Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genetic basis for homosexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Object. Absurd reason to list here. This article has been around for two years. Improve this article, don't delete it. --mav 03:16, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep and improve this article. Radoneme 17:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree (merge). Having a separate article about the "genetic basis for homosexuality" perpetuates the prejudiced view that homosexuality is "abnormal". A merger with "Causes of sexual orientation" seems logical. -- Spleeman 04:04, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Concur with Spleeman. -- Jmabel 05:37, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Would an article about the "genetic basis of height" or the "genetic basis of blue eyes" perpetuate the view that tall or blue-eyed people are abnormal? (Full disclosure: I'm tall and blue-eyed.)
Interestingly, one of the scientists who mostly strongly argues for a genetic basis of homosexuality, and the first referenced in the article, Simon LeVay, is himself gay. Even more interesting, LeVay began his research to distract himself after caring for a lover who died of AIDS -- and found his current lover via his notoriety after publishing his theory (Link is perhaps slightly Not Safe For Work, because of a "beef cake" photos in a random accompanying personal ads.)
LeVay's research is not about the basis of just any sexual orientation -- it's specifically about the basis of homosexuality (and possibly even just a predilection for receptive anal sex, which of course can be practiced by heterosexuals). However, the article title may still be wrong: LeVay's research points to uterine exposure to androgen by the fetus -- which may or may not be genetic (it probably is, but is also no doubt influenced by the mother's environment); as with many "genetic causes", we suffer when we apply the false dichotomy of "nature vs. nurture" to what is really a complex series of mutually reinforcing or dampening interactions between the genome, its phenotypical expression in the soma, and the environments of both genome and soma.
In any case, let's not sugar-coat to be politcally correct. Science is science, and to be NPOV, we should report it regardless of whether it seems to buttress or undermine our political views. Morality is morality, -- and science and morality are orthogonal -- so regardless of what the science reveals, my moral view will not change: gays, no matter why they are gay, are and must be as deserving of full civil rights and of pursuing happiness as anyone else.-- orthogonal 06:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comments: The article is not about LeVay or his theories, exclusively. If it were it would still need to be retitled.
It doesn't seem scientific to name an article purpoting to describe the world as it is after a hypothesis, ignoring all others. Hyacinth 07:49, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Do not merge. Causes of sexual orientation is already a long article as is; merging Genetic basis for homosexuality into it would be foolish, as both articles are well-developed and encylopedic. Yes, we certainly do need an Environmental basis for homosexuality article to balance this one. But to suggest we nuke the Genetic basis article because the Environmental basis article doesn't exist yet? Ridiculuous. • Benc • 05:50, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename. Benc and Maveric149 make excellent points. Any minor POV problems can be corrected, and if the articles were merged, Causes of sexual orientation would be, IMO, just about the right size to break out a subtopic into a new article. Since this subtopic already exists as a seperate article, why bother? - RedWordSmith 06:44, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Do not merge/rename. --Gene_poole 12:02, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: The thing about this debate is that all "causes" can be used to discriminate and bash homosexuals. If homosexuality is genetic, then it can be prevented. If it's environmental, then we're back to blaming the parents or fixing the culture. If it's psychological, then we're back to curing it. If it's none of these, it's a choice, as the conservatives say and can be criminal. A report, NPOV, on this one approach, if it covers the ways in which the research was and is used for political purposes, is helpful. The truth, so far as there is any, is that Science just doesn't know. Some research teases this way, some that way. LeVay's research was pretty weak, btw, for pointing at genetics. It pointed at morphology, but brain morphology isn't just genetic. The rest is politics. Geogre 14:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • If the article must be kept, and that seems to be where consensus is headed, then changing the title to "Genetic basis for sexual orientation" seems the best option. -- Spleeman 20:17, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. And please don't remove my vote this time. Andrewa 21:13, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It appears I must have done that, but inadvertently. In fact, I have no idea how I did it, but I do sincerely apologize. -- orthogonal 21:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Accepted. For my part, I'm sorry if the preceding was a bit terse. Thanks for the quick and positive response. Andrewa 21:31, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What probably happened was that you both edited at the same time. Orthogonal started editing, and then Andrewa saved her editing, and then Orthogonal saved his unintentionally... wait for it... orthogonal version. -Luc "Somethingorother" French 04:50, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This probably didn't happen, for two reasons. Firstly, Orthogonal would have received an edit conflict message. Secondly, I'm sure she's a delightful person (;->, but this female Andrewa you refer to is not me. Andrewa 07:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep; do not merge. -Sean Curtin 00:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep and do not merge. CoppBob 03:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge or rename with a title not specifically referencing homosexuality (like Genetic basis for sexual orientation). If renamed, we should also start work on a complimentary Environmental basis for sexual orientation. -Seth Mahoney 18:41, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename "Genetic basis for sexual orientation" as suggested above - obviously any genetic basis for homosexuality would provide a genetic basis for heterosexuality, or any other sexual orientation. Paul August 23:00, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to something like "Genetic basis for sexual orientation", as suggested above. Josh Cherry 02:00, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep no merge no rename. Williamb 13:40, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and no rename. Scientifically the question of connection between genetics and homosexuality is interesting because a priori you would expect Darwinian evolution to strongly select against a homosexuality gene. If there is a genetic basis, you have an interesting problem as to why the genes persist (presumably due to a co-benefit, a complex interaction of genes or genetics+environment). There is a passing reference to this in the article, but more could be made of it. Renaming the article would dilute this question. In terms of any bias for or against homosexuality, it cuts both ways. I've known several gay men who are keen to find a genetic component to homosexuality as a justification against pure lifestyle choice - as in, 'hey I was born this way'. There are quite a few sexual orientation articles that are POV, but this doesn't look like on of them. -- Solipsist 16:12, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep and no rename. Excellent point. Indeed, the darwinian argument is the crux of the issue. Deepak 21:26, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)