sexual acts and not of persons, an example being the 16th century Italian artist Gianantonio Bazzi adopted the nickname "Sodoma", an obvious gay identity. (Louis Crompton)

Organizations that claim they have methods that can change sexual orientation

Courage - Apostolate for Catholics who are not heterosexual; provides Roman Catholic theological information encouraging celibacy or modification of sexual orientation

Exodus - Christian ministry who's theology holds non-heterosexual relationships to be sinful and claims they have developed religious methods that can modify sexual orientation

Unless there are any valid objections I will be adding it within 24 hours.

To the objections insofar:

(the US does not physically "castrate" men) - the United States DID use chemical castration for quite some time

("Sodoma" is a reference to the act, not an identity) - if a PERSON went by that NAME, they ARE using it has THEIR identity, they obviously thought their attractions defined their identity

And unless intellectualprop2002 (a known liar, who's references were checked and found to be false) can discuss why this article is NPOV on the talk page it will be removed 67.41.236.211 4 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)

There is a wide variety of sexual behavior in animal kingdom , and the high class animals are close to law class humans, so you can fine a similar phenomena between them . ==

I think some people will remind us that the polygamy is a well known phenomena in the animal kingdom, and that woman cant kill a man after intercourse just because the black spider and bees do that, we don’t have to inherit all from animal kingdom that man belong to, because the idea of evolution is to correct the behavior of the animal and turn it to a neuter .

The sexual preference is affected a lot by the ideological and psychological character of the person, people who like violence in doing sex, or dirty chat during it, men who prefer hairy pussy , women who prefer hairy men, women who prefer bearded men, women who prefer unbearded men , women who prefer men with long hair, or don’t like them and don’t attract to them at all, men who prefer women with short hair, I knew a man who was very straight said that he find long hair for a woman " disgusting " ! (unsigned comment by User:Rightistatheistfemale)

External links to Exodus-style organisations

I don't see the point of leaving these links around to be argued over. The organisations in question are religious in nature and of limited interest and marginal influence (to put it mildly) in the fields of sociology and sexology. The links exist, it seems to me, primarily as advertsements for the religious interests with which they are affiliated. I've removed the section. We have articles on such organisations and a "See also" link to such articles would be better. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)

I would agree: this page already links to the ex-gay page. Axon 4 July 2005 20:37 (UTC)

I agree that ex-gay is the appropriate place for links to those websites. Here they just look like advertisements for a particular point of view which is primarily derived from religion, which is not the subject of this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize on behalf of religion for our errant brothers and sisters, and also suggest we vet all of the external links on this page. On the other hand, I tend to have that opinion about most external links.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)

In reference to Tony Sidaway, Axon, given that the other links are for organizations which each likewise present a "particular point of view", there is no justification for deleting any organization which presents an alternate point of view. --66.216.226.34 5 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)

(I have refactored the above on the principle of Remove personal attacks)

The principle of NPOV is to represent all significant points of view on a subject. We've done that by describing the viewpoints of various religions and providing a link to Ex-gay. We don't do that by providing advertising links to groups that are trying to convert people to their religion.

Courage describes itself as an apostolate and Exodus describes itself as a ministry. They couldn't be plainer, they're avowedly religious organisations, not secular ones. They're inappropriate for an article about homosexuality in a secular encyclopedia, but are appropriate for articles on such organisations.

There really isn't a debate going on over this, it's just a few religious organisations that currently find their views largely unrepresented in secular thinking. Artificially inserting links to them doesn't change that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)

Citing Haiduc's comment is not a "personal attack" against him - if anything, it was his comment which made the personal attack by disparaging a religion he doesn't like. There was no legitimate reason to censor most of my remarks, as anyone can see by looking at the original via the edit history for this talk page. 66.216.226.34 5 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)

On another note: since there's a "Reform Judaism" link, you can hardly claim that these others are being removed because religious organizations are 'out of place' in this article. If all religious organizations are to be excluded, then why is this not being done in the case of liberal religious organizations? 66.216.226.34 5 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)

Despite the common opinion that polls are evil, I think this is an appropriate time to gauge where opnions lie.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)

I'm sure I could find many Christians willing to vote on my side, but that would be silly. Polls are not meaningful because they merely reflect whoever happens to be checking the article's discussion page. 66.216.226.34 5 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)

Likewise, I can find many Christians willing to vote opposite. Thats not the point. I'm using the quick poll to see if we have (near) consensus (of wikipedians) or not.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)

No, it's merely gauging the opinion of the people who happen to edit this specific article, most of whom tend to be gay activists. I could always round up other "Wikipedians" willing to vote for the opposite point of view, but that would merely spark a "poll war" as both groups tried to recruit voters for their side - to say nothing of the "sockpuppets" that both sides would inevitably employ. That's why polls are not meaningful. 66.216.226.34 5 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)

I must say, I find the last post rather offensive. I also find this quickpoll pointless and objectionable, not least because it's poorly constructed; it would be far more productive, and any decision(s) reached would have far more weight, if we discussed the issue and reached a consensus. Exploding Boy July 5, 2005 19:55 (UTC) Added: having taken another look, I'd add that there are now far too many external links given, most of them with only the most tenuous link to the topic. Exploding Boy July 5, 2005 19:57 (UTC)

Exactly how do you believe it could be better constructed? The reason I made it was to see if there is a near consensus among editors. If there is, then discussion becomes simpler. If there isn't, discussion is still needed. I'd also like to point out that managed to have an edit war over these external links. I repeat, an EDIT WAR over EXTERNAL LINKS. Personally, I've found a very useful tool for saying where consensus lies, or is closest to is to take a survey, a poll if you prefer. Again, I am guaging opinions. I do not have the aim nor the ability to declare policy over this article. At any rate. I did this in good faith, and if you have a better solution, by all means go for it.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

Quickpoll

Is having a wikilink to ex-gay sufficient, or should we have external links to these groups?

Yes ex-gay is sufficient

--Tznkai 5 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)
-- AlexR 5 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)
-- Axon 5 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)
-- Seth Mahoney July 5, 2005 17:34 (UTC)
--Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)

No we should have external links to these groups

I do not wish to vote for either option because of the reasons stated here

With the recent edit comments by 67.41.236.211 calling me a "wacko" and an "idiot", this debate has now degenerated a step further.

For whatever it's worth, I don't personally subscribe to the "reparative therapy" idea - in fact the traditional Christian view has always been that same-sex attraction is merely one of countless sinful tendencies that we all have in various combinations, and these tendencies should be resisted by a disciplined life, not therapy (a modern practice). Nevertheless, the people at "Courage" and other such groups are genuinely trying to save souls, and they have kept going despite all the abuse they take from the gay community.

But this is not a debate over the theory itself, but merely a matter of whether to include opposing points of view or not. These links had been allowed previously; I believe it was my friend 67 who removed them, sparking the current edit war. 66.216.226.34 5 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)

Here is an excellent example of your behavior: 30 June 2005 18:43 - You re-insert the links, then you refuse to discuss them, engaging in edit wars instead until 5 July 2005 00:38, five days later. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)

Well when you revert an article (six times in 24 hours) and refuse to discuss why on the talk page (until recently) you are seen as an internet troll. Not to mention the issue of these links had already been agreed upon several months ago. Rarely do you engage in civility, most the time you edit war instead, usually for several days. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)

And I did not remove them though I do agree with those who did. I get tired of edit warring with you, most the time its useless as you return in a month or so. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:37 (UTC)

Needless to stay I decry your generalizations of homosexuals as some sort of political activist. "gay activists" Are you recruiting for the heterosexual lifestyle? It's absurd. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:40 (UTC)

If the above comments were directed at me, I will merely note that the repeated removal of valid material, while using terms like "village idiot" and "wacko" to describe your opponent, would generally be seen as "troll" activity. I, on the other hand, was attempting to restore material that was being deleted, and I have never engaged in uncivil discourse, much less the use of invectives. 66.216.226.34 6 July 2005 11:39 (UTC)

I sympathise with 66.216.226.34. We don't call one anothers whackos and village idiots on Wikipedia. Also I'd like to point out that quickpolls are not binding--the proposal failed. We make decisions by discussing and editing.

I agree that the people at Courage and whatnot do seem to care about people's souls and whatnot. However this is a secular encyclopedia, and homosexuality is not defined in terms of the soul in secular discussions, although in a religious context, depending on the religion, it would have a place. We already link to Ex-gay (I think I recently inserted the link myself and I hope it survived) and we note religious attitudes to homosexuality in the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)

Was there any decision on this topic? Should we remove the links to Courage and Exodus? Axon 18:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Internet and gay people

With the advent of the Internet, gay people find it easier to locate one another and organize. They can engage in cybersex while keeping their sexual orientation hidden or hide behind a facade such as Plushies, Yiff, and Furries.

I don't like this sentance, as it seems to imply that all plushies are gay and possibly vice versa. The point can still be made, but I think the sentance needs a rewrite--Tznkai 5 July 2005 00:52 (UTC)

I really don't think this warrants a subsection all its own. Wouldn't it be enough to say that the advent of the internet has made it easier (etc)? Exploding Boy July 5, 2005 00:55 (UTC)

I removed it from modern developments. The more I think about it actually, the more superflous it seems.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)

NPOV

There is strong evidence that homosexuality cannot be genetic, though it is not being allowed mention in this article

Present the evidence here, please. -Willmcw July 6, 2005 05:21 (UTC)

I have a feeling this user will not be happy until he wins the inclusion of his own original research, esp. since he feels all the authoratative sources (who state sexual orientation is determined by biological factors such as a combination of hormones in the womb and genetics) are politcally correct and infiltrated by militant homosexuals. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:35 (UTC)

I will not be happy until justice is served.

Here's your evidence, will: Science has not yet discovered any genetically dictated behavior in humans. So far, genetically dictated behaviors of the “one-gene-one-trait” variety have been found only in very simple organisms. Most geneticists say many genes are involved in human behaviour: from 5-6 at least, to hundreds. In such a case changes in behavior will take place very slowly and steadily ( eg) a few percent each generation over many generations, perhaps thirty. That is, homosexuality could not appear and disappear suddenly in family trees the way it does. (For it to do so, many "homosexual" recessive genes would have to switch on suddenly in the fetus, and all the "heterosexual" genes would have to switch off- a nearly impossible scenario from a geneticist's point of view.) The human race shares most of its genes - something between 99.7 percent and 99.9 percent. That means all ethnic groups will have most of them. This has three implications. If homosexuality is genetically dictated, homosexual practices will be identical or extremely similar in all cultures. But the enormous range and diversity of homosexual practice and customs among different cultures (and within cultures), argues against any genetically-mandated homosexuality. There would be a similiar incidence of homosexuality in all cultures. But homosexuality has been unknown in some cultures and mandatory in others. Changes in homosexual practice and behavior in different cultures would take place very slowly, over many centuries. But this is not what history shows. (The decline of whole models of homosexuality [the Greek, over a couple of centuries, and the Melanesian, within a century]; the relatively sudden [in genetic terms] emergence of the present Western model over a couple of centuries; and abrupt changes of practice within an ethnic group, even over a single generation, are not consistent with anything genetic. Even less so the swiftly changing sexual practices within the current Western model.) Homosexuality cannot be a genetic mutation. Although a genetically-based condition tends to stay in a family tree for generations, only very slowly and minimally changing its characteristics, a genetic mutation is one way it could appear suddenly. But for that to occur, many genes would have to mutate at the same time - an inconceivable scenario. Even five or six genes mutating at the same time is implausible, genetically speaking. Dean Hamer, one of the strongest advocates of a genetically-based homosexuality, has remarked that he doesn't think a gene exists for sexual orientation. If homosexuality were genetically dictated or strongly influenced, there is no way a "homosexual gene" or "genes" could maintain themselves in the population. (One adult needs to have an average of one child if a specific gene, or many specific genes, present in the adult are to stay in the gene pool. But, on average, five "exclusive" homosexuals produce only one child among them. At that rate, homosexuality would die out of the population in several generations. Obviously this hasn't happened. However, about 50% of homosexuals are or have been married, making them bisexuals, with an average of 1.25 children each. Exclusive homosexuals and bisexuals, combined, still produce an average of only 0.9 children each, meaning that a homosexual gene or genes would still slowly, but inevitably, disappear from the gene pool.) Twin studies: These very complex comparisons of identical twins and non-identical twins definitively rule out genetic determinism. If homosexuality were genetic, identical co-twins of homosexual men and women would also be homosexual 100% of the time, but they aren’t. Heritability may be as low as 10%, rising and falling depending on the amount of environmental influence of an opposite kind. Social, sociological

The sexology literature shows huge amounts of change from a homosexual orientation toward a heterosexual orientation. This could not happen at all if homosexuality were genetically dictated – it would be fixed and unalterable. About 90 percent of Western “ intersex” children (those born with ambiguous genitalia) choose to remain in their gender of upbringing when puberty reveals their true genetic gender and surgical interventions are offered. Often, this choice is made in the face of very contrary physical and hormonal characteristics. It argues for overwhelmingly strong environmental influences on the formation of gender orientation and behavior. The stages of psycho-social development toward adult heterosexuality are clearly demarcated, known and understood by developmental psychologists, and are so obviously learned that heterosexuality is clearly not genetically mandated. Surveys of adult homosexuals show conspicuous deficits in several of these developmental stages - showing that homosexuality is cultural and environmental rather than genetic. There is a much higher incidence of homosexuality among those who have been raised in large cities, rather than in rural areas, arguing that the environment is much more powerful than genes in the development of homosexuality. A scientific/sociological tool, Path Analysis, has been argued to show that there is no social or familial basis to homosexuality, but rather a biological one. However, the researchers did discover social and family paths leading to homosexuality, but chose, for some reason, to say they were not significant, even though, in terms of the methodology, they were. Hormones and brain structure

There have been many studies, none of which has shown any convincing relationship between homosexuality and exposure to pre-natal hormones. Studies examining effects of very high doses of female hormones to pregnant mothers show no effect on males and a dubious effect on women. In a review of 25 studies of testosterone levels in adult male homosexuals, 3 showed lower levels, 2 showed elevated levels and 20 found no difference between homosexual and heterosexual males. Therapy changing levels of male and female sex hormones has been shown to affect sex drive but never orientation. Scientists have barely been able to distinguish between the microstructure of male and female brains in adults, let alone between male homosexual and female brains. Attempts to prove such a similarity have been unconvincing. Male and female brains appear identical at birth, and the only consistently replicable difference, from about age two or three, is their size. Most of the development of the human brain takes place after birth in response to stimuli, learning, and experience. The brain changes so much in response to learning and repeated human behaviors that this could probably account for any differences between homosexual and heterosexual brains which might be ultimately discovered. Our instincts, such as self-preservation, hunger, and reproduction, are among the most deeply embedded and strongest impulses we have, but these are able to be controlled. If we want to argue homosexuality is also a deeply ingrained instinct, we must also argue it should be malleable and responsive to training. Genetic content of homosexuality is minimal

Geneticists, anthropologists, developmental psychologists, sociologists, endocrinologists, neuroanatomists, medical researchers into gender, and twin study researchers are in broad agreement about the role of genetics in homosexuality. Genes don't make you do it. There is no genetic determinism, and genetic influence at most is minor.

Those who say homosexuality is genetically influenced are correct, but only to about this degree:

If a girl becomes pregnant at age fifteen, we could argue that she is genetically predisposed. We could say that in her culture, her genes gave her the kind of face and figure that send male hormones into orbit and bring her under a level of pressure that she is unable to resist. But that's about the strength of the genetic influence. There are a huge number of environmental factors that could also have brought the pregnancy about, from cancellation of the basketball game she was going to watch with a girlfriend, permission to borrow Dad's car, her boyfriend's company, the movie they had just viewed together, and failure to use a contraceptive, to big environmental factors like personal values systems, peer group pressure, and an emotionally distant father.

Is this consensus likely to change? Might some major biological link be discovered which could change everything? After all, science moves fast.

For most of these scientific disciplines, the findings have been clearly established from facts that will not change (eg: the diversity of homosexual practices between and within cultures; the clearly established stages of human development; the over-riding role of upbringing in the ultimate gender choice of people with ambiguous genitalia). But what of future studies of brain micro-structure, or detailed analysis of genetic composition and function? Will they reveal links between brain structure and human behaviors, or behaviors and genetic sequences?

Of course they will. Papers will continue to be published. But we can safely conclude that even authors wanting to find such links will almost always include the standard scientific caveats that the influence is minor, and that the environment is important. What we can reasonably say about future research is that it will enter new fields and come up with new links, but none of them will be determinative.

This is proved once and for all by studies of identical twins. They have identical genes, and other influences, but if one is homosexual the identical brother usually isn't. There is only an 11% chance he is homosexual. This includes all the influences we know nothing about and are yet to discover. All added together only have a rather weak effect.

Homosexuality, as a genetic inevitability, has probably been gay activism’s most effective public relations initiative in the campaign for equal rights and special protections. Although it is no longer politically correct or fashionable to say in many circles that homosexuals can change, it is scientifically accurate to say so.

To say a behavior is "genetic" is a logical fallacy - a simple lack of observation. Nothing is forced on us by our biology. Even breathing isn't. The fact is that nothing makes us do anything - neither our genes nor our environment. fromm: http://www.mygenes.co.nz/findings.htm 66.74.196.5 6 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)

Yes, most agree that it is not SOLELY genetic, instead it is a complex combination of pre-natal hormones AND genetics. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:48 (UTC)

Recent Statements by Professional Associations

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders. The American Psychological Association declared that it was not a disorder in 1975.

Recent statements by professional organizations include: bullet The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1973. bullet The American Law Institute continually updates its Model Penal Code, which is a group of laws that they suggest be implemented at the state level. They recommend to legislators: "that private sexual behavior between consenting adults should be removed from the list of crimes and thereby legalized." bullet The American Bar Association in 1974 expressed its approval of the Model Penal Code, including its decriminalization of consensual adult homosexual acts. bullet The World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1981. bullet The American Psychological Association released a Statement on Homosexuality in 1994-JUL. Their first two paragraphs are:

The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.

Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.

In 1994-AUGUST, The APA sent a proposal to one of its committees that would declare as unethical: bullet attempts by a psychologist to change a person's sexual orientation through therapy, or bullet referral of a patient to a therapist or organization who attempts to change people's sexual orientation

The APA publishes an undated brochure titled "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality." They state: bullet "...many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors." bullet "...psychologists do not consider sexual orientation for most people to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed." bullet "...homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or emotional problem." bullet "There is no evidence indicating that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children." 1

In 1997_AUG-14, the APA published a news release about a recently passed resolution "on so-called reparative therapy." The resolution "raises ethical concerns about attempts to change sexual orientation, reaffirms psychology's opposition to homophobia and client's rights to unbiased treatment." 2 bullet The American Medical Association (AMA) released a report in 1994-DEC which calls for "nonjudgmental recognition of sexual orientation by physicians." They suggest that psychotherapy be directed help homosexuals "become comfortable with their sexual orientation." bullet The Academy of Pediatrics and the Council on Child and Adolescent Health have also stated that homosexuality is not a choice and cannot be changed. [1] 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:52 (UTC)

Not every known argument is being allowed on this page, so I insist on a NPOV marker. By the way, what's the point of saying the behavior isn't SOLELY genetic. What aspects about it are genetic? I know we're not supposed to reinvent the wheel in this forum, but I'd love for you to explain that. (intellectualprop2002)

If the root cause of a homosexual orientation is genetic, as it is for Class 1 (early onset diabetes) and left-handedness, then the person will probably be unable to change their orientation. If the root cause is something in the environment, then there would be a significant chance that the individual can change their orientation through therapy.

Essentially all conservative Christian authors who have written about homosexuality maintain that sexual orientation is not determined by one's genes. They treat it as an abnormal, unnatural, chosen, and changeable habit or addiction. Religious conservatives often point to studies of identical twins who were separated at birth and raised independently. If one is gay, then the other twin is found to be gay only about 55% of the time. They reason that: since identical twins have the same genetic structure, then if homosexual orientation were determined by genes, 100% of the other twins would be gay. Thus they conclude that homosexual orientation is not caused by one's genes.

Many gays and lesbians believe that their orientation is caused by their genes; it is normal, natural, unchosen and unchangeable. With the exception of one small religious association of therapists, the vast majority of human sexuality researchers and mental health therapists accept that the root cause of homosexual orientation is genetic.

In reality, it seems that the data shows that a small minority -- perhaps 10% -- of individuals have a "gay gene" or "gay genes." However, the gene is only expressed in perhaps 55% of those individuals, as a result of some unknown factor in the environment. In the remainder, it remains dormant and the person matures as a heterosexual.

The rejection of a genetic cause of homosexuality by essentially all conservative Christians and some others seem to be based upon a faulty or inadequate knowledge of the detailed workings of genetics. Genes have a property called penetrance, which is a measure of their effectiveness, or power. Consider the gene for Huntington's Disease. It has two alleles (varieties). One is a very rare allele will causes the person to fall victim to the disease. The other, much more common, variety prevents the disease. This particular gene is 100% penetrant. If you were born with the allele that causes the disease, then you are absolutely certain to develop the disease later in life. The penetrance of the gene which causes Type 1 (early onset) diabetes is only 30%. So, if one identical twin has the allele that causes diabetes, then the other twin will have the same allele. Both will have a 30% chance of developing the disorder. Both twins will have the identical allele; they will have the same genetic structure. But it may or may not be triggered by something in the environment, and cause diabetes. Similarly, if one identical twin develops schizophrenia, the other twin has over a 60% chance of also developing the disorder. If one twin develops bipolar affective disorder, the other twin's chances are about 60%.

The genes set up a minority of identical twins for left-handedness, or homosexuality or Type 1 diabetes. But there is something in the environment which either triggers the gene, or allows it to remain dormant.

One theory that fits the available observations is that the penetrance of the "gay gene(s)" is approximately 67%. That causes about half of the males with the gene(s) become gay. "There could be hundreds of millions of straight men walking around with this gay allele but who are straight simply because it didn't penetrate" In the case of the "gay gene(s)" perhaps 10% or more of all males have the allele that causes homosexuality, but in many cases is the allele not "triggered".

Assuming that the penetrance of the "gay gene" or "gay genes" is 67%, then one would expect that if one fraternal twin was gay that the other would also be gay about 22% of the time. This number also agrees with studies of families with twins.

Nobody knows what triggers the allele. It might be some event happening in the womb, like an abnormal amount or irregular timing of hormones. It might be some event during early childhood -- before school age. Either way, it is outside the control of the individual and his family of origin. What is know is that it takes effect before the child reaches school age. Child psychologists can interview children at that age and determine with excellent accuracy who will grow up to be gay. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:57 (UTC)

Intellectualprop2002 I am removing the NPOV notice again. You need to state what is missing. All major associations clearly state it is NOT a choice, it is INNATE. Yet nearly half of the biology section of this article discusses the changeable FRINGE view, if anything that should be shortened since it is such a minority. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info. I'm wondering if you believe all of the above. If so, do you agree that homosexuality would be a self-destructive gene, regardless of the penetrance? In other words- the higher the penetrance, the lower chance that the gene would reproduce? Do you know if penetrance varies on the sucess of the gene in nature (possitive or negative)or is it consistent based on the original structure of the gene?

In addition, doesn't the argument on penetrance back up the push for reorientation? If enviromental factors can alter the effect of certain alleles, doesn't that imply that we can definitely develop a therapy to prevent or reverse the effect (assuming that anyone would want to reverse the effects)?

I can't speak to the neutrality issue (although after a quick skimmming and seeing sentences like "In the United States laws remained on the books persecuting non-heterosexuals in some states until 2003." don't exactly make me enthusiastic about its neutrality), but I've said it before and I'll say it again -- this article is horrible. Unquestionably one of (if not *the*) worst articles on Wikipedia. The writing is bad, the presentation is bad (it breaks the manual of style in at least a half-dozen places I noticed), it contains numerous unreferenced claims and statistics. This isn't a fixer-upper, it's a total-tear-down-and-rebuild. →Raul654 July 6, 2005 06:31 (UTC)

Are you gonna do it? Or how about I start and you help.--Tznkai 6 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and rewritten the introduction to eliminate many of the most egrigious problems (and I'm usually pretty good at doing these since I write them for the main page every day). It's fair, balanced, and well written, which is why it probably won't stay there for long. →Raul654 July 7, 2005 04:02 (UTC)

I noticed you had an error with the summary of Kinsey. His reports stated that indeed minorites are exclusive. Hdsijhfoiuahfyusdaof 7 July 2005 06:30 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Ok. If the flag is going to be up, there has to be specific addressible and fixable complaints.

Start listing.--Tznkai 6 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)

There have been numerous disputes and complaints in the past which have already been discussed at length either here or in edit comments. If there is going to be a real chance of adding opposing views and cleaning up the slanted presentation of issues this time, then the criticisms can be painstakingly listed again. If, on the other hand, it's just going to be another game of deleting anything that doesn't fit a specific agenda, then there wouldn't be any point. 66.216.226.34 7 July 2005 10:49 (UTC)

There was a lot of complaining there and not a lot of substance. I want specifics, and facts, not an allusion that theres an agenda and if I go on a scavenger hunt through the history I'll mysteriously figure out what it is you find is problematic--Tznkai 7 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)

This is a completely reasonable request. If you have specific objections to specific sections of the article, please list them. Otherwise, there is no justification in keeping the NPOV tag on the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 7 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)

The problems are legion, but include the following broad categories: 1) in every subject covered by the article, from history to religion to medical issues, most of the information is selectively weighted in favor of one point of view and is therefore often very misleading or outright fraudulent. At one point, the article was even presenting a modern painting by Robert Lenz as an "ancient icon" which allegedly proves that early Christians allowed gay marriage, and despite the obvious absurdity of this it took a great deal of effort just to convince them that this is in fact a modern painting. More subtle distortions in the article have proven impossible to correct, and much of the information remains deeply suspect, often drawn from writers which even some gay activists have admitted are of dubious validity. 2) There have been persistent efforts to delete literally any addition, no matter how mild or small, which presents an opposing view, so that it takes enormous effort just to make tiny changes. We've seen this yet again just today: after someone added (yesterday) a small addition noting criticism of the Psychiatric community's decision to suddenly change their position on homosexuality, this addition has been repeatedly removed even after I modified the wording to make it more neutral. This has been the norm with almost any addition that presents even the barest hint of the opposite viewpoint, or any fact that doesn't support a specific agenda. 3) As Raul654 pointed out, the language is hardly neutral, consistently using terms like "persecution" to describe any laws or viewpoints in opposition to sodomy. It's a bit like pro-pedophilia articles which describe any anti-pedophile laws as "persecution" and "oppression". Numerous other categories can be listed, but let's start with the above and see if there's going to be a good-faith effort to actually allow changes this time - otherwise nothing productive is going to come of this. 66.216.226.34 7 July 2005 20:36 (UTC)

I said something about specifics didn't I? All I see here a list of complaints and allusions of bias, conspiracy, and cablaism.

To address your semi specific complaints:

Psychiatric community: If that criticism does exist, it has to be two things. 1. Notable (not original research) and 2. Refrenced or so overwhelming no one doubts it (consensus).

language usage: I want specifics. if its minor changes, go ahead and make them and I'll support you probably. I'm a big fan of neutral language.

In summation: Get proof for anti-psychatry bit. fix the langauge bits. And give something specific thats worthy of the NPOV flag, not a litany of complaints.

--Tznkai 7 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)

I gave some specifics; demanding that I list all of them - of which there must be dozens, if not hundreds - would seem to be merely the usual attempt to place impossible burdens on any critics of this article. The only reasonable procedure is to allow people to finally make needed changes one at a time and hash out each as needed, rather than listing every single point of dispute up front. Right now, you're not allowing even small changes: if you really think the new addition needs a reference to avoid deletion, then I would ask that you also delete the many other passages which lack references - otherwise you're just using a double standard to delete anything you don't like. Right now, there is no evidence of good faith. 66.216.226.34 7 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)

Thats why WP:AGF is ASSUME good faith. Take a look at two wrongs make a right real quick as well. That edit is still suspect of being original research WP:NOR and is lacking in citations or refrences. The burden of proof is not on me to delete unrefrenced material, because I'm not demanding that there be an {{NPOV}} tag on the article. If you want to remove some of these unsourced things you keep talking about, go ahead and I certainly won't revert it. There is no conspiracy against you. There is no double standard. I am demanding specific problems with the article to justify the NPOV flag.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)

I, Raul654, and IntellectualProp (and possibly others) have given plenty of examples over the last few days; let's deal with those first. Concerning the latest edit war: the point was that there has long been a practice in this article of using the "lack of references" excuse only for those additions presenting an opposing view, which is a double standard. If I were to delete any of the other passages lacking a reference, you can be certain that it would promptly be labeled "vandalism". 66.216.226.34 8 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)

Specifics. and I don't care what you predict is certain or what the bias is, and blah blah blah. The fact is, WP:NOT still holds. SPECIFICS! Specific addressable complaints!--Tznkai 8 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)

Plenty of examples have been given recently by myself, Raul654, IntellectualProp2002, and I believe others. 66.216.226.34 8 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)

I'm still not buying this. I don't care if you want to give me a list of external diff links, but you can't just say "There are plenty of examples", you have to list them! Repeat yourself for all I care.--Tznkai 8 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)

Rather than asking me to repeat myself again, please take the time to actually read what has already been written. This is getting silly. 66.216.226.34 8 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)

Point out a statement that you have written that specificly addresses something wrong with the article. Pretend I'm stupid and I can't remember what you've said, because I honestly haven't the foggiest what you're talking about as far as "plenty of examples"--Tznkai 8 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)

This is becoming truly surreal. Look at all the comments above: among other things, I and others have pointed out the selective (and often very misleading) use of information in this article; the slanted wording of many portions of it; the manner in which most opposing viewpoints have been relentlessly removed, etc. 66.216.226.34 8 July 2005 22:06 (UTC)

"I and others have pointed out the selective (and often very misleading) use of information in this article; the slanted wording of many portions of it; the manner in which most opposing viewpoints have been relentlessly removed, etc." Its almost like you've been studying Rovian politics. "Selective use" Many portions" "Relentlessly removed". That isn't specific.--Tznkai 8 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)

Ok, I will repeat, again, some of the specific examples that have been given, and see if you people will finally read what is being written. Among other examples: Raul654 already pointed out specific areas in the text which are POV, using as a representative example the phrase: "In the United States laws remained on the books persecuting non-heterosexuals in some states until 2003", one of many passages in which terms such as "persecution" or "oppression" (etc) are used to describe any anti-sodomy laws or opinions, thereby slanting the article in favor of one side. Raul's citation was of a specific passage rather than merely a generalized complaint. There are many "weasel words" and uncited claims in support of one viewpoint, such as (for example) in the passage: "Many argue that the discrepancies between public and private admissions regarding sexual orientation are due to negative societal attitudes regarding same-sex intercourse." A vague phrase like this would be promptly deleted if it presented the opposing view. Other specific examples: I believe it was IntellectualProp2002 who cited specific examples in which countervailing scientific theories are not being allowed, such as in the section on genetics (see his comments if you want specifics; I'm not going to repeat the entire thing here again) and also regarding the Kinsey studies (which are controversial and disputed rather than being universally accepted). Someone recently mentioned the pictures and specifically cited them all one by one, to which I would add that the chief problem with the "irrelevant" pictures is that they are all chosen to support one side of the argument: there are plenty celebrating homosexuality, such as the "Youth seeking his father's advice on choosing a lover", the "Köçek with tambourine", the "Young men sipping tea, reading poetry, and making love", etc, etc, and none which represent opposing views except the inevitable ones designed to emphasize the theme of "oppression". There is also a persistent attempt to claim that homosexual sex was supported by religions which actually opposed it: for example, even the section on medieval Catholicism is still worded in such a way as to make it sound as if the modern division in the Church was the case even back then, although all the official doctrinal sources from that era uniformly and harshly condemned homosexual sex. Specifically, the article lists a handful of cases of sodomy and then feebly admits that "Other Christians of the time were critical of homosexuality" - as if the latter group were in the minority (!) It refuses to admit that Aquinas' views in the "Summa Theologica" were the chief official position rather than merely one man's opinion - all mention of that was censored after it had been added at several points. Originally, that section went so far as to claim that the medieval Church _approved_ of homosexuality, and it took a great deal of effort to even allow the inclusion of excerpts from medieval doctrinal sources to show what the medieval Church actually said about the subject. Much the same thing has been the case with Judaism and Islam - for the latter, it actually claims: "...in Islamic countries, male desire for attractive youths is widely expected and condoned as a human characteristic." (oh?) The list can go on and on: the chief problem with giving specific examples, in fact, is that each example by itself isn't going to be terribly meaningful, since it's the overall pattern which is the problem.

Now, if the other side isn't even going to admit that specific examples have been cited, as I just did yet again above by including excerpts from the article itself, then the process of reforming the article will be truly hopeless. 66.216.226.34 9 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

WP:AGF WP:Civility--Tznkai 15:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Alrightly then, breaking these outside of the rant

"In the United States laws remained on the books persecuting non-heterosexuals in some states until 2003",

Fixed--Tznkai 15:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"Many argue that the discrepancies between public and private admissions regarding sexual orientation are due to negative societal attitudes regarding same-sex intercourse."

Can't figure out which passage this is supposed to be--Tznkai 15:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"Other Christians of the time were critical of homosexuality"

This whole section needs to be rewritten.--Tznkai 15:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"...in Islamic countries, male desire for attractive youths is widely expected and condoned as a human characteristic."

I recall reading this in various articles. I see no problem here, a citation wouldn't hurt. Not going to remove because I don't think this under contest by people who would know. (unless you're an expert on islamic tradition and law?)--Tznkai 15:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

this user is a troll, he is attacking anything he can, he obviously hasn't researched ANYTHING. The Q'uran has a citation right below that of being in Paradise attended by male virgins, that is the citation. 67.41.236.211 03:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Claiming that Islamic theologians routinely "condone" same-sex attraction or orientation is truly astounding given that so many Islamic clerics and scholars have strongly condemned it, such as in the following quote from Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi of the Islamic Society of North America: "Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption... No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education." (see: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_isla.htm and http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/homosexuality.html among other sites containing this quote).

As currently written, the section on Islam distorts the actual teachings almost beyond recognition by making it sound as if same-sex attraction or orientation is widely accepted as perfectly normal by Islamic theologians, which it clearly is not. 66.216.226.34 05:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Checking those out now. In the mean time, please stop flinging around accusations of bias and the inevitable opression of your viewpoint. It isn't making you seem any more credible.--Tznkai 15:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely everything specific you have mentioned has now (July 9) been addressed. Cite more if there are any. 67.41.236.211 22:25, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll assume that was meant as a joke, given that your 'improvements' made the wording even more slanted. 66.216.226.34 22:48, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, once again cite specific examples why the edits were even more "slanted". 67.41.236.211 00:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Now I know you're just playing games, but I'll play along once again by patiently pointing out that adding a few comments with the usual "homophobia" invective, and similar stuff of this sort, is not "improving the neutrality" but quite the reverse. 66.216.226.34 03:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

here we go AGAIN. BE SPECIFIC!!!!!!!!!!! 67.41.236.211 03:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, here we go again. To repeat: specifically, you had added the inflammatory and POV term "homophobic" to describe countries with policies you disagree with, thereby making that section far less neutral than it was before. I would add that the original call for improvement for that section, which you claimed you were responding to, had specifically objected to the lack of references and use of the weasel phrase "many people" - which you left intact while adding the aforementioned inflammatory phrase, all while claiming to be "helping" to improve the article. You now deleted an entire section consisting of several paragraphs without giving any justification for deleting so much material - and then ironically accused me of being a "troll" for restoring it. 66.216.226.34 04:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

No I did not. Can you actually READ?! I am beginning to wonder..... I stated people in homphobic societies may remain in the closet. Can you refute that? ABSOLUTELY NOT! And yes PEOPLE MAY BE CLOSETED, that section does not need specific examples. You are just a sadistic troll. That new paragrpah is questionable and has no citations, something you seem so keen on, or should I stress the seem (funny how you are only interested when you feel it can bother others). And the Q'uran views homosexual intercoure in itself lust, however homosexual attractions is NOT against Islam. Many Islamic writers have wrote about male beauty and love and the Q'uran has male virgins who are beautiful in Paradise. START RESEARCHING AND QUIT BEING A THUGGISH TROLL! From this point on I will revert everything that you do on Wikipedia unless your behavior becomes acceptable. 67.41.236.211 05:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this has gone far enough. I've tried to be polite with you, but now that you're following me around and deleting even private correspondence with people on their talk pages, it's clear that this has crossed the line into harassment. Now *that* is troll behavior.

On the Islam issue: I cited (farther above) a specific comment from an Islamic scholar which is indicative of the actual views on the subject taken among Islamic theologians. On the other issue: my objection to your use of the term "homophobic" was that it is POV and inflammatory, and certainly anything but neutral. My comment about "weasel words" was simply a response to the rationale you yourself have given for deleting so many additions: if that's to be the rule, then it needs to be enforced consistently. 66.216.226.34 06:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I have said it once and I will say it again. This user is a troll: 66.216.226.34. I would not be surprised if it was intellectualprop's i.p. address. Notice how this person added the original research conspiracy theory and refused to discuss it until engaging in an edit war where they reverted nearly seven times in 24 hours on July 7. Not to mention a few days ago when they did the same exact thing with the NPOV notice and before that on the "repararive therapy" links. 67.41.236.211 8 July 2005 04:42 (UTC)

I am neither IntellectualProp2002 nor a "troll", and I would submit that the most guilty parties in the recent edit wars are those who have been seeking to remove material, not those of us attempting to restore it. I would also point out that I didn't initially add any of these new additions, but have merely been trying to keep them from being deleted. 66.216.226.34 8 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)

Please self rm your statement and take it to WP:AI.--Tznkai 8 July 2005 04:44 (UTC)

Why? That is Wikipedia Alphabetical Index. 67.41.236.211 8 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)

I meant WP:AN--Tznkai 8 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)

The scientific evidence I am speaking of is listed in the permanent section with links and some links are at the bottom of this article on androgen. Mainly that sexual orientation is innate (a finding in humans), homosexuals have physiological differences (findings in humans and animals) and that up to ten percent of mammals may be exclusively homosexual (a finding in humans and animals, i.e. the sheep study for one). Any more questions? And one thing I would like addressed in the introduction is the impact on laws regarding homosexual acts as capital offence, i.e. meaning that homosexuals must be celibate and bisexuals must be in heterosexual relationships. At the moment it contains the sexual impact but not the human. Do you see what I am saying? It focuses on sex while ignoring the human person and in accordance with the mainstream permanent view a homosexual is a person and a physiologically different one at that, much more than a sex act. These laws did more than ban homosexual acts, they forced an entire class of people into mandated celibacy. 67.41.236.211 8 July 2005 05:06 (UTC)

I was just curious, as noted, I tend to like refrences and supports, and I try to be fair to all sides of the debate. I see where you're going with the banning sexual acts, but I think thats implied by having homosexual sex=death penalty. To go further is to show a critique of the law and its impact, and I'm not sure if that is POV. It might be salient and NPOV if listed as a common critique, but it should probably go into a diffrent article. Homosexuality is rather long as it is.

Can you quote one specific sentence or paragraph you disagree with, and explain why? And by quote, I mean directly quote. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)

Modification of the intro paragraph

Before I set out a critique of the present intro, I would like to know whether there were any specific reasons why the old one was found wanting. Specifically, was it in contravention of particular wikipedia standards, or was it simply not to the liking of the user who changed it? Haiduc 8 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)

It was awful - one of the worst on Wikipedia. Lists are bad writing - the intro had one. "See also" is both depricated and bad writing - the intro had a half-dozen of them(!). It also utterly failed to introduce the article, but served as more of a launch-pad towards a bunch of other articles (which is what the article - not the introduction - is supposed to do). The prose was disjointed, and had no continuity from sentence to sentence or paragraph to paragraph. In short, it was just terrible. →Raul654 July 8, 2005 01:07 (UTC)

Fair enough. I never thought much of it stylistically either, so your input (fresh blood, so to speak) is welcome. However, in the process some of the important content has gone missing, and some of the new information introduced is so generalized as to be misleading. It is a mistake to take a complex subject and try to compress it into a couple of quick sentences. Better to be a bit more vague, since the nature and history of what we are discussing here has proven so fluid. I will take the form of the new intro and combine it with the content of the old, hoping to find a happy medium. Haiduc 8 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)

The introduction *is* supposed to be generalized, and is supposed to be written in such a way that someone unfamiliar with the topic can easily grasp it. That's the primary purpose of an introduction.

Now as to missing important information -- if there is information missing from the current one (which is entirely possible since I haven't read this massive article in its entirety), I'm perfect OK with people adding it back. I'll be hanging around to rewrite any bad prose that gets inserted, but surprisingly the changes to the intro since I wrote it have been generally good. →Raul654 July 8, 2005 01:22 (UTC)

Same sex marriage in Canada

over here in canada, same sex marriage is laegal, nationwide. :-D we are the third country to accept this sorta thought. should that go somewhere? Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)

Probably. Give me a perma news link and we'll stick it in modern developments.--Tznkai 8 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

here you go.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/06/28/canada.marriage.reut/ Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)

Not sure if I read it right, but I think its not quite official law just yet?--Tznkai 8 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)

i watched C-pac ( they broadcast the house of commons for al lto see) when the law was sworn in. all that it needs to be permanant is royal aprooval, more or les a rubber stamp. Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)

Recent deletion

However, Homosexual activist groups have finally admitted that their claim that 10% of the population is "gay" is false. This admission took place in a Friend of the Court brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2003 in the Lawrence v. Texas, known as the Texas sodomy case. In this case, homosexuals are trying to have the Texas law against sodomy declared unconstitutional by the Court.

In footnote 42 on page 16 of this legal brief, 31 homosexual and pro-homosexual groups admitted the following: "The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al, The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian."

I've deleted these because I think it's too much detail for the opening area and because there are a number of POV issues in it:

The groups you cite probably do not self-identify as "Homosexual activist groups", "homosexual groups" or "pro-homosexual groups"
"Have finally admitted" and "admission" is POV
Attributing the "claim that 10% of the population is gay" to these groups needs justification
The phrase "activist groups" in the first sentence doesn't quantify the number
Identifying as gay, lesbian or bisexual is not necessarily the same as being gay, lesbian or bisexual
The groups you cite are not necessarily representitive of the world's gay, lesbian and bisexual community, in particular they are likely to be all North American organisations. By far the majority of gays, lesbians and bisexuals are likely to live outside North America.

There may be further issues.

Ben Arnold 9 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)

Don't forget use of weasel words. This section was ridiculously POV. Axon 9 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)

And even if one gay rights group did state the number of homosexuals and bisexuals is 5% that is a minority view. Exit polls from the year 2000 counted a full 4% of gay and lesbians, and that is ONLY public admissions. We have many people who live in the closet. Not to mention many people who are bisexual may restrict themselves to heterosexual relations just as many homosexuals may not idetify as gay and be celibate. The nature of their attractions is still there. For example sheep which have no anti-gay religions a full 6-10% are homosexual and there brains are different. 67.41.236.211 22:29, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

"The "Kinsey Report" consisted of a volume on male sexual behavior published in 1948, followed in 1953 by the female volume. Disclosing that heterosexual monogamy was honored more in the pulpit than in practice, the Report was hailed as a "milestone of science." Kinsey's co-authors and close intimates were Wardell Pomeroy, who died in 2001; Clyde Martin and Paul Gebhard, both still living. Kinsey's male report claimed that 85 percent of American men had sex before marriage, 70 percent had sex with prostitutes, 10 percent were exclusively homosexual. His figures were undermined when it was revealed that he had disproportionately interviewed homosexuals and prisoners (many sex offenders). When he rejected proper sampling procedures, his Rockefeller Foundation funding was cut off." -- Kinsey as Pervert, American Spectator 38, no. 3 (Apr 2005), p. 42-44, ISSN: 0148-8414.

Stating that most people believe that 10% are and not saying "but the validity of this number is widely disputed...." is not NPOV.

There have been numerous studies fixing his flaws with the same number as well as its been confirmed in other mammal species. A fringe contests that. 67.41.236.211 23:55, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Gebhard and Johnson (1979) developed a basic sample; that is, all the interviews conducted with postpubertal individuals except for those "from sources with known sexual bias" (p. 4). They defined these sources as groups "which we knew to be substantially biased in some sexual way before we began interviewing its members" (p. 4), and they provided the following examples: "the Mattachine Society, the occupants of homes for unwed mothers, prostitutes employed by a famous madam, personal friends of individuals known to be sexually deviant, and patients in mental hospitals" (p. 4). This left them with 11,246 from the original sample of 18,216. Of those excluded, two thirds were convicted felons, most of whom were in prison at the time of the interview. About one tenth were recruits from homosexual groups (as opposed to those in the basic sample with homosexual experience). In all, about one third of the sample was recruited because of a particular sexual interest. Thus, Kinsey's conviction that the taxonomist could eliminate all bias in the choosing of cases can be shown to be flawed.

Furthermore, the remaining basic sample was distorted. For example, according to the data reported by Gebhard and Johnson (1979), 84% of the men were college educated. This included many who were college students at the time of the interview and who were younger than age 22. Most of the working-class men in Kinsey's sample, on whom he based much of his best known analysis, had been incarcerated. In an interview, Paul Gebhard told me that Kinsey did not believe this was a problem because he assumed periodic incarceration was the normal plight of all working-class men. Of the noncollege men remaining in the basic sample, 40% were below age 18 and thus not old enough to have attended college when the interview took place. What they did subsequent to the interview is unknown, but probably some of them attended college. These are but a few examples of the problems ensuing from the nonrandom sample.

Julia A. Ericksen (May 1998). "With enough cases, why do you need statistics? Revisiting Kinsey's methodology". The Journal of Sex Research 35 (2): 132-40, ISSN: 0022-4499.

Also, the following article by the Journal of American Statistical Association, found issues with his report.

W. G. Cochran,F. Mosteller, & J. W. Tukey (1953). "Some statistical problems of the Kinsey Report". Journal of the American Statistical Association, 48, 673-716.

If you think that mentioning the fact that kinsey's numbers are disputed is irrelevant, the best thing to do would be eliminate the mention of the Kinsey report in the introduction altogether, because as it was presented, it was a POV.

-- BMIComp (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed sections

State-sponsored violence against gay men and lesbians occurs largely throughout those cultures under the sway of the Christian, Judaic and (to a lesser extent) Islamic religions.

Need a citation using those exact words, or need a refrence and we'll refactor to de-pov--Tznkai 15:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree the above section requires citation, but we should not remove the link to Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered in the meantime. Could we work it back into the article for the meantime? Axon 18:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Sticking it in see also in the meantime--Tznkai 14:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's be careful with the citation game, since if that was required of every sentence in the wikipedia all writing would grind to a stop. If you have a problem with the historicity of this statement explain what it is. Here is a "softer" formulation: Historically, state-sponsored repression of gay men and lesbians has been documented primarily in those cultures under the sway of the Christian, Judaic and Islamic religions. Haiduc 20:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the sentence, I even agree with it, I just agree that it also requires backing up with citation. Axon 07:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

"Under the sway of" is pejoritive and POV, unless of course, you can provide me with a citation. I couldn't think of a way to NPOV it myself, so I removed it under WP:NOR. Note, that I don't disagree with the statement in general, but strong claims should have strong proof.--Tznkai 14:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

In pre-industrial western societies same-gender sex was generally accepted by the lower classes and the upper class, less so among the bourgeoisie, though most professed to consider it immoral. However, with the rise of urbanisation and the nuclear family, same-gender sex became less tolerated and even outlawed in some cases.

Removed undersuspicion of breaching WP:NOR, need a refrence.--Tznkai 15:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not write that so I do not have references. However I remember reading similar material over the years. If you are not familiar with the concepts (and the ones in the above paragraph) I have to wonder about your knowledge of this topic. It is not fair of you to force other editors to spend time familiarizing you with material you should have studied before attempting to edit an article such as this one. Especially when you are taking the liberty of removing text and then questioning it, rather than the other way around, which seems less high-handed and more considerate of others' work. Haiduc 21:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof/strong claims require strong proof. This is not a fact reporting, this is a social science analysis here.--Tznkai 14:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Section in need of rewrite: Christianity

The attitude of Early Christians toward homosexuality has been much debated. One side has cited denunciations of sodomy in the writings of the era, such as in the Didache and in the writings of Saint Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Eusebius, St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and in doctrinal sources such as the "Apostolic Constitutions" - for example, Eusebius of Caesarea's statement which condemns "the union of women with women and men with men". Others claim that passages have been mistranslated or they do not refer to homosexuality. Some Christians maintain that the Bible, principally in Leviticus 18 and Romans 1, denounces homosexual activity as a sin, in the eyes of God an "abomination" — a term used to describe a wide range of offenses, from incest and bestiality (sex with animals) to the eating of prohibited foods.

Among the prominent Christian figures known to have had same-sex relationships, Richard I of England had a relationship with King Philip II of France, Ralph Archbishop of Tours had his lover John installed as bishop of Orleans with agreement of both the King of France and Pope Urban II, and a number of popes and cardinals, especially during the Renaissance, also shared the popular tastes for handsome youths, so prevalent at the time in northern Italy.

Other Christians of the time were critical of homosexuality. St. Thomas Aquinas denounced sodomy as second only to bestiality (sex with animals) as the worst of all sexual sins, and St. Hildegard's book "Scivias", which was officially approved by Pope Eugenius III, related visions in which same-sex relations are condemned as "perverted forms".

This entire section needs to be rewriten. Ambigious pronouns, confusing structure, over wikilinking, lists of names, incoherent writing, and flat out confusing passage.--Tznkai 15:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It has been a while since I have paid much attention to this article. Perhaps you could explain why you do not offer changes. Almost all of the issues mentioned above seem hardly likely to be contentious, and sometimes removing technical flaws eases the resolution of deeper issues. 金 (Kim) 21:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Deleted passage

Little is known about the origin of the competing term homophilia, except it is entirely Greek (homo + philia, meaning "love"), and it only achieved currency in the Scandinavian countries. The term appears to be the same in all of the Scandinavian languages - homofilie.

Note that homofil ("homophile") is a noun, whereas homosexual is an adjective. One can be "homosexual," or one can be "'a homosexual man" or "a homosexual woman," but one cannot be - at least grammatically - "a homosexual."

In pan-European jurisprudence, and the individual laws of most European nations (except the Scandinavian countries), "homosexual" and "homosexuality" typically refer only to men, except when used with the modifiers "woman" or "female." Otherwise, "homosexual women" and "female homosexuality" are usually called "lesbian" and "lesbianism" in European case law, parliamentary resolutions, etc.

For reasons I do not know, this section has come under dispute. Last I checked, this was nearly consensus. I suspect it may have more to do with the editors than the passage itself, but please go ahead and hash it out.--Tznkai 14:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't see a lot of problems here--Tznkai 14:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

66.216.226.34 and 67.41.236.211

User:66.216.226.34 and User:67.41.236.211, let me begin by acknowledging you are probably both fine editors and fine people. That having been said, the interaction the two of you are having is causing severe problems to this article, not the least of which is your constant back and forth arguing over this talk page. I suggest the two of you shape up your interactions with eachother, and stop reverting eachother. I don't care, and I doubt anyone else cares who started it, or whos worse, and whos better, and what "side" you're on or your particular POVs on Life the Universe and Everything.

This has got to stop, and it will stop, either by your own will, or through dispute resolution. I will not play favorites, and you can expect RFC's on both of you if you don't find a way to get along enough to not take down the spirit of goodwill in this project, specificly, this article.--Tznkai 14:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

POV, "pro-homosexual ideology"

This article is heavily POV - the pro-homosexual ideology is inescapable.

Please sign your posts by adding -~~~~ at the end. -Seth Mahoney 02:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've just been reviewing this article for bias, and thusfar I have not found problems of that nature. Objective information that disagrees with one's own expectations and values can appear biased, so perhaps I am failing to see subjective statements. Without specifics to go on, however, enlightenment on my part may be much delayed. Please provide specific complaints. 金 (Kim) 05:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, a specific: " Only a minority of people were found (5–10%) to be exclusively heterosexual..." 220.8.135.26 12:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

How exactly is reporting the results of Kinsey's study breaching WP:NPOV? --Tznkai 14:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, Tznkai.

Having received from you on my discussion page the following message:

If you've got a problem...

Take it up with me on User talk:Tznkai--Tznkai 14:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

... I must disagree and say that this is a public matter. I find your style here to be disruptive and, I am sad to say, more than a bit highhanded. Your removal of the section on Christianity is a perfect example. You come in out of nowhere, take out a section that a lot of people have worked on for a long time, declare it "non-grata" and summarily remove it?! And then issue a fiat that it should be re-written?! By whom? Because you say so?! I thought that the process here was that when you have a problem with something you roll up your sleeves and get to work improving the writing. And you discuss such a radical move with the other editors, and seek consensus. But this? Shall I start with the letter "A"? Like in "autocratic" and "authoritarian"? I'll stop here. But I will tell you that I have been here through a lot of editors who have come and gone, and mostly helped (except for the nuts). You are not a nut. But what you are doing is not helping. Haiduc 03:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

If you have a problem with particular edits, discuss them here. If you have a problem with me, take it up with my on my talk page. If you think my behavior is a public matter, feel free to file an RFC against me. The Christianity section is incredibly confusing. I'm planning on rewriting it myself once I figure out what it says. Don't misunderstand, I work here on the talk page to discuss, explain, and get input for my edits. In no way, am I or any other editor (not under sanction anyway) required to ask your, or any one elses permission to make changes to articles.--Tznkai 19:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference, albeit subtle, between seeking consensus and asking permission. As for the Christianity section, I would not call it confusing (I am not confused in the least by it) as much as I would call it disjointed and lacking in continuity. It will benefit from having the touch of a single editor from beginning to end. I would do it myself but it is not my specialty, so I am glad you will take it on. In the mean time, however, something is much better than nothing, and I will replace it where it belongs. I look forward to reading your version when it is ready. Haiduc 01:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Spelling question

The general Wikipedia standard is that an article that was begun using British spellings should continue to use "colour," etc., and articles that began with American English should continue to use that system. I haven't put this article through a spell-checker yet, but it appears that we have at least two systems competing. Unfortunately there is no established custom for "branding" an article with respect to the preferred spelling system, so we will have to muddle through. Most writers probably unconsciously use their own accustomed spellings. 金 (Kim) 05:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Integration and homosexuality???

One passage leaves me guessing as to what it is intended to mean. Perhaps the person who wrote it can clarify:

Societal attitudes towards same-sex relationships, reflected in the attitude of the state and the church, have varied over the centuries, from requiring all males to engage in relationships, to casual integration, through acceptance, to seeing the practice as a minor sin, repressing it through law enforcement and judicial mechanisms, to proscribing it under penalty of death.

What is "casual integration"? Casual racial integration, casual integration of homosexuals with heterosexuals (live in same apartment complex or something like that), or what?

Also, it would be helpful to have citations for claims such as the idea that some societies require all individuals to engage in same-sex relationships. 金 (Kim) 01:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"Casual integration" is probably not the best formulation. How about "viewing it as natural and normal"? As for citations, Gilbert Herdt on the Melanesians. On the Cretans, Ephorus in Strabo, and on the Spartans . . . maybe Plutarch's dialogues on love, but I forget at the moment. Haiduc 01:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we need book titles, authors, page numbers, etc., in other words the usual scholarly apparatus for footnotes and bibliographical information. 金 (Kim) 03:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

A non-word. What is the article trying to say?

The article has:

Despite the emollience of attitudes towards homosexuality,

"Emollience" is not a word in my copy of Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language." If the person who wrote this sentence reads this, or if anybody else is sure of what the intended meaning was, please edit the sentence. 金 (Kim) 03:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Greeks

The Greeks are degraded by pointing their faults against homosexuals . But in contradiction their laws against child abusers were excellent.These are Laws not assumptions misinterpratetions or wrong translations of Greek texts. This is not nationalistic & not against gay people. Greeks based this on Superstition and nothing more. It is against the Ancient Greeks that they let superstition create laws against homosexuals.See "Ζευς και Αισχυνη" Aesopus fables & you will understand about their superstitious beliefs that led them to this grave error.

This article is not trying but says clearly by quoting ancient sources & translating them from ancient greek into english that pederasty & homosexuality were perceived & treated differently throughout the whole of Ancient Greece.Its a list of laws against child abuse & homosexual relations in Sparta Athens & Magna Grecia. Check your sources ,i have.

Sexual Crimes in ANCIENT GREECE α. Child Abuse & Sex Offenses

<<Εαν τις υβριζη εις τινα η παιδα η γυναικα η ανδρα των ελευθερων η των δουλων η παρανομον τι πιοηση εις τουτων τινα γραφεσθω προς τους θεσμοθετας ο βουλομενος Αθηναιων οις εξεστιν οι δε θεσμοθεται εισαγοντων εις την ηλιαιαν τριακοντα ημερων αφ ης γραφη. Οτου δ αν καταγνω η Ηλιαια τιματω αυτου παραχρημα οτου αν δοκη αξιος ειναι παθειν η αποτεισαι>>.

(Νομος υβρεως,Δημοσθ.Κατα Μειδιου 47)

Meaning <<Whoever abuses any child or woman be they free or slaves or breaks the law regarding to them should be accused of commiting a public offense from any Athenian that wants and has the right (to sue) before the lawmakers and they must to the latest in a month to bring him to trial to be judjed and suffer the consequenses of the law >>.

β.Pimping To those condemned for pimping freeman or slave ,child or woman the penalty of death is given.

-<<Και τους προαγωγους γραφεσθαι κελευει (the law) καν αλωσι θανατω ζημιουσι>>. Αισχιν. Κατα Τιμαρχου -<<Υμεις Μενωνα μεν τον μυλωθρον απεκτεινατε (=execute) διοτι παιδ ελευθερον εκ Πελληνης εσχεν (=abused,raped) εν τω μυλωνι... Ευθυμαχον δε διοτι την ολυνθιαν παιδισκην εστησεν επ οικηματος (=put up in a brothel)>>. Δειναρχος ,κατα Δημοσθενους ,23

WHORING & *ΚΙΝΑΙΔΙΣΜΟΣ(=homosexuality) <<Αν τις Αθηναιων εταιρηση μη εξεστω αυτω των εννεα αρχοντων γενεσθαι μηδ ιεροσυνην ιερωσασθαι μηδε συνδικησαι τω δημω μην αρχην αρχετω ουδεμιαν μητε ενδημω μητε υπεροριον μητε κληρωτην μητε χειροτονητην μηδ επικηρυκειαν αποσταλλεσθω μηδε γνωμην λεγετω μηδ εις τα δημοτελη ιερα εισιτω μηδ εν ταις κοιναις στεφανηφοριαις στεφανουσθω μηδ εντος των της αγορας περιρραντηριων πορευεσθω . Εαν δε τις ταυτα ποιη καταγνωσθεντος αυτου εταιρειν θανατω ζημιουσθω>>. (Αισχινης Κατα Τιμαρχου 52 , 1)

Meaning <<Whoever Athenian gives his body to be had(sexually) by another man is forbidden to be elected as one of the nine lords and be a priest or lawyer or any place in public office or any other position internal or external by voting or chance and never to be sent as messenger never to speak before the parliament or the forum (Agora) or to enter in public temples or take part in public festivals or wear the festive ring of Demeter and enter the market. Whoever condemned thus breaks the following prohibitions must be tied <<δησαντων αυτον>> and once the civilians have tied him to be delivered to the eleven to be slain before the day has passed <<τεθνατω αυθημερον>> . Ο Δημοσθενης reports the <<περι της εταιρησεως νομον >> (Κατ Ανδροτιωνος 21), [εταιρειν= το τους ανδρας πασχειν τα των εταιρων εταιρει μεν ουν και πορνευεται ο πασχητιων] ενω στον ιδιο λογο του (παρ. 30) μνημονευει τον σχετικο νομο του Σολωνος συμφωνα με τον οποιο ο δραστης εστερειτο το σημαντικοτερο για τον Αθηναιο πολιτη δικαιωμα το δικαιωμα του λογου ενωπιον της βουλης και της εκλησσιας αλλα και αυτο της υποβολης <<γραφων>> και <<εισαγγελιων>> δηλαδη δημοσιων μυνησεων. <<μητε λεγειν μητε γραφειν εξειναι τοις ηταιρηκοσιν>> And Λυσιας (Κατ Αλκιβιαδου Α) gives us safe information about the cruel treatment of homosexuals (κιναιδων) in Ancient Athens not only by legislation but by its "liberal" society that mocked and stigmatized this practice . Ο Αριστοφανης δε αθυροστομος τους παραδιδει σε δεινη χλευη παρουσιαζοντας τους με θηλυπρεπεις ενδυμασιες ακκιζομενους (=κουναμενους) ως εταιρες κ.λ.π. και αποκαλωντας τους με ασεμνες ονομασιες π.χ. <<Χαονες>> προκαλωντας ατελειωτους γελωτες στο κοινο.

Στους εταιριζομενους <<τους ομοτεχνους πορναις>> (Δημ.Κατ Ανδροτιωνος 58), συνεχιζει ο Δημοσθενης << οι νομοι ουκ εωσι ουδε τα εννομα τους αισχρως βεβιωκοτας νομον θειναι>> (Κατ Ανδροτιωνος 24), meaning <<the law forbids them to propose laws>>.

Homosexuality α. Of the Athenian State <<Ει τις πεπορνευομενος η εταιρηκως εστι εξειργεσθω ειναι των ρητορων>> (Αισχινης κατα Τιμαρχ. 5,2). ( It is forbidden to whoever has given himself as prostitute or a girl or boy to be a council of the state ). Despite things told and written even in certain universities that homosexuality & pedophilia were not only sanctioned but a normal practice is PROVEN FALSE BY THE ATTIC LAWS . What impresses especially is the cruelty of the penalties to the offenders from total loss of civil rights and death (μη εξεστω αυτω λεγειν και γραφειν = απαγορευεται σε αυτον να λαβαινη το λογο στις λαικες συνελευσεις και να υποβαλλη δημοσιες καταγγελιες) the same day the verdict was pronounced by the Ηλιαστικο δικαστηριο . Sex crimes were of the heinest type and belonged to the category of public offenses . This derives from the fact that every citizen had the right ( a moral and political obligation in Ancient Greece) to bring against them <<γραφην εταιρησεως >> according to the special <<περι φθορας νομον>> meaning a public suit because the above offenses were public as they attackes against the state itself ( All of Athens). Beyond the harsh treatment against sex offenders the public opinion was especially hard against them . Homosexuals were called χλευαστικως <<κιναιδους>> meaning those that move shame & aversion <<κινουν την αιδω>> and bring about the punishment of NEMESIS. They were also called ανδρογυναια,γυνανδρους,ημιανδρους,πορνους,ομοτεχνους εταιραις ο δε Αριστοφανης οπως προαναφερθηκε που ηταν ιδιαιτερα καυστικος εξαπελυε εναντιον τους προκαλωντας εκρηξεις γελωτος και χλευασμων του λαου στα θεατρα επικλησεις ως χαονες και αρσενικες πορνες . Ειναι πραγματι εντυπωσιακη αυτη η σταση της Αθηναικης πολιτειας και κοινωνιας απεναντι των ατομων αυτων που εφτανε μεχρι και τον κοινωνικο αποκλεισμο τους θα ελεγε κανεις οτι η ποινη τους ηταν η οιονει capitis deminutio του ρωμαικου δικαιου δηλαδη νομικος αποκεφαλισμος μη αποκλειομενης και της παραπομπης τους στον δημιο οπως ρητωςπροβλεπονταν απο την σχετικη διαταξη. The only logical explanation for this harsh treatment from the most free and liberal state of ancient greece is the regard of such actions as ABOMINATION ΜΙΑΣΜΑ as a disgusting act that made them οιονει εναγεις , that <<εμιαινον>> polluted the city thus and divine wrath would fall on everyone . This is also proven from the fact that they had the same treatment as murderers . To remain out of any public event or sacred place and lose all civil rights. . Χαρακτηριστικη και διαφωτιστικη ειναι η πληροφορια που μας δινει ο Δημοσθενης (Κατ Ανδροτιωνος) και αφορα βεβαιως τους <<ανδροφονους>> στους οποιους απαγορευονταν και η εισοδος <<εντος των περριραντηριων της αγορας>> δηλαδη του <<καθαγιασμενου δια ιερων ραντισματων χωρου της αγορας>> ως μη εχοντων <<καθαρας τας χειρας>>. Εξ αυτου σφοδρως μπορει να πιθανολογηθη οτι επιβαλλονταν η αυτη απαγορευση και στους εταιριζομενους ως μη εχοντας <<καθαρον>> το σωμα τους.

β. The Spartan Laws Against child Abuse Against the commonplace mythicaly regarded as commonplace like <<δωρικους ερωτες>> an excellent source of Spartan Legislation and life , the honest Ξενοφων ο Αθηναιος in his work <<Λακεδαιμονιων πολιτεια>> ΙΙ,13 reports the law attributed to Lycurgus according to which child abuse is condemned as an ABOMINATION = <<Εις τις παιδος σωματος ορεγομενος φανειη αισχιστον τουτο θεις εποιησεν (ο Λυκουργος) εν Λακεδαιμονι μηδεν ηττον εραστας παιδικων απεχθεσαι>>. [The lawmaker Λυκουργος charakterized as most horrid if someone desired the body of a child and set that lovers should abstain from this (lovers of the same sex in ancient greece are Spiritual Brethren not sexual partners, remember this & please learn Ancient Greek dont read "translations" in other languages Ancient Greek cannot be translated)] . Ο Πλουταρχος also (Λακεδ. επιτηδ. 7,237 c) informs us that whoever tried to abuse someone was striped of his civil rights for life = <<Εραν των την ψυχην σπουδαιων παιδων εφειτο το δε πλησιαζειν αισχρον νενομιστο ως του σωματος ερωντας αλλ ου της ψυχης ο δε εγκληθεις ως επ αισχυνη πλησιαζων ατιμος δια βιου ην>>. Meaning = The (Λυκουργειος) law allowed admiration towards the mental gifts of the youths but any physical desire was an abomination that declared carnal and not spiritual love . Whoever by law was condemned thus was dishonoured (striped of his civil rights) for life .

γ. Of Magna Grecia (Lower Italy) Even in Magna Grecia where customs and morals where supposedly more lax CHILD ABUSE WAS PUNISHED WITH THE MAXIMUM PENALTY MEANING DEATH THAT TOOK THE FORM OF THE HANGING OF THE OFFENDER. Particularly ο Μαξιμος ο Τυριος (20,9α) informs us=

<<Εν Λοκροις τοις Ιταλιωταις εφηβος ην καλος και νομος καλος και ερασται πονηροι εραν μεν ηναγκαζοντο υπο του καλλους ειργοντο ομως υπο του νομου κακως εραν οιστρουμενοι δε υπο του παθους προς την υβριν τον μεν εφηβον ουκ επεισαν ηξαν δε οι δυστυχεις επι βροχον παντες>>. [To those greeks that reside in Italy Λοκρους (η Επιζεφυριους) there were a handsome youth and cunning lovers but also a proper law . And the lovers where possesed by strong desire because of his physical beauty but were stopped by the law to manifest the carnal part of love but in the end by their strong passion to abuse him tried to lure him but were lead all of them to the gallows.]

And while in Greek Legislation the maximum penalty is given for the heinous crime of child abuse in the Roman it is absent as a crime (Α' βασιλειων ιδ,ιε 12 ,κβ 46, β βασιλειων κγ 7)

Κιναδος δηλ. ο κινων την αιδω

Liddel-Scott τομος ΙΙ σελιδα 719 Κιναιδεια,homosexuality= η παρα φυσιν ασελγεια(animal lust,abuse), Αισχινης 18,29 Δημητριος Φαληρευς 97. Κιναιδευομαι= ειμαι κιναιδος Κιναιδος,homosexual= ο καταπυγων(degenerate,One who has annal sex) , ο καθολα αισχρος (all shamefull,dishonourable), κακοηθης ανθρωπος (immoral person) -

RFC, Kinsey Reports

RFC, Kinsey in intro

Bmicomp filed an RFC on the article, stating: "The "Kinsey Reports" reference citing that he found a 10% of people are homosexual, a study whose methodology is reguarded by all as highly flawed. The issue is whether mentioning this study in the intro as is, is NPOV."

The sentence reads "Starting with Alfred Kinsey in the 1940s, anthropological and scientific research points to "

I found no other place to comment so am starting a new subsection. Comments below.

It seems an odd construction simply because it says "starting with" but doesn't mention anyone after Kinsey. If a brief history of the majory changes in scientific views towards homosexuality were listed, then it would seem to fit. (No one disagrees that Kinsey's assertions all remain standing, correct?). Otherwise, since no other specific research/scientist is mentioned, then perhaps specific mention to Kinsey ought to be removed and an overview of the current scientific view of homosexuality ought be put in its place. FuelWagon 21:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Another comment on the RfC

FuelWagon wrote: "I found no other place to comment so am starting a new subsection." It appears that the originator of the RfC forgot to insert a section in the talk page about the RfC. I see that the statement referring to Kinsey has been revised to cite sources arguing that it was flawed. I would recommend that the paragraph in the introduction be summarized as a statement that studies on the prevalance of homosexuality in humans and in animals have typically resulted in estimates between 4% and 10%, and move the details into sections. That is my recommendation. The article has been improved and can be improved more.

Since homosexuality is a controversial issue, presenting neutral point of view is inherently difficult. It appears to me to be a good mostly neutral article that is developing well. Maybe someone should request peer review, if that has not already been done. Robert McClenon 22:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Intro rewrite

This article is periodically the target of editors claiming that "lists are bad." Here is an attempt to condense the topics of the list into a prose paragraph. I removed the third category since it is included in the almost mentioned in the first category, and seems redundant and a case of hair-splitting.

Since its coining, the term homosexuality has aquired multiple meanings. In the original sense, it refers to a sexual orientation characterized by aesthetic attraction, romantic love, and sexual desire exclusively or almost exclusively for members of the same sex or gender identity. It can also refer to sexual relations with another of the same sex or gender regardless of one's sexual orientation or self-identification.
Any objections to my posting this to the article? Haiduc 01:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, scrapping the third one is a bad idea - there is a difference between behaviour and identifying as - a vast difference, actually. You might wish to refer to previous discussions about the definition. -- AlexR 04:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Since its coining, the term homosexuality has aquired multiple meanings. In the original sense, it refers to an innate sexual orientation characterized by aesthetic attraction, romantic love, and sexual desire exclusively or primarily for members of the same sex or gender identity. It can also refer to the manifestation of that orientation in the sexual identity of an individual, an identity which may or may not be at odds with that person's sexual behavior. Finally, it can refer to sexual relations with another of the same sex or gender regardless of one's sexual orientation or self-identification.
I think I see what I missed. Is this what you meant? Haiduc 10:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Exised Section

- In particular, The Knights Templar of medieval times were disbanded under a shourd of secrecy at least partially as a result of confessions extracted from members under torture of homosexual conduct advocated by the organization. The Knights Templar, a Christian military organization that protected proselytizers from bandits while travelling to distant countries, were brought to an end on the 13th of October 1307. Philip the Fair, the scheming grandson of St. Louis of France, ordered the arrest of all members of The Knights Templar under a slew of questionable and wholly trumped-up charges. The royalty of France felt intimidated by the Templars growing power and felt that the fraternal society had come to the end of its usefullness. Along with the accusation of buggery, the other charges against the Templar were also heretical and defamatory, such as "denying Christ" and "spitting on the cross". It is said that when his supposed confession of homosexuality was read before him before a trial with Pope Clement the Fifth presiding, Jaques de Molay, the leader of the Templar, flew into such a rage that the Pope ordered him to control his language. - - After denying again in his last words to the gathered crowd the heretical crime of homosexuality, Jaques de Molay was burned at the stake the 18th of March, 1314 alongside Geoffrey de Charney -- second in command of the Templar. Both men were positioned over the fire deliberately in such a manner so that their feet and genitals would burn first. The Knights Templar: A History And Mythos Of The Knights Templar -- templarhistory.com and Jacques de Molay and the Shroud of Turin -- UK BBC

Anon removed this with the reason that this article should not have extensive history of the Knights Templar. I agree, but when removing sections, one should always save the text somewhere. Perhaps we can cut this to two sentances and restore those?--Tznkai 17:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

Uh. Are all these pictures needed? I just find it a bit much personally to have tons of pictures of anything. Most of them don't seem to be adding to the article much.--Tznkai 8 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)

They were used here in a feeble attempt to circumvent the bad prose, probably. If you would like to discuss here particular pictures which you feel do not add to the content then we could go further with this. Haiduc 8 July 2005 10:38 (UTC)

My listing of the pictures and my thoughts follows. If I say "relevance?" I know it is relevant in general, but how is it speciifcily useful, notable, and informative isntead of just taking space?

1. Picture one of Zephyrus and Hyacinthus is without context and large

2. Karl-Maria Kertbeny is not important enough to homosexuality as a whole to have an uninformativie picture.

3. "Researchers tend to find many gay and lesbians living in enclaves..." Is fine.

4. "Squawk and Milou" also fine. but I like penguins.

5. "The rainbow flag is widely used as the symbol of gay pride.": Fine.

6. Homosexuality laws of the world: Fine

7. Same-sex unions in North America: Put it in the same-sex marriage article.

8. Same-sex unions in Europe: Put it in the same-sex marriage article

9. "A soldier joins gay pride events in Jerusalem, Israel": Not sure why this is important, but its not a bad picture

10. Burning of Sodomites: One or two of these may be pertinent.

11. The Fleet Is In: Relevance?

12. David and Jonathan: Discussed adnasuem elsewhere. Leave it for the main christianity and homosexuality article Redundancy with Burning

13. "Youth seeking his father's advice on choosing a lover": Relevance?

14. "Köçek with tambourineEntertainers and sex workers,": Large picture. Relevance?

15. "Ancient Greek representation of male love.": Relevance?

16. ""The Gay Deceiver"": Relevance

17. "Young men sipping tea, reading poetry, and making love" Relevance?

18. "Dance to the Berdache": Intresting, may be more appropriate elsewhere.

19. "Samurai and kagema": do we really need a picture for each?

20. "Roman man and youth in bed" see above.

21. "Shah Abbas I of Iran embracing his wine boy" relevance?

22. "Consecration of the Anglican Communion’s first openly noncelibate gay Bishop," Very notable. Tiny thumbnail. Keep.

23. "An estimated 700,000 participants (AFP) march through Paris, France, chanting "Marriage, Adoption, and Equality" during 2005 Gay Pride festivities." Sure.

24. "An example of Japanese Yaoi." Relevance?

Can ANYONE give me a decent reason why we have 24 pictures? Surely some of these can go.--Tznkai 8 July 2005 18:15 (UTC)

Tznkai, in the first place I take exception to yout position that "fewer pictures is better." It strikes me as indefensible. The point is communication, and pictures are an exceptionally effective tool. That being said, there may be some redundancies. The three maps side by side are annoying. But until someone with the requisite skills (you?) produces a unified world map, I think they should stay. As for the others, each one illustrates a particular aspect of the discussion, in context and in a relevant place. As for the fact that there are other articles which may need these pictures, fine, but since the publishing of pictures is not a zero-sum game I do not see what concern that is of ours. Haiduc 9 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)

Sometimes less is more. My position is a style one, which is that pictures are not inherently good or bad, neither is text or information. The vast majority of these pictures I believe are of limited usefulness. Furthermore, aside from the fact I think its a bit much aestehtically, pictures tend to rake hell on how articles appear to readers. I think articles should be comprehensive, not exhaustive.--Tznkai 9 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)

I agree that sometimes less is more, but sometimes an adage does not fit. The pictures from other cultures are invaluable since they are an unmediated reflection of those societies. All the verbiage that a modern writer could generate, and even translations of primary sources, which are (if you have worked in this field) so prone to adulteration, cannot compare with the effectiveness and accuracy of an image from the society being discussed. "Esthetics"? You have your opinion, I have mine. They differ. "Exhaustive"? You could write a twenty-volume encyclopaedia on this topic. What you have here does not even begin to scratch the surface. "Rake hell"?! There are plenty of articles here with plenty of pictures, and I have never had any problem looking at them. I can't imagine what you could be referring to. Can you indicate somewhere in the rules of this project where it says that having fewer pictures is preferable to having more pictures? Haiduc 01:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, we had an edit conflict on muhammed involving a map of conquest in the middle east that managed to cluster three edit links on top of eachother. To answer your further points, no, this isn't about "rules" or even "guidlines" or policies. This has to do with my opinion on what makes a good article, like any other wikipedian. I think the purpose of a good encyclopedia article is to have a breif survey of the facts and significant opinions. I don't think we need to prove relentlessly that every culture has some art somewhere that involves homosexuality (usually between men I may add, slightly slanting the data). Honestly, I think we could lose half of these pictures and maintain the article, possibly make it better. 1,2,7,8,11 all strike me as things that we wouldn't really miss.--Tznkai 15:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Your reference to edit link clustering is spurious since that is not the case here, and is a problem of incorrect positioning not of number of images. As for "proving relentlessly" I think it is better to let those cultures speak for themselves through their images than to resort only to (arguable) reformulations. Yes, we should illustrate the topics we discuss, it is a far more effective and respectful form of communication, respectful of the topic and of the reader. It brings us closer to the spirit of the project, which is that the editor should be as transparent as possible. And it speaks volumes to the LGM's you are so fond of. Haiduc 20:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

To follow up to your selection of pictures, #1, Zephyr and Hyacinthus, is emblematic of the topic. There seems to a loosely followed pattern of including emblematic pictures in articles here, and this is a good choice by my lights. #2 is filler and could certainly go. Whether is should go is another matter. #7 and #8 should be integrated into #6 as alternate pictures. #11 seems a bit spurious and could be sent to the article on Cadmus. Haiduc 21:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Removing pictures: To many of them, not informative, inceases load time, causes small problems with edit links.--Tznkai 21:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

On the bizarre deletion of illustrations

Based on his newfangled doctrine of "to many of them" (sic), Tznkai seems to have removed and discarded (no transfers to related articles) some of the most accurate and eloquent elements of this article. (For just one example of a well-illustrated, albeit much shorter article) see Krill.) While some re-ordering of the furniture from time to time is often advisable, and while a couple could be dispensed with in favor of even more informative illustrations, or compacted into one image with "alternate picture" links, this kind of "scorched earth" policy is incomprehensible and indefensible. The rationalizations thrown in our eyes by way of "explanation" have never stood up to examination (same for the latest batch) and seem to be simply a transparent cover for an action this editor seems to have taken for reasons of his own. For the sake of civility I will presume nothing but good intentions on his part, but if this is his idea of "helping" then following this track we shall be sure of helping this article to death. Haiduc 11:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh. I havn't the foggiest idea what you're accusing me of, if anything (the tone seems accusatory anyway). As far as "reasons of my own", yes, I made them based on my personal understanding of what makes a good article. You know, the thing that guides all of us. As far as moving the pictures, they are all on multiple articles anyway. Go ahead and check.

I will answer any further questions about whether my edits were correct or incorrect. I will answer no more accusations on my motivations, intentions and so called scorched earth policies. My user talk page and official channels are always open for such discussions on my character.

For input on the removed and moved pictures, I would welcome other users to add comment.--Tznkai 15:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

"Most states"

Most states allow adults freedom of sexual choice but maintain a neutral posture.

I am uncertain what the source for this statement is, or which states its talking about, but I disagree. The entire passage was refactored for comprehension.--Tznkai 03:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's work this one out over here. The two alternate texts follow:

Politically, different states take various stances on homosexuality. Some countries explicitly recognize same-sex marriage. At the opposite end, some fundamentalist Islamic countries mandate that homosexuals be celibate and bisexuals restrict themselves to heterosexual relationships, treating homosexual acts as a crime worthy of capital punishment. Most states allow adults freedom of sexual choice but maintain a neutral posture.

Laws regulating sexual orientation and sexual acts vary from state to state. In some states there are laws affording same sex couples the same rights and privledges granted to opposite sex couples, such as same-sex marriage. Other places hold homosexual sex as a capital offense. Still others have no laws regulating sexual conduct. In some socities while there is no de jure prohbition of homosexual sex or orientation, there is a de facto restriction.

I find the second version to have a negative tone, and also to imply that there are comparable numbers of states killing gays, marrying gays, and not caring about them one way or another. Why not specify what goes on and where, in a just few words of course? Also, what is so surprising that most states allow adults freedom of sexual association? Yes, my edit was from "native knowledge" rather than a specific source, but so is yours abut the de jure and de facto. If you have reason to question my generalization, please indicate it. Haiduc 01:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't have specific numbers, and I highly doubt that the majority of countries have a neutral posture on sexual conduct and freedom of sexual choice. In fact, I think most countries have sex conduct laws on the books.I don't have numbers on me ath the moment. The second version could certainly be improved, but does not in anyway judge or claim to know numbers, which I think is both neutral and accurate. As for the de facto and de jure, I think it is easly a widely held view, and if not, both personal knowledge and the later discussion on gay men being charged as "rascals" show defact enforcment of sexual conduct.--Tznkai 03:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Re neutral posture, please see

adjoining map. As for exceptions to any country's laws, I am sure they occur. But in China there is an active, if low key, gay community, and their psychiatric association rescinded the medicalization of same sex orientation a few years back. Therefore, here is an alternative version of the paragraph:

States take various stances on homosexuality. Some countries explicitly recognize equal rights and privileges for gays, such as same-sex marriage. At the opposite end, some fundamentalist Islamic countries mandate that homosexuals be celibate and bisexuals restrict themselves to heterosexual relationships, threatening transgressors with capital punishment. Most states allow adults freedom of sexual choice but maintain a neutral posture. There are often significant differences between official policy and actual practices. Haiduc 11:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

A few objections. Equal rights is a loaded phrase, often used for advocacy. While more cumbersome "the same rights and priv...". We also need to contrast that to opposite sex couples. I'd rather us use homosexual or same sex rather than gays as well. The second and more important ojbection is the "fundamentalist islamic". We're unfairly singling out fundamentalist Islam. I also know of no countriest that have laws against homosexually oriented persons having opposite sex marriages and sexual relations.

I am not trying to be objstructionist here, but you've got quite a lot of loaded statements there.--Tznkai 17:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

States take various stances on homosexuality. Some countries explicitly recognize equal rights and privileges for gays, such as same-sex marriage. At the opposite end, some fundamentalist Islamic countries mandate that homosexuals and bisexuals restrict themselves to heterosexual relationships, threatening transgressors with capital punishment. Most states allow adults freedom of sexual choice but maintain a neutral posture. There are often significant differences between official policy and actual practices.

Modifications above. Good point on the "celibate" bit. As for unfairly singling out fundamentalist Islam, you must be joshing. Is there anyone else who kills homosexuals? If so, by all means let's include them. If not, what's unfair?! Equal rights a loaded phrase??? I personally do not buy that, if what you are suggesting is that we restrict our prose to politically correct formulations. As far as I know, our goal here is to be accurate, not to get sucked into politically motivated semantic manipulations. "Equality" is not a loaded term and "equal rights" are not a loaded term, not intrinsically (though I bet they were seen as being loaded by plantation owners in the antebellum South). And what do you want "to contrast that to opposite sex couples"? Haiduc 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

It's useful to speak about the genesis theories of the Homosexuality? would be made same for the "Heterosexuality" article? --Fiaschi 01:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly?--Tznkai 17:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that Fiaschi is making a very valid point here. If you talk of theories about "genesis" of Homosexuality, it is pushing a POV that such "genesis" actually existed. The rhetorical question that Fiaschi later asks is actually kinda funny, if homosexuality had the beginning, then what about Heterosexuality it must have had a start somewhere also... right?. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)

Homosexuality and heterosexuality both began about a hundred years ago. Haiduc 23:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

As terms, that's possibly about right. As behaviors, definitely not. LjL 23:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Jonathan Ned Katz, among others, has pretty persuasively argued that 'homosexual' refers to something different than, say, 'sodomite', etc., and on the basis of this, that the homosexual (the person to which 'homosexual' refers) appeared at about the same time as the word, and shortly thereafter, the heterosexual. Some mention of this should be made in the article. -Seth Mahoney 23:46, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

What about the gay penguins at berlin zoo? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking? -Seth Mahoney 01:11, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Possible Caption Error

Modifications July 4

External links to Exodus-style organisations

Quickpoll

Internet and gay people

NPOV

NPOV Dispute

Modification of the intro paragraph

Same sex marriage in Canada

Recent deletion

Removed sections

Section in need of rewrite: Christianity

Deleted passage

66.216.226.34 and 67.41.236.211

POV, "pro-homosexual ideology"

I disagree, Tznkai.

Spelling question

Integration and homosexuality???

A non-word. What is the article trying to say?

Greeks

RFC, Kinsey Reports

RFC, Kinsey in intro

Another comment on the RfC

Intro rewrite

Exised Section

Pictures

On the bizarre deletion of illustrations

"Most states"

NPOV

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search