Talk:Homosexual orientation

Lede
The lede is, 'Homosexual orientation is a sexual orientation and refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to" people of the same sex; "it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."[1][2]'

There is a confusion here between saying what a homosexual orientation is (which is what the words "homosexual orientation is a sexual orientation" do) and saying how the term is used (which is what the words following "refers to") do. The lede is therefore badly confused and needs to be rewritten. Skoojal (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "levay" :
 * LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge: The MIT Press ISBN 0-262-12199-9
 * LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge: The MIT Press ISBN 0-262-12199-9

Demographics
The edit that I reverted—which Benjoiboi then restored and EqualRights has now reverted again—was unacceptable for at least three reasons other than the misspelled word (or the capitalization mistake, for that matter). First, it dealt with the composition of households, which relates only indirectly to homosexual orientation, which is the topic of the article and the rest of the section. Second, it used the phrase "single sex housholds [sic]", whereas the document reported on "same-sex unmarried partner households"; the two terms are not interchangeable. Third, it failed to note an essential point that was prominently discussed in the cited reference: that the figures given are believed to constitute an "undercount of the actual number of gay or lesbian coupled households in the country" of as much as 62 percent. I don't doubt that the original edit was made with the best of intentions, but its effect was not a positive one for the article. If someone is in the mood to restore it again, let's please talk about it here first. Rivertorch (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest finding some suitable replacement. Your edit summary didn't hint at any of these other issues so that may be why I reverted the removal of sourced content. Banj e  b oi   04:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It was sourced but didn't adequately summarize what the source said. I could rewrite it so that it does, but my first objection—that composition of households is too peripheral to the topic to warrant inclusion—would remain. Rivertorch (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Then that's what should be stated. That starting with ____ US Census single-sex households were tallied but that there is disagreement on how to interpret this information. It could also be added that same-sex married couple are not expected to be counted in the 2010 US Census which has caused concern amongst LGBT national groups. Banj e  b oi   19:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a plan. Let's be very careful about the wording, though. "Single-sex households" encompasses more than just same-sex unmarried partner (or married partner) households: lots of households containing one or more straight people fit into the former category, just as lots of households containing gay people don't fit into it. Rivertorch (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that information belongs on the same-sex relationship page. This page is not about LGBT groups, but specifically about people with a homosexual orientation.  Many same-sex couples include people with a bisexual orientation.  I think it is highly related, but only as much as same-sex relationships in general are related.  There is a brief summary of same-sex relationships in the sexual behavior section.  Maybe that would be a good place for it.  However, the section should remain brief.  Otherwise we would have to duplicate all this information on the bisexuality page.  Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Physiological differences in gay men and lesbians
"Gay men have similar brains to those of straight women and gay women to those of straight men"

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=256 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthland93 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Article shows deep bias
Just what does the American Psychiatric Association have to do with homosexuality? Even associating homosexuality with psychiatry lends to the tendency, where it may be found, to think of homosexuality as a psychopathology. On their website, the American Psychological Association states a very different -- and more relevant -- position. Psychiatry tries to repair psychological disorders, not change innate traits. Tcaudilllg (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think quite a few shrinks from both camps would consider that something of an oversimplification. In any case, aside from some rather important historical points that lend authority to the American Psychiatric Association's statements (e.g., they had the foresight to remove homosexuality from their roster of mental disorders long before the American Psychological Association took comparable action), it seems to me that psychiatrists are just as entitled as psychologists to dispense factual information about sexual orientation. The web site of each professional group certainly qualifies as a reliable source, and it seems to me it would be a mistake to ignore the published positions of either one. It's possible that one group's position is more relevant to that section of the article, but I'm not quite clear on why you think so. Rivertorch (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)