Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 6

POV in Christianity section
Removed several POV statements like:
 * "both sides would presumably agree that there is no doubt..."
 * "as such quotes use commonplace words which are not in dispute"
 * "many would contend, however, that such disputes over a few words, and other such speculative theories on all such subjects, cannot overrule the clear statements in many revealed sources which state the matter in unambiguous, simple words whose meanings are not in dispute"
 * The author is clearly proscribing infallibility to her/his own interpretation/translation. The reality is the statements to which the above refer have been disputed by a number of authors, most notably John Boswell in his lengthy Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century.


 * "if it had, then such a provision would have been recorded"
 * Another example of an opinion stated as fact. Opinions should be restricted by some indication of the person or persons who believe them.

I suggest the author of these statements contribute their interpretations with the same qualification that she/he provides to the opposing viewpoint. Also, in the interest of the preservation of space, the longer edits would be better suited for the History of Early Christianity and Homosexuality. -- Queerudite 02:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nature and Nurture material merged elsewhere
There was a lot of excellent material here in those Nature and Nurture sections. For better or for worse, it was starting to be very duplicative (or in some cases, containing the missing pieces of) Causes of sexual orientation and its major subarticles, Genetics and sexual orientation and Environment, choice, and sexual orientation. I've integrated most of the material from this section into those articles, and left behind a brief introduction and pointer. What I've done is certainly fairly rough; there's a lot of filling and smoothing out and especially hunting down references and evaluating studies yet to be done.

The section on homosexuality as a social construction will be shortly merged into the section with a similar name in Sexual orientation if there was anything here that isn't already there. -- Beland 06:25, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism By Anon Users 24.127.40.15 & 205.188.117.7
Keep a watchful eye out for anon users 24.127.40.15 & 205.188.117.7. User 24.127.40.15 was caught copying text from NARTH website into article, a copyright violation. The other user 205.188.117.7 has been caught on two occasions vandalizing: 1st time) trying to delete statements by medical organizations against reparative therapy, 2nd time) trying to reinstate text deemed a copyright violation from NARTH. If we include information from NARTH which is a POV organization funded by conservative religious groups and denounced by mainstream neutral organizations we would be forced to mention other POV groups such as some gay organizations that claim human evolution was a result of homosexuality. Obviously we can't include either, encylcopedia articles need to be NPOV which is why we only state major medical or scientific organizations deemed neutral by the majority in the field. And plagarizing I don't believe I need to even discuss. It IS against the law. Jan 21.

Vandalism
It seems that there are certain articles, like, say, this one, that vandals are unable to keep their obnoxious hands off of. I was wondering - is there any way to block anons from editing particular pages? That would, at least until they start to register, slow down the vandalism that happens at least once a night, every night, on this and other (usually related) pages. -Seth Mahoney 17:11, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any way to block only certain users from editing certain articles, but on the bright side, although it's a pain, vandalism usually gets discovered and reverted immediately. Today's vandal was blocked for his efforts.  Exploding Boy 18:53, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, that's goodish news. As far as vandalism getting discovered quickly, yeah, but that's not really such a bright side.  Anyhow, yeah, I suspected it wasn't possible to work that kind of voodoo on the wiki (or it would probably have been done or at least deliberated by now).  Thanks for confirming.  -Seth Mahoney 19:01, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Funnily enough, only this morning I was thinking that it would be good to have a limit on the number of edits one can perform without having a user name. I'm not fussed about everyone using their real names (obviously), but I think there should be a limit of, say, 5 edits of any size to any article on the Wiki for anons. It wouldn't stop vandalism totally, but it might stop the people who go on rampages, or who vandalise single articles multiple times or groups of articles. It's much, much easier to track vandalism by people who have user names. Exploding Boy 19:09, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about limiting the number of edits per day, per week, or the number of edits forever? Either way it should be pretty easy to implement.  -Seth Mahoney 19:40, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Ever. I think you should get 5 (anonymous) tries -- see how you like the Wiki and whether you want to be part of it, then you have to register. Exploding Boy 20:03, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I can dig it. Though maybe either an increased or unlimited number of edits in the Talk space, so that people who don't want to register can at least make requests and suggestions.  Of course, that could lead to vandalism of the Talk space, but I don't think that's such a big deal.  -Seth Mahoney 22:27, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems like a general anonymous limit would create the opposite problem. Instead of edits we don't want appearing in the Wiki, edits we do want wouldn't appear.  It certainly is possible to have a per-page prohibition; the question is, how much time and effort is someone willing to put into implementing it, and what will be the performance impact? -- Beland 02:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It is possible? Very cool.  The deal with this page is it gets a lot of vandalism, it seems especially between 10:00pm and 7:00am PST.  Maybe it would be possible to restrict edits to registered users during those hours.  It seems like this would be a lot less work than reverting the vandalism that sometimes happens multiple times a night, unless I guess its a lot of work to set up the restriction.  -Seth Mahoney 07:39, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how it would be a problem. It's quick and easy to register. It takes about a minute and requires no personal information. Anyone willing to contribute and with something useful to add will surely be willing to do that. Most people who do contribute regularly have registered user names. Exploding Boy 17:07, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * There are actually quite a lot of anon editors who do not want to register for an account. It seems to me that restricting their access in order to prevent vandalism is an overreaction. The best way to deal with vandalism is to revert. This page does get vandalised a lot, but then an awful lot of people have it on thier watchlist. I have it on mine, even though I've never edited it, I also have George W Bush for the same reason.


 * Technically your idea has problems too. Dial up users, users behind an ISP cache proxy, and users of public computers in schools libraries, universities etc share the same IP. There is no way to tell which particular person is editing in order to count their five goes.


 * Finally, the fact that this page gets vandalised a lot means that this page must get viewed a lot. For this reason it is vital that this page is as good as possible. Allowing a large number of people to edit ensures quality and NPOV. Allowing anyone to edit is the main strength of Wikipedia, it does mean anyone can vandalise, but this has always been easy to correct by reverting (and temp blocking the IP if necessary). If you find it a drag to keep reverting vandals, don't do it - someone else certainly will. Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 08:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Organizations that view homosexuality as a curable malady
What exactly is the point of adding so many of these organisations? I mean, it is not exactly as if these links would add that many information on the matter. Shouldn't one or two links do just as nice, if we need any at all. (Personally, I'd remove them all and add them elsewhere, say, on "reparative therapy" or "homophobia" or something.) Or have these links just been added as a "compromise" with the gay bashers? -- AlexR 18:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know why these links were added, but I agree that we should trim the list. Not only that list, but the whole external links section actually. We don't need so many "Organizations that view homosexuality as an affirmation of character and/or unchangeable trait" (what a heading..) links, and we don't need so many external links in general. The problem is that people see such a heading and add just another (hopefully useful) link to it, which itself is not a bad thing. But after a while the external links section gets way too big, like the one for this article at the moment. --Conti|&#9993; 19:43, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * I can guess why these links were added. Following and supporting someone else's example, I put them in their own space just so their intent was clear.  I agree that they aren't necessary, and I would be fine with removing the lot of them, or moving them to reparative therapy, which I'm sure this article already links to.  -Seth Mahoney 19:46, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Ancient Greek
Do the homosexual practices which were widely accepted and honored include the homosexual practices between women, or just between men? --Yacht (talk) 05:31, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Have we no article on the island called Lesbos? &#37329; (Kim)

Plato
I deleted the reference to Plato because in The Laws, Plato condemns homsexual acts.

"...the crime of male with male, or female with female, is an outrage on nature and a capital surrender to lust or pleasure". Laws 636c.

What happened in the earlier dialogues, was a literary license. Plato was not homosexual.WHEELER 16:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you have any evidence to back that up? Just because Plato decries homosexuality (although you quote fragment does not seem to explictly verify this) does not mean that he did not partake or enjoy it himself. --Axon 12:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some of what happened in the earlier dialogs concerned people who were alive at the time, no? Characters mentioned in the Symposium put forth their ideologies as a way of having a serious discussion about eros and the erotic. Socrates was approached for sex by a young man named Alcibiades (sorry about the spelling, my book is not available right now). They slept under the same cloak, and Socrates is praised for maintaining incredible self control in not submitting to the younger man's manipulation. (It was something like, "It is too late to go home now. Can I sleep over?")

How would we know whether Plato was a homosexual? How would we know if he was a heterosexual? The issue is rather like whether some soldier is to be called a "killer." Sometimes we know that somebody has done some act, but we don't know whether it was done because duty demanded it, because survival demanded it, whether there was strong internal motivation to do it. In that society, it would have been even more frequent than in the U.S. when Kinsey made his survey for a young man to have tried homosexual intercourse. From what we know about sexual behavior when it is not being put under cultural/ideological suppression, people will do things that may be only moderately satisfying to themselves in the absence of a more rewarding opportunity.

One way to begin to answer the question would be to examine the total number of homosexual interactions that Plato had and compare them to the total number of heterosexual interactions he experienced. Of course we have no evidence on this score. As far as I know, we do not even have a statement or even from somebody else saying, "Plato made it with ..." The other kind of evidence that would be persuasive would be an autobiographical writing in which Plato explained his own sexuality as best he could. But there is no such work unless there should happen to be some telling incident recorded in his Letters.

What seems clear in the history of his writings is that he was more condemnatory of the behaviors typical of young people in his old age than he was when he was beginning his writing career. It is not unusual for people to become more authoritarian in attitude the more they reach the age and status in society that would make them an authority figure. &#37329; (Kim) 00:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The usual rule is that if someone wants a historical personage to be placed on a list of this sort, then positive confirmation of their homosexuality needs to be presented - otherwise the lack of any supporting evidence would automatically disqualify them from inclusion on the list. AWilliamson 03:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that there is a rule that has been promulgated for Wikipedia users? Just curious. &#37329; (Kim) 06:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think there is considerable opinion that Plato was a homosexual: a quick Google reveals multiple hits on this topic --Axon 10:15, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A Google search will reveal numerous sites promoting literally any idea imaginable. The procedure I've seen used in other Wikipedia pages of this sort - and the only reasonable procedure - is to either present solid evidence from the original sources which would prove the matter beyond a reasonable doubt, or present the consensus view among (in this case) ancient Greek scholars - which hasn't been done. AWilliamson 03:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that there is a rule that has been promulgated for Wikipedia users? Still curious. &#37329; (Kim) 04:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No, it's just mr. Williamson's own Point Of View. He's trying to protect his pet, catholic saint Joan of Arc, from anything that has to do with cross-dressing, occultism or homosexuality by clinging to his own interpretations of so-called "established record" of history. Thus preventing anbody else to interpret the known (and unknown) facts and keeping his pet "clean". Switisweti 12:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I believe that Google is officially considered a useful tool by Wikipedians for determining opinions on such things. Obviously, a considerable number of people consider Plato to be homosexual and numerous references in his own works would seem to back this up. The burden of proof now lies with Wheeler and AWilliamson to prove that he is not, otherwise I think it would be appropriate to add him back in. Controversies over his homosexuality more properly belong on the Plato page. --Axon 13:01, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd still like to hear from AWilliamson. After all, he is the one who has asserted that there is such a rule. Asserting the existence of a rule is a good way to put a stop on somebody. So, I repeat: are you saying that there is a rule that has been promulgated for Wikipedia users? Or are you making the rule up by yourself? Still curious, and still waiting. &#37329; (Kim) 18:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Rather than "feeding the monster", I will merely point out that if there are truly quotes from Plato himself proving that he was homosexual, then someone should cite these - thus far, Wheeler (arguing the opposite perspective) has been the only one to cite a direct quote from Plato. AWilliamson 03:29, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I should prefer to starve the monster of unsubstantiated claims, making rules for other people and asserting that "the authorities" have laid down the law. &#37329; (Kim) 17:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the Symposium:


 * But they who are a section of the male follow the male, and while they are young, being slices of the original man, they hang about men and embrace them, and they are themselves the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature.

From the New Statesman:


 * Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion.

These epigrams are refenced in Dover K.J. Greek Homosexuality. Cambridge Massachussets: Harvard University Press, 1978

I've not heard of this rule where you have to find an explicit admission of homosexuality. I think such things would be a ridiculous burden of proof: most historical figures (Oscar Wilde, Socrates, etc) who would have, for various reasons, never explictly stated their homosexuality or lack thereof (Note: Wheeler's quote is not an explicit denial of Plato's own homosexuality). By you definition, there would be no historical homosexual figures prior to the 20th century.

On the contrary, for historical figures I would consider it nearly impossible to find such explicit admissions and to rely more upon academic historicism of which there appears to be considerable consensus on the subject of Plato's homosexuality. --Axon 10:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's exactly the type of evidence I was asking for (Kim, take notice here). It doesn't need to be an admission from him, so long as it is some other type of clear documentary proof, in keeping with the usual standards. Love poems to young boys would certainly count, if they were written for romantic purposes rather than for some purely literary usage; although I would ask how you reconcile this with his later description of same-sex intercourse (supplied by Wheeler) as an "outrage against nature" ?   AWilliamson 03:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Take notice? In the past you claimed to be citing a rule, no? That's what I read a few paragraphs back. This is the third time I've asked you to come up with a justification for your claims. &#37329; (Kim) 06:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * As you know, both I and Alex have already explained that flatly declaring "any person as homosexual is clearly POV" (to quote Alex), unless there is something substantial to back it up. Axon has provided some reasonable evidence, and the discussion is therefore being worked out with him. AWilliamson 04:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quite simply, a stated philosophical or moral objection to something does not necesarily translate to either an actual objection or rejection of the thing in question. There are many instances of people, historical and otherwise, whose stated position is radically different from what their actions would seem to indicate (Edgar Hoover, for example). --Axon 09:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That aside, I still think the burden of proof you suggest is too high. As is stated, we are not hear to do original research but to simply summarise and explain existing knowedge: i.e. be an encyclopedia. For example, your burden would exclude Shakespeare who is widely held in academic circles to have had homosexual feelings, as is evidenced by one of his sonnets. We cannot arrive at the conclusion that Shakespeare was not homosexual simply by digging out a few quotes from Google and ignoring the wider consensus on the matter. --Axon 10:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Since Plato's society was one in which homosexual sex was quite common, what would motivate him to say that same-sex intercourse is an "offense against nature" if that wasn't how he genuinely felt? If he was having sex with boys, he had no reason to hide what he was doing in that particular society (unlike J. Edgar Hoover).
 * Similarly, just as Shakespeare's sonnets have given rise to the conjecture that he may eventually have come to have the feelings he was writing about even though these sonnets were not originally designed for that purpose (hence the conjecture that he had homosexual tendencies), there seems to be a similar question with Plato's love poems, is there not?
 * I have no personal opinion on Plato one way or the other, except that the evidence seems ambiguous. My only position, as I've said, is that certain basic standards need to be upheld for this type of thing - in some of the gay and lesbian "list" pages at Wikipedia, names are routinely removed for lack of clear evidence. AWilliamson 03:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All evidence of historical figures, especially those like Plato from so long ago, will be ambiguous. Should we add "Probably..." or "May well have..." to the start of every sentence of every historical essay? The evidence exists quite clearly in the epigrams and The Symposium which provides ample proof. That is aside from the numerous casual references to homosexuality in Plato's dialogues and works. As you said, Plato lived in a period where homosexuality was accepted, so there is no reason to believe that he did not enjoy homosexual relations. As I've stated, a philosophical objection in a philosophical dialogue does not equate to an actual objection or rejection. Most objections to Plato's homosexuality tend to stem from a narrow reading of lines from The Laws that does not take into account Plato's wider works.

This is all quite aside from the fact that a large consensus in historical academia holds both these figures quite probably had homosexual relations. Again, we are not here to provide original research and "prove" that Shakespeare of Plato were not homosexuals.

Now, I've been quite patient and supplied you with the arguments and evidence that you have asked for so the burden of proof lies very much with you. If you have nothing further, I shall add Plato back into the list. --Axon 10:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe academic opinion is divided on the matter, although you have provided evidence to back up your own opinion, which is all I asked for. If the love poetry was in fact written to express his own feelings rather than as a literary device or somesuch, then that would count as reasonable proof.   AWilliamson 04:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Happy with Plato's presence in the list. It is clear that Plato was in a culture where homosexual acts were commonplace and from the Symposium it is also fairly clear that he was personally aware of homosexual love. As to whether he ever fucked anybody I don't know and it's a fairly moot point. The Land 14:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see evidence, either in primary sources or in secondary sources. It's not that I doubt the high probability of Plato having had same-sex intercourse, but that you could say the same thing about any Greek who lived at that time. Was Aristotle a homosexual? Nobody mentions him, but why? If Kinsey's figures for Americans in first half or so of the 20th century are correct, then a high percentage of U.S. males, although threatened with hell, social ostracism, and legal penalties, had same-sex relations at least once in their lives. If there were no such social controls on youthful experimentation then my guess is that most people would try anything that promised to give them pleasure. But such a guess only applies statistically. It seems rather lazy to assume something. As of yet I have not made my way through boxes of books in transit from their old home, so I have no way of checking Plato's Letters, but that would be the first place to go. And how about contemporaneous records. Nobody has said, "What a 'teaser' old Plato was"? Nobody wrote plays in which Plato played the prude or the ru? After all the interest in sex he demonstrated, it seems unlikely that nobody pulled his covers -- either in reality or metaphorically. &#37329; (Kim) 04:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've had a quick run-through of my Plato materials, and have skimmed rapidly over all of his letters. Several things emerge: (1) Plato keeps himself out of his dialogs. If he appears at all, it is as an "extra" who sits quietly and does little or nothing. In the Symposium Plato indicates that he was ill, and so unable to be with Socrates when he died. (2) Plato plays (in a serious way) with elements of argument in his dialogs. He does not often come straight out and deliver his conclusion. For that reason it may be possible to be confused about what Plato really meant. Some people think that the mentions of male X being amorously involved with male Y were said in jest. Then the question that occurs to me is, "Jest? Yes, that's frequently the tone of these stories. But was Plato kidding on the square?" Be that as it may, the importance of the erotic to Plato was both in the ways that it might lead the soul on to the highest realms of reason or might cloud one's vision and enslave one to pursuits unworthy of a full human being. I'm led to suspect that Plato viewed sexuality primarily in terms of its influence on other factors of human life. In that respect he would be close to both Mencius (©s¶a) and to Karl Menninger (the U.S. psychiatrist whose thought was important during the second half of the 20th century). (3) It appears that Plato describes nobody as being much if any more disapproving of homosexual relations than on heterosexual relations. We see nothing of Plato's affection or lack of it for his wife, and might know nothing of his marriage had he not had several children. &#37329; (Kim)

Since one characteristic of a good writer is the ability to write about the realities of human life regardless of whether the author is personally like them or different from them, it might be more productive to characterize how Plato displayed the lives of his compatriots. One thing that seems clear is that Plato felt a deep affection for Socrates. And the incident reported in the Symposium where young Alcibiades contrives the need to stay overnight with Socrates, sleep with him on the same bed, and for the two of them to be covered by Socrates's cloak. Socrates is praised for his remarkable self control in not succombing to this attempted seduction. Alcibiades, on the other hand, is treated just as an amorous young man who sought physical satisfaction in the absense of anything deeper between them. ```

Plato's way of writing about homosexual attraction is in strong contrast to that of Cau Xueqin. In one scene in the Dream of the Red Chamber, the main character mischieviously interrupts intercourse between his friend Qin Zhong and a same-age nun -- and then relates (without describing how he does it) that he made good all the losses he had cost Qin Zhong in bed the next evening. It's not explicit sex, but sex described in an open and playful way, from the inside. (It's a little like Marilyn Monroe coyly reporting to a friend that she has "helped his (i.e., JFK's) back.") Plato does not, as far as I know, describe amorous feelings from the inside. I think that is perhaps because of a decorousness about sexuality, and the relegation of it to the unimportant and simultaneously embarrassing that would prevent an author in our day from describing in detail how s/he defecated in the woods one day. (Delany is the only present-day author I know of who regularly remarks on the odors or the hangnails of characters in his stories. Other authors write as though humans come with built-in deodorizers, don't have to devote any time to doing anything of a routine nature in the bathroom, never need to blow their noses, etc.) The same squeamishness about sexuality that I suspect pertains to Plato is present in most of the books on Plato written in the 50s. In the several books that I happened to look through, there are no index entries for sexuality, much less homosexuality. Gentlemen just don't write about those things, or at least they didn't before the changes of the 60s. The collected works of Plato that I have do not have any poems written to beautiful young men, either. &#37329; (Kim)

If there is a covert argument that if Plato was a homosexual then homosexuality is cool, then what would happen if it turned out that Hitler was a homosexual? What if Plato turned out to be the rare individual who is a 10 on the heterosexuality scale? I think that the more important thing must be that Plato was one of the brightest and most perceptive individuals who ever walked this earth, and he had his "take" on the behavior and motivations of other people. If he is judgmental about homosexuality, I suspect that close examination will show that he is actually being judgmental about the ways (homo- and heterosexual) that people misuse the sexual components of their natures. (Remember the image of the "troika" -- the soul being the driver of a chariot pulled by 3 horses, each of which may decide to go a different way. The driver's task is to keep the 3 harmonized well enough to avoid wrecking the chariot.) &#37329; (Kim) 05:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who counts as being homosexual
Detailing the realities in any given case first, and deciding what to call it afterwards, works better than categorizing somebody as an X first and spending months or years arguing about whether 'e is "really" an X and whose definition of X is the correct one. Is a person who takes a pumpkin from a neighbor's garden to feed his children a thief? Is a person who takes the occasional piece of office stationery for personal purposes a thief? Is the person who always rounds up when making sales tax calculations a thief? Is the person who rewrites the tax laws so that his firm saves a few million a year a thief? Probably the stock definition is somebody who makes it a regular practice to take the property of others in preference to earning a living. But different people will weigh and evaluate evidence in different ways. Sometimes people will agree on the facts but not on their interpretation. Is somebody who releases American bison from fenced in pastures and drives them to freedom in some large national park a thief or a freedom fighter? The law may put the person in jail. People on the other side may say that 'e did not break the "Thou shalt not steal!" commandment. What is important is that we record such things as (a) 'e was photographed cutting the fence and driving the bison upon multiple occasions, (b) 'e proudly asserted on national TV, "I freed those poor buffalo brothers, and I'll do it again next chance I get." (c) 'E was caught in possession of bison steaks in his well-provisioned deep freeze. (f) 'E ran a wholesale meat business. (g) Most of the bison that disappeared from confinement were recovered from the national park. Deciding whether such a person is or is not a thief will clearly depend on one's point of view. &#37329; (Kim) 19:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Stating that a historical person indeed was X is very often a rather daring enterprise. In fact, stating it as a fact might be decidedly POV, especially when X is a concept that is of rather recent origin, and might therefore not even have existed at the time. Homosexuality does, according to many people, qualifiy as such.
 * In many cases, we can at least clearly state that a person commited homosexual acts, although we still cannot state with any certainty that they felt as homosexuals in the 20th century sense of the word, unless we have clear documentation of that or at least something similar, which AFAIK is very rare. ("Gay" and "Lesbian" are even more complicated concepts which IMO also rather belong into the 21st century.)
 * If we do have no documentation of homosexual behaviour -- and, as I already mentioned in my last edit comment, not all behaviours that are occasionaly labeled as an indication of a homosexual orientation are all that useful to determine such an orientation ("prefered to paint/write about men/women", misogyny or misandry, or cross-dressing or gender-variant behaviour come to mind) -- then labeling any person as homosexual is clearly POV. What we often can state in such cases, though, is that these persons are often reported to be homosexual, or that there is a debate about them having been homosexual, or that there are indications of them having been homosexual, or similar, but as I said, we cannot say that they were homosexual. Not in the Wikipedia, at least. -- AlexR 02:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. So in Plato's case we would say that he wrote The Symposium, hung out with and even idolized Socrates, wrote about associating on a frequent basis with men whom he said had sex with each other and loved each other... I think he also had a wife and children, too. And in his later years he considered himself a philosopher of law and advocated preventing same-sex intercourse. Surely someone has done the basic work of combing his Letters and listing telling passages in his various dialogs.  There should be citations to the primary source materials.  By the way, there are occasionally contemporaneous records of individuals of the same sex who ran around with each other, had sex with each other, and had no other known sexual outlets. I'm thinking of two of the "Seven Sages of the Bamboo Grove". The two of them were reportedly covertly observed in their shared bedroom by the lady of the household where they once visited. She remarked admiringly on their technique. &#37329; (Kim) 03:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Like many Greeks at the time, Plato may have felt there was a difference between sexual acts involving men with "boys" (ie young men) and sexual acts between adult males ie approving of the former but disapproving of the latter. AndyL 02:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * We already have mention of that kind of distinction -- a distinction that I think is over-stressed in view of some of the art of the time that I have seen pictures of. Whatever Plato "may have felt," we have to go with the evidence. &#37329; (Kim) 04:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have quoted Plato straight out as condemning sexual acts between men, and we disregard plain words in black and white and then try to read "between the lines" to find that he is homosexual. And to say Shakespeare is a homosexual is a very big stretch.  No one knows truly who he is.  There is not a single bio on him there is plenty of conjecture but this conjecture is sure enough that we can emphatically espress that Shakespeare is homosexual.  Wow.  I'm floored.  WHEELER 00:36, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A reminder or notice to all: Remember to: Please avoid stating what "we" must or have done.
 * Please "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party." (No personal attacks)
 * "Be tolerant of others views, even if you disagree with them. You may well regard the other party's views as being on the fringe. This may even be true, but Wikipedia is aiming for a neutral point of view, not to exclude unconventional views. We are not trying to write a 'single correct version of the truth.'" (ibid)

I also suggest that any debates about each potential homo be decided at that candidate's article and talk page (Plato and Talk:Plato etc) as each candidate is a seperate issue, and each candidates page would be improved in the process. Hyacinth 03:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gay / Homo
There is a great unbalance in this article as it starts out with a very lenghty explanation on the etymology of the word homosexual. This is not only out of place in an encyclopedic article, it is also very American centered, as this distinction between gay and homosexual does not exist in many other cultures and languages across the globe. It should be explained, but should not be in the first section. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 17:37, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

"Homosexual" holds a negative connotation to gay people for two reasons. One is that if they are old enough to remember the 70s, people were called "known homosexuals" and it was a huge insult to them and suggests that all gay people live lives of one-night stands and cannot be monogamous. The other is that it sounds too clinical. It dehumanizes the person.

Be bold! Edit it to make it better. &#37329; (Kim) 03:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Eliminating "Homosexuality" from Homosexuality?
Somebody edited the article last night, obviously trying to eliminate the word "homosexuality" from the article, which seems rather odd. I only corrected a link to another article, homosexuality and transgender, because, well, that was the articles title, and there is a reason that's so. Anyway, it seems to me at least worth of a debate whether this large-scale edits is appropriate. I am myself not overly fond of the word "homosexual" (for reasons that become clear in the article I mentioned above) but I wonder what everybody else thinks. -- AlexR 17:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that the article should be moved to a non-offensive title so that an offensive title is no longer an excuse to use an offensive term. Hyacinth 02:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not see any reason why 'homosexual' could be considered offensive, and note that you yourself have used the term 'homo' - which can be used more offensively - in another comment on this very page. Further, what alternative term does not have connotations of offense? Certainly 'gay' would not be appropriate. --Mysteronald 01:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Offensive? What is offensive about this word? It is problematic because it refers to sex, but it is often unclear whether that refers to sex, the equiptment, sex, the action, and obviously causes problems with anything related to gender. I see nothing offenive, though, it's only rather clinical. At any rate, it is certainly the most used term, so an alternative might be hard to find. -- AlexR 02:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I honestly do not understand how this can be viewed as "offensive", Its probally the least offensive term, (if not non offensive altogether really) that be used to explain the love between two people of the same sex. Honestly the only people I could find it being offensive to are people who refuse Homosexuality exists, but getting around that would mean deleting the article :/ What do you suggest we replace it with that isn't offensive??? Personally I think its best left has it is, Else we're be calling "Hetrosexuality" offensive next--Cheesegoduk 03:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Cheesegoduk, obviously, I, find it offensive (and not some hypothetical anti-gay person in denial of reality, see User:Hyacinth). Regardless, it is not preferrable, as AlexR agrees. As such I think that the article should be moved to a preferrable title so that a less preferrable title is no longer an excuse to use a less preferrable term Hyacinth 03:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I found the edits interesting, in that they lifted the focus from the fixation with sex and allowed space for the relationships to be more complex, which they are. The analogy with heterosexuality is not as clear as it seems, since it is clear that a heterosexual has a multilateral existence, while homosexuality may be perceived by some as mostly on the genital level. Haiduc 05:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Using the word "homosexual" supposes that there is such a thing, and that statements like, "She is a homosexual, and so is he," mean something in the same way that, "Flipper is a cetacean." means something.

Is there something wrong with the definition of the word "homosexual"? Or is there something objectionable about the connotation that goes along with it? I flinch whenever I see or hear the word "miscegenation" because my mind falsely divides it into "mis" and "cegenation" and makes me feel as though there is some act called "cegenation" that is wrongly, sinfully, illegally, immorally, whatever bad name you want to use, done. In face the word derives from "miscere" which means "to mix. A few years back there was a huge flap over the use of the word "niggardly", which has nothing to do with the Latin "niger" and its cognates.  (It doesn't derive from any Romance language.) So I won't use either of them in ordinary speech.  &#37329; (Kim) 05:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't find the word "homosexuality" offensive in the slightest. I don't really like the word "homosexual" that much, and it's not my first choice when describing myself, but I see nothing wrong with the article being here. - Montr&eacute;alais 06:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the point is not whether the editors of Wikipedia find the term offensive or not (that would be original research), but that a wide group of people do consider the term to be offensive, and a number of people purposefully use the term rather than, for example, gay, because many gay people find it offensive. --Axon 16:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is crazy, Theres political correctness and then theres political correctness gone to far, which this is, It is by far the least offensive term to describe the topic matter, Until a better non over politically correct term is suggested, which even then will no doubt offend some people, This should be left as it is. --Cheesegoduk 20:18, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think you own slightly hysterical call against "political correctness" is not really apt. We're here to discuss things in a neutral fashion which means, regardless of whether some of us like it or not, we have to take into consdiration those terms that offend others. To put it quite bluntly, using the term homosexuality is itself POV. --Axon 13:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Isn't the use of any term POV? &#37329; (Kim)


 * No, the use of the term "bread", for example, is perfectly NPOV. --Axon 14:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant any term used to describe someone who is at least alleged to relate sexually to people of the same sex. &#37329; (Kim) 05:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * First, in naming the article we should bear in mind the fact that most readers will google either "homosexuality" or "gay" when looking for info on the topic. So maybe we should title it "Homosexuality / Gayness" (if that is done here). But in the mean time may I suggest the building of a glossary? I am beginning to get confused myself with all these terms floating around. Here is a suggested list with definitions incorporating both my own usage as well as what other seem to be saying here, as a mere starting point.


 * NOUNS
 * 1) homosexuality: same sex sexual activity
 * Adding "ity" to a word attributes a state of real being, e.g., "reality of X" = "the state of being real that pertains to X." &#37329; (Kim)


 * 1) lesbianism: women only
 * Adding "ism" to a word attributes an advocacy and/or the real-world practice of something. E.g., "hedonism: the expression of belief and/or practice of life predicated on the belief that pleasure should be one's primary goal. &#37329; (Kim)


 * 1) gayness: belonging to the group of those who fall for others of the same sex
 * Actually, the earliest use of this term I know of came from the Pennsylvania Dutch. Being "gay" meant living outside the norms of their (somber) community. &#37329; (Kim)


 * 1) queerness: ?
 * Also "weird" -- Originally these words were probably euphemisms -- something that could be said in polite company that only hinted at the nature of the "strange" behavior and/or preferences of the person concerned.


 * 1) same-sex love: the feeling and activity of loving someone of the same sex
 * Love is a "four letter word" -- unfortunately. The original meanings of the word are frequently swamped by the originally euphemistic use of the word becoming virtually the sole meaning of the word. "Making love" originally (i.e., back in the dark ages before 1960) meant any kind of behavior that might, clinically, be described as precoital -- including even something as indirectly and/or undertainly connected to sexuality as holding hands. &#37329; (Kim)


 * 1) same-gender love: the feeling and activity of loving someone of the same gender
 * See the articles on gender identity and gender role. The convolutions of language become hellish hereabouts. A person with male external genitalia may have a feminine gender identity and may practice a feminine gender role -- but so may someone with female external genitalia. A person with female external genitalia may have a masculine gender identity and role -- but so may someone with male external genitalia.  If a person with male external genitalia and a feminine G I/R takes up with a person with male external genitalia and a masculine G I/R, is that not different-gender love? But the "I hate fags" people will still treat them as abominations. &#37329; (Kim)


 * 1) male love: possibly a sexist term, love between males
 * This term is very odd. On the surface of things it should mean a kind of love that is characteristic of individuals of the male sex. But who knows how people actually use it. It is even more fuzzy than most of the terms that get tossed around in discussions of "unnatural" sexuality. &#37329; (Kim)


 * 1) female love: by extension, love between females
 * Why not either love of females or love by females? Precision in language is hard enough to attain without bringing in such obviously problematical terms. How is it possible to know what someone might mean by these words when they appear without context? &#37329; (Kim)


 * 1) masculine love: same as penultimate
 * 2) feminine love: idem
 * 3) endosexuality: [I know we are not here to coin, but I could not resist] vs. exosexuality: ...[love with aliens?!] (I was going to use inter and intra but they are taken.)
 * You're too late. The term has already been invented and it is "Xenophilia" if I remember correctly. There is a rather dark science fiction story about the way the arrivals of aliens on earth plays  hobb with ordinary intra-human relationships. It turns out that humans generally have a tendency to actually prefer the spice. Many marriages and analogous pairings are spoiled because one or both partners becomes irremediably fixated on an alien. The aliens tend not to reciprocate. They take whatever they can get out of the situation and leave their human partner(s) with whatever physical  or psychological trauma may result from these exobiological experiments in intercourse.  &#37329; (Kim)


 * ADJECTIVES
 * 1) homosexual
 * 2) lesbian
 * gay
 * 1) queer
 * 2) same-sex oriented
 * 3) same-gender oriented


 * VERBS
 * 1) homosexualize
 * Is this something one person does to another? "I plan on homosexualizing that individual." Or is is something that two or more people do together?  "Come, let us homosexualize in the back of the van."  &#37329; (Kim)


 * 1) lesbianize
 * 2) queer
 * For someone to "queer" something ordinarily means to make it go drastically wrong. "He came in just when Mr. Big was about to sign the contract, swore a blue streak and cursed everyone of Mr. Big's nationality, and that queered the deal forever." &#37329; (Kim)

Haiduc 00:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, language can be a chain saw in a situation where a scalpel is needed. Zhuang Zi compares words to fishing nets and says that once you've caught the fish you should be content to deal with the fish and not argue over whether another model of fish trap would have worked better.

On the one hand, we have to pay attention to what words people will have in mind when they are seeking information. I was amazed at one columnist who gave calm acceptance to a slang term when somebody wrote in for information about the reproductive potential of what s/he called a"morphadite". Some likely terms we might use are, as Haiduc says, "homosexual" (which used to be the socio-normal term to use, the word that a medical researcher would employ in a chapter written for a book) and "gay". But I wonder whether some guy who had no prior interest in the subject would find his way to the right information if his question to himself was, "I wonder if I'm a faggot like my teacher said I am," Terms like "faggot" and "morphadite" ought to lead to somewhere where there is more light, not just end up being a blind alley.

So let's turn the telescope around. What is the range of behavior about which we have to provide information? Part of being a "comrade" (as in Comrade Loves of the Samurai) is affectional, part is a matter of lust (another nasty word), part is involved in intercourse, part may (in the not-too-distant future) be reproductive... Since humans are much more complicated than animals in which reproduction is episodic, governed by hormones and instinct (and maybe imprinting, although imprinting goes part-way toward the more human-like kinds of seeking and bonding), all of the above factors are inextricably bound together.

Right there we have a potent source of misconceptualization to deal with -- the very fact that has made the believers in natural law so recalcitrant. Human sexuality and human drives/motivations that propel humans toward engaging in intercourse have many other functions. So we probably need a more general article on sexuality that discusses the general issues.

If we have a general treatment regarding the complex of factors that motivate people to engage in intercourse, to engage in other affiliative behaviors related to but falling short of intercourse, to feel affection toward others that stirs up or is compounded with some measure of sexual arousal, etc., etc., then we can address as a sub-topic the various conditions that either encourage or mitigate against same-sex sexual intercourse.

Our language has changed to make it less easy to form clear deliniations of such phenomena as "homosexuality" because we have both taken to use "make love" as a euphemism for sexual foreplay and/or intercourse and also have no very clear way for referring to the limit case wherein the sexual drive is fully expressed in action without there being any affectional component to it. One would like to be able to economically discuss situations where there is great affection for somebody of the same sex and great desire for sexual union but no overt behavior occurs, where there is (or appears to be) no component of affection but there is overt behavior leading to climax. And, at the same time, one would like to be able to discuss situations in which there is great affection but no sexual desire.

Unfortunately, how one discusses these matters risks depending on ones point of view in regard to fundamental theoretical issues. For instance, a person whose basic worldview is Freudian would likely say that there is one basic drive, called the erotic drive, that is manifested in different ways depending on whether the other party is one's infant, one's sibling, a socio-normal and attractive prospect to become ones lifelong mate, etc.

If the article on sexuality is sufficiently well thought out, then this article should be a treatment of how sexuality can be expressed toward members of the same sex. (Then as soon as I say that it occurs to me that intersexual people will be difficult to fit in to a discussion structured this way.) It would be more economical to cover the issues of etiology elsewhere, since the question is really, "What makes one person turn out to prefer members of the other sex and another person turn out to prefer members of the same sex?"

Without worrying for the moment about how to say it economically and attractively, the article should be about "sexuality between or among same-sex individuals." But right away we have to fact the problem of whether enough is known about the "ity" part to actually be able to structure a neutral article. The "ity" ending on a word means "the state of being." So "humidity" refers, basically, to the amount of water in the air at a given temperature. A statement about the divinity of Jesus involves the assertion that the state of being of Jesus is divine, i.e., that Jesus is a god. But as far as I know there has been no objective determination of the "homosexuality" of a human being that does not depend on observations of that individual's behavior and then infers some underlying state of being to account for that behavior.

Properly, I think, "homosexuality" already implies a POV statement: that individual X has something in his/her makeup that determines a preference for a certain kind of behavior. Personally, I think it is likely that there is such a determinative state of being, but I am inclined to agree with John Money and others that we grow into our sexualities in much the same way that we grow into being speakers of our native languages. But that's just my wavering point of view.

I think it is much less POV to discuss the range of activities of a sexual and/or affectional nature that people exhibit toward people of the same sex. Even there we run into semantic difficulties because some people will look at the external genitalia when they conclude "same sex," and other people will look at the gender identities of the people involved. But at least we can meaningfully incorporate discussion of the development of both the gender identity and role of the individual and the development of the preference for whatever kind of sexual object is involved. (By the way, this discussion is making me think that there is probably no real dividing line between the "normal" sexualities and the paraphilias. In a nonjudgmental society, the development of a sexual preference toward one kind of individual or another ought not to be the concern of anybody except the individual. The problem there is that society cannot function as a well-functioning society if it ignores the damage that would be done to one individual by the free exercise of the sexuality of another person.)

How about &#37329; (Kim) 04:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * "Sexual activities between or among people of the same sex."
 * Motivations
 * Affectional
 * Lustful
 * Financial
 * Practical (availability in a same-sex-only situation)
 * Practices
 * Self-stimulation
 * With a partner
 * Reactive ("cure myself" kinds of things)
 * Adverse and/or protective individual and social reactions
 * CAN laws
 * Violence by someone who feels threatened by an approach
 * Indoctrination and inculcation of religious restraints, social pressure, etc.


 * I think causes of homosexuality and discussion should be left in the causes of homosexuality page. We're getting mixed up here with a discussion of the causes of homosexuality and the terminology. On a side note, the discussion of "motivation" for homosexuality would itself be highly controversial, with its implicit assumption that homosexual behaviour can be "motivated" by things such as "financial" reason.


 * Alas, sexual activity between people of the same sex happens frequently for financial remuneration. &#37329; (Kim)


 * On the subject of terminology, I would simply say that the words homosexuality and gay are used differently by different people. Whilst the term "homosexuality" would seem to suggest a sexual component only and the term gay would suggest both sexual and emotional components, some gay people refer to themselves as homosexual. Similarly, the use of the terms depends upon the country you are in, and the cultural setting. In fact, creating "one definition" might be impossible - the terms are often used interchangeably and have, IMHO, no fixed definition in the wider community. --Axon 16:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The trick to writing a good article is to get clear on the phenomenon first, decide what terms are most helpful to use (based on the foregoing understanding), and then making sure that in whatever way a user searches for the information s/he will fairly easily find what s/he wants. "Amorous pursuits between people of the same sex" would be the way I'd title this article. &#37329; (Kim) 05:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Homosexual is an offensive word. Most American dictionaries now in their usage guides advise against using the word.  Instead the term gay men or lesbians are to be used.  Many media guides are also using those terms.  This is suppose to be a neutral article therefor it needs to meet the standards of neutral dictionaries and eliminate the use of homosexual and replace it with gay.  Otherwise the article as a non-neutral POV if it uses the term homosexual.  --User:Apollomelos  20:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It's offensive to you. It's mildly offensive to me. "Gay" is mildly offensive to me, too. It may be intended to carry a positive connotation, and for that reason indicates the POV of those who use it. "Gay" has now become a pejorative term in the mouths of many people, such as high school teachers who try to shame individuals out of some behavior they find unacceptable, e.g., "Did you see what Jean just did? That so gay!" Words take on the connotations that the "opinion makers" in a society assign to them unless they are sedulously guarded. &#37329; (Kim) 05:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Meant to post this here a few days ago: User:Hyacinth/Style guide.


 * GLAAD's media guide on offensive terminology. American Heritage Dictionary's Entry On Homosexual.  Most of academia now see words such as homosexual, homosexual sex, homosexual couple, sexual preference, homosexual lifestyle, gay lifestyle, admitted homosexual, avowed homosexual, gay agenda, and homosexual agenda to be vulgar words on the same par as offensive terms directed at African Americans like negro.  All of those words should be avoided. Apollomelos


 * Um, Apollomelos, I don't find the word "homosexuality" anywhere in your link. That's in accordance with my observations that "homosexuality" is still much better accepted than "homosexual." I would accept removing the word "homosexual" much more readily than removing "homosexuality." - Montr&eacute;alais 02:49, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't ever say homosexuality was offensive but those above listed words obviously are seen in such a manner. I don't find the word homosexuality offensive, however when I write I do prefer sexual orientation, or if I need be specific same-sex orientation.  But others can use the word homosexuality, it isn't offensive. - User:Apollomelos


 * And can I also say that the phrase "same-sex orientation" makes me retch? It sounds like "same-sex attraction," which is what Mormon officials and other ex-gay charlatans call it when saying it can be cured. I've never, ever used this term to refer to myself. I don't think you have a consensus on this phrase. - Montr&eacute;alais 05:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Whether you believe homosexuality exists or not, you cannot deny that the term is appropriate for the topic at hand. "Homo" is a word indicative of "same", as in "homogeneous" (a constant composition).  "Sexuality" refers to one's sexual acts and sexual attractions.  Thus, "homosexuality" is indicative of sexual attraction to one of the same sex ("the same" as you).  "Sexual Orientation" is a broad word (like "Religion") where "Homosexuality" is a microcosm of the overall field (like saying "Judaism" or "Christianity").  "Same-Sex Orientation" seems ridiculous.  I see no reason to change the title of this topic...
 * -Cabhan 03:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This is, of course, not true. Despite your quasi-logical or scientific invocation of the etymology of the word, the etymology does not support its use: "Homosexual is a regrettable euphemism coined in 1869 from the Greek for "of the same" and the Latin for "sex". Not only does this word encompass the relationship my boyfriend and I have, but also that of the Catholic priesthood, or the Boy Scouts [both being same-sex organizations]. The term was hacked together in a clinical environment and still carries the same negative connotations. Nor does this origin make it scientific and thus NPOV. Very few people, if any, actually identify themselves as homosexuals, and so to call living breathing folks homosexuals is insulting. Lastly, and most importantly, calling dead folks homosexuals is just as anachronistic as calling them gay, actually more so, since the use of gay to refer to same-sex romance or sexual activity actually predates homosexual." Hyacinth


 * Funny, I found myself thinking about just this today. More in terms of this being a kind of linguistic musical chairs, where one tries to escape the opprobrium of the bigots by finding another term to describe the orientation. (much like the blacks, who moved form "negro" to "black" and now to the ostensibly nonsensical "African-American" - just ask my Egyptian or white South-African friends). But the problem, obviously, is not in the word itself but in the state of mind of the person using it. So I have to agree with Cabhan that this would be an empty exercise in euphemism. Haiduc 05:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Haiduc, I find it insulting that you rate the importance of this debate according to your lack of interest, downgrading a human and civil rights issue to "euphemism" or semantics. I also find it offensive that you made up and then generalized the actions and motivations of all African-American people (or as you prefer, "the blacks"). Hyacinth 17:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Your comment also ignores appropriation of bigots terms. Perhaps this issue is not so easy to write off as "euphemism" when you don't write off the details. Hyacinth 17:39, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hyacinth (with a name like that I have to restrain myself form propositioning you), what is the point of taking insult where none is meant? I am very interested indeed in this debate, but the point here is not finding that elusive (and often sesquipedalian) non-offensive term, but in defusing the intention to give and take offense. To say it another way, it is not the language that hurts, it is the intention of the speaker. And you can manipulate vocabulary all day long, but as long as you have not awakened someone's awareness of self and other, you have wasted your precious time. Haiduc 00:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Incidence and prevalence
The present text is misleading, because it presents modern figures out of context. There is no indication that the social construction of the practice is key to the incidence. The religious background of the culture seems to also be significant, though it might be dealt with in a different section. A sentence or two presenting a historical context seems to be in order here. So, can we come up with a formulation we can agree on? Haiduc 12:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What evidence do you have that religious or cultural background has any bearing at all? Also, historical context is discussed in other parts of the article at length. I would suspect that studies were carried out in the countries of publication which would, given the nature of the studies, tend to be Western but this itself would need backing up. --Axon 14:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I may be jumping the gun here - what is intuitively apparent does not automatically become hard science. I will see if there is any hard data out there.

Problems with the definition
I am grateful that the "esthetic" aspect has been accepted, so far. But I am still uncomfortable with the definition. As Axon has pointed out, I am prone to jumping to conclusions about cultural influences, but I am tempted to think that we westerners are unduly obsessed with sexuality. That was apparent from several articles I have worked on.

As a counterexample I want to put forward the Japanese term "doseiai" - same-sex love between men. It is the translation of "[male] homosexuality." I think it comes closer to putting things in the proper perspective.

So what is my point? This sentence, "Homosexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by esthetic attraction, romantic love, or sexual desire exclusively for another of the same sex." is still, to my mind, skewed. "Homosexuality is a sexual orientation" is way too limited. "Homosexuality" is a hell of a lot more than that. I'd like to suggest the phrasing "Homosexuality is a libidinal orientation . . ." The term is not freshly coined, but it is very infrequently used and thus still malleable enough. Please consider it.

Revert
I reverted the last edit by an anon:
 * Some scientific studies have pointed to findings that gay mens' brain anatomy is similar to heterosexual women and different from their heterosexual male counterparts. Other findings include that fingerprints of gay men match closely with those of heterosexual women, and fingerprints are formed 16 weeks after conception within the womb which could point to homosexuality being determined by genetic factors. In identical twins, researchers have also found that if one self-identifies as a gay man or lesbain the chance of the other being gay is greatly increased at 50%. Scientific inquiry into the reasons for homosexuality is still an emerging field of study, and more current research is constantly changing the way science views homosexuality.

The claims sound rather dubious to me and I'd like to see some references to that first. --Conti|&#9993; 22:30, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

The information is tentative to start with, and it has been scrambled besides. Attempts to quantify the size of certain brain structure in solemn men, in non-solemn men, in women, etc. were hoped to provide some understanding for the non-solemnity of some males. Determining the sex of an individual in some non-human species is possible because the size differences are more pronounced. (At least that's the way I remember the reports of that kind of research.) The differences in fingerprint whorls are also probably difficult to quantify. Presumably those studies would be done by employing individuals to grade the fingerprints who did not know the sex of the person to whom they belonged. The link found between pairs of identical twins is clearer numerically, but cases where identical twins (at least one of whom turns out to be non-somber) are separated at birth and raised under different conditions are pretty rare, so you get into problems with finding a statistically significant sample.

The argument is not necessarily that the differences among these individuals are genetic. Note that in the case of the fingerprints the period "sixteen weeks after conception" is mentioned. What is known is that the structures in the brain that are related to sexuality are formed during a specific "window" period. It's easy and ethical to prove this in the case of laboratory animals because researchers can inject masculinizing hormones (or block masculinizing hormones with other drugs, or castrate males at some point in their embryonic development) -- but you can't ethically do that with human beings so researchers are restricted to noting abnormalities in the pregnancies of women whose babies turn out to be atypical in their adult amorous behavior. Nature does this kind of experiment fairly frequently in the case of cattle. See the article on freemartins, for instance. I know where part of the citations might be found, but nothing on the fingerprint business springs to mind. I do know that there has been work done with this phenomenon, however. &#37329; (Kim) 05:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This is the link to the websites I found the information on. And a few of those findings above for example fingerprints and identical twins are even included in my college psychology textbook.  However I did add a note excaliming this an emerging field of inquiry because science is always changing rapidly.  Someone after you also deleted other parts of my update dealing with some statements by the American Academy of Pediaatrics which you left in tact.  I think it was a vandal so I fixed it.  Let me know if you have any tips or anything.  Thanks. -- User:Apollomelos


 * Perhaps it shouldn't be necessary, but it frequently works better to introduce potentially controversial changes on the talk page, clear up any problems people may have that you accept as being real problems, and then edit the article. The touchier the subject the more this kind of indirect approach to editing seems to be the way to go. &#37329; (Kim) 05:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If you goto this site, which is a link over to the Columbia Encyclopedia at Yahoo! in their article on homosexuality they also mention many of the studies I mentioned in the above paragraph. Many other enyclopedias also include information of such studies in their articles I've noticed at my local library. User:Apollomelos 00:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can someone furnish more information on this: question interpretation of passages written by these early Christians, due to a disputed word that was used for either homosexuality or pedophilia, so that this passage makes sonse. The word and some of the debate need to be included, otherwise the whole thing reads as hearsay and should be set aside. Haiduc 23:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Conversion Therapies

 * Why do we even bother to have links to the conversion therapies websites when all major medical and scientific organizations have denounced them? -- User:Apollomelos

It could be very useful to some extremely troubled parents to give information on the acceptance and denunciations (along with information on the credentials of those who are promoting or derrogating these alleged therapies). &#37329; (Kim) 05:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I must admit, putting links to conversion therapists on the homosexuality page has dubious merit. It is a minority issue in regard to the wider issue of the homosexuality. I think linking to the reparative therapy or ex-gay articles where more balanced links can be made would be more appropriate. --Axon 09:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I checked evolution and they do not have links to outside creationism sites, only an internal link to Creation vs. evolution debate. Nothing about the Flat Earth Society in the Earth article. I think we are on solid ground deleting the quackery links [damn, npov again] and following Axon's advice. Haiduc 05:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Copyright Violations

 * Be on the look out for users copy texting directly from other websites. A vandal that I reverted today was copy and pasting from NARTH's website directly into the article.  And we had already reached a consensus that unless some major medical or scientific organiztion were to back reparative therapies we would not include them.  Esp. since NARTH receives large amounts of funds from evangelical Christians and refuses to allow more neutral organizations observe it's "research."  Notice how NARTH and others like it are never mentioned in any encylcopedias. User:Apollomelos Jan 21

You'll note that NARTH isn't mentioned in any encyclopedias because it is a relatively new, and minor, group; according to info on its website the American Psychological Assoc. allowed one of its members to host a panel at last year's APA conference, so it's not as underground as some editors will have it. We also have to remember, as compilers of an encyclopedia, that the views expressed by NARTH are, in large part, those held by the pyschiatric and psychological communities prior to 1973: this fits as a part of the evolution of the view of homosexuality, and is an approprite topic to discuss in this article. In reference to an earlier comment, we have to remember that APA and others regularly pass resolutions, making them POV organizations. Some may say that because they represent the majority view, this qualifies them as neutral, but any student of history knows that mojority viewpoint does not dictate fact. Also, the latest correction to the NARTH reference is not entirely correct: NARTH supports reparative research, but does not officially hold the condition that homosexuality is immoral, only that persons can, and have a right to, change to heterosexuality.

Exclusively same sex?
This may be a minor niggle on such a commonly vandalised page, but it bothers me.

You begin by defining homosexuality as exclusive attraction to the same sex, but illustrate the article with a picture from a Greek pot, and talk about Greek practices later on. Greeks were rarely exclusively gay, as I'm sure the article also says.

I'm sure this is a matter of distinguishing homosexual from other sexualities (bi-, bi-curious etc), but wouldn't it be better to have the definition as simply "attraction to the same sex" and leave the distinctions and the how gay are you stuff till later?

Also, on British usage, "poofter" is almost archaic now, "poof" is common, but more amusing than insulting (think John Inman), and I'm very tempted to mention Jonathon Ross's house band, Four Poofs and a Piano (whose woefully inadequate stub apparently already exists. PaulHammond 04:39, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Religion

 * The religious response to gay people varies. At the present time the teachings of the Abrahamic religions are being interpreted by the more conservative sects or denominations to view same-sex relationships a sin, while Buddhism, Shinto and some other religions hold that sexuality in general can interfere with the spiritual life and social order, but place no importance on the gender of the object of desire. In those cultures influenced by fundamentalist interpretations of religions, same-sex relationships are considered a perversion and has been outlawed see sodomy law, consensual crime; in some jurisdictions sexual activity between those of the same gender remain a capital crime. See religion and same-sex orientation for a comprehensive discussion.

In many of the religions of the ancient world homosexuality was seen on the same level with heterosexuality, and indeed many of the followers were bisexual. In the ancient Greco-Roman religion intergenerational man &#8211; boy relationships were highly revered and regarded to be sacred. This is reflected in many of their religious beliefs &#8211; what we now call myths &#8211; with many of their divinities involved in such relationships. See Ganymede & Zeus These views were not limited to the Greco-Roman civilizations either, historical evidence shows same-sex relationships throughout the ancient world from Egypt to China. See Sacred Band of Thebes

Attitudes of early Christians towards same-sex relationships were also influenced by these ancient religions. Some prominent early Christian figures are known to have had same-sex relationships. King Richard I of England who held a high position within the early Christian Church and heavily involved in the Third Crusade was openly gay - many historians contend he had a relationship with King Philip II of France. Others include Ralph Archbishop of Tours who had his lover John installed as bishop of Orleans with agreement of both the King of France and Pope Urban II. However with the advent of the Dark Ages, persecution of minorities such as Jews, Muslims, and gays shifted these attitudes. [edit]

-- Added new information from my college European History Textbook and Encyclopedia Britannica. I can cite websites also. And the wiki links to the other articles already confirm most of the information presented. A user tried to delete the section; he has contributed meaningful before I believe. So I don't believe it is a vandal. Perhaps someone with a comment. If you have any please add here. I'm open to discussion. Thanks. 207.224.215.134
 * This anon user even after I have tried to contact via the talk page is still deleting the text without explanation. And now is altering other segments of the article for example claiming bisexual relationships weren't honored in ancient Greece which is factually inaccurate.  Please keep an eye out for the anon user doing this. 207.224.215.134

The early Church Fathers and theologians from that era condemned homosexual relations, and I listed two of these. The fact that a few individuals are believed to have practiced homosexuality privately and/or succeeded in getting their lover appointed to a position does not mean that the Church condoned homosexuality. 152.163.100.11 22:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * early Church Fathers and theologians from that era condemned homosexual relations - that is open to debate which is exactly why we will include both views. The fact that a few individuals are believed to have practiced homosexuality privately and/or succeeded in getting their lover appointed to a position does not mean that the Church condoned homosexuality. - The same can be said about the other. Just because a few may have spoken against homosexuality doesn't mean the Church didn't accept it. Apollomelos 03:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you now choose to discuss. Thank you.  Yes, you are right some Christians thought of homosexuality as sinful.  However other early church Fathers did not share that belief.  Which is why on our article we will include both, not just one side. 207.224.215.134 23:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * None of the people you listed were "early Church Fathers": e.g., Richard was a secular king who lived in the 11th century, not a theologian of the early Church (1st - 5th cent). Whatever his private life may have been like, it does not reflect the Church's position on the subject. None of the Church Fathers or Popes approved of homosexual sex. Nor does the term "dark ages" refer to a period at some point after Richard's era, but rather refers to the period from the 5th - 8th centuries, right after the fall of the Roman Empire. This new addition to the article garbles history almost recognition. 64.12.116.11 02:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * it does not reflect the Church's position on the subject. None of the Church Fathers or Popes approved of homosexual sex. - Once again open to debate. Apollomelos 03:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is good to include both sides, but much of the research on early church acceptance of homosexuality comes from modern day revisionists who wish to prove homosexuality to have a basis in the early members of the religion that has influenced western civilization the most (Christianity). Much as we can't say that although there are many priests who have proven to be pederasts, the Catholic church allows homosxual relations between priests and boys, we cannot say that the example of a few individuals in the age of the early church, practicing homosexuality, means that it was an accepted practice. The early church fathers, canon law, and the writings of the apostle Paul, John of Patmos, and quotations from Jesus of Nazareth, all make clear that sexual purity was a very important aspect of the religion at that time. Paul even advoated complete abstinence for Christians. It clouds the issue very much to give the example of a few individuals who deviated from the moral standards as exemplars of larger cultural mores. Just as now there are individuals who act in ways officially condemned by large portions of their associates (Vicky Gene Robinson for example), the same was true of the early chrch; what this does not change,is the officially promulgated morality of that time period.--Originaled 23:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Good points. 64.12.116.11 02:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You have to admit there are Christians who disagree with you. The peoples' passages who you quoted are open to interpretation, some say they have been mistranslated down the ages.  What you call revisionist others call truth and vice-versa.  We should include both viewpoints.  I am against those who are trying to censor the others' view.  And Kings during the time period were believed to have powers from God.  And if the Pope allowed Ralph to do what he did there obviosuly coud've been some Church acceptance of homosexuality.  Esp. since homosexuality was so widespread in the ancient world, it doesn't make sense for it to go away just because a new religion appeared, that would take time.  Both sides have points that have logical sense, therefor we should include both. Apollomelos 03:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 *  quotations from Jesus of Nazareth, all make clear that sexual purity was a very important aspect of the religion at that time. that is another one of my points. Some Christian scholars point out that Jesus never spoke of homosexuality.  And what you say about sexual purity is open to debate.  For all we know Jesus could've considered homosexuality to be sexually pure just like heterosexuality.  That is an awesome reason why we should include both sides. Apollomelos 03:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We should bear in mind that we cannot say what he may or not have said, especially in light of the fact that the Christian scriptures were severely censored through a political process, with many gospels being destroyed. Interestingly, the Qur'an underwent a similar process. Haiduc 13:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I tried to make the new additions fit into the context of the article, but as I am not an expert in early Christianity I cannot add to this debate, except perhaps to ask, where should all the gay popes be discussed? Haiduc 04:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Lest my previous message be read as a joke (I belatedly realized most people may not be aware of sexual fluidity in the Vatican), here are some: Paul II, Paul III, Paul IV, Julius II, Julius III, John XII, (or at least, some of the less discreet). Haiduc 13:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The examples of theologians that were given - major figures such as St. Augustine who condemned sodomy - represent the early Church's official, accepted position. People on the opposite side of the issue have been vaguely claiming that "some" of the other prominent Church Fathers allegedly took a different view, but not a single one has been cited here. Likewise for the similarly vague claims on other topics. To see the Church's officially-accepted position throughout the period that has been mentioned, see (for example) St. Thomas Aquinas' denunciation of sodomy as second only to bestiality (sex with animals) as the worst of all sexual sins. Concerning what individual Christians did privately: the fact that some modern historians speculate that King Richard may have been gay does not mean that he did it "openly", much less that it was approved - we now know that some archbishops privately rejected Christianity entirely, but that doesn't mean that the Church approved of apostasy. 152.163.100.11 17:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you better research your facts a bit more. King Richard was open, he mentioned it many times.  Modern historians didn't just come out of nowhere and say otherwise.  He was known to be gay for centuries because of his public comments.  And some scholar of Christianity believe the early church fully embraced homosexuality and that through translation social conservatives in the Church have tried to rewrite history.  Which you are claiming just the opposite.  See why we have to include both sides? :-) Apollomelos 21:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * To claim (in your latest article edits) that St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc, were not accepted figures - when in fact they were the chief theologians endorsed by the early and medieval Church during the time periods in question - is just truly baffling. The writings of both men were used by the Church during those eras as models for its theology, after all. "Including both sides" does not mean claiming that the chief figures in the early and medieval Church were allegedly marginal figures - that simply is not true. Nor is "inaccurate translation" an issue here, since we have the original documents themselves.
 * As for King Richard - even the article's entry you keep adding admits that "many historians" have merely postulated that he might have had a gay lover. You now claim that Richard himself announced this relationship publicly, but you haven't cited any such quotes. Nor would a few examples of such people - even if the claims are true - override all the official documents from the Church of that era outlining what its theology actually was.  152.163.100.11 22:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This is from a neutral encyclopedia.


 * Richard was irresponsible and hot-tempered, possessed tremendous energy, and was capable of great cruelty. He was more accomplished than most of his royal family, a soldier of consummate ability, a skillful politician, and capable of inspiring loyal service. In striking contrast with his father and King John his brother, he was, no doubt, a homosexual. He had no children by Queen Berengaria, with whom his relations seem to have been merely formal.

-- Encyclopedia Britannica

It states he was fairly open about it. Thats what we call a neutral source unlike your opinion. And for those early Church fathers, they weren't the only ones so to characterize early church fathers like that is wrong. Esp when some historians even say St. Augustine had relationships with men and has been mistranslated. Your opinion is open to debate which is why we include both sides. To state your opinion as fact is blatant POV when very many neutral sources disagree with you. Apollomelos 22:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Britannica article you cited said merely: "he was, no doubt, a homosexual. He had no children by Queen Berengaria, with whom his relations seem to have been merely formal." This doesn't quote Richard nor claim that he was "openly" gay - it speculates that he was "no doubt" gay without citing any evidence aside from a lack of children.

On the other subject: it is well-known and not in dispute that St. Augustine and St, Thomas Aquinas were accepted as the most prominent theologians in their eras - their writings were used by the Church in its theology (Aquinas' "Summa Theologica" was the chief summary of doctrine). No reputable scholar has claimed that Augustine's views are in doubt (cite a source?), and the language he uses is very well-known and not legitimately in dispute. Concerning alleged "other" theologians who are supposed to have taken the opposite view by supporting sodomy: the only example that has been given, even as a "possible" example, are the Carpocratians - a Gnostic group which taught that people should reject the God of the Bible (of all things!) and were therefore condemned as heretics by the early Church rather than being representative of the Church's official views. Whether they can even be considered "Christian" at all is debatable.

It is not "vandalism" to post recognized facts. 152.163.100.11 02:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More religion
I am beginning to get lost among all those paragraphs. Re today's edit, can someone furnish more information on this: question interpretation of passages written by these early Christians, due to a disputed word that was used for either homosexuality or pedophilia, so that this passage makes sonse. The word and some of the debate need to be included, otherwise the whole thing reads as hearsay and should be set aside. Haiduc 23:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I added a clarification as you requested, although since the text you were referring to had been deleted during yet another "revert", I had to paste this section back in before making the requested changes.


 * Thank you. Now I can look into it further. Haiduc 05:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well it's very complex Haiduc. Some claim many words have been mistranslated, we can cite a few as examples but if we were to add all of them this entire article would read like a Bible in length.  And anon ip I only revert your edits when you mischaracterize the views of others.  The way you have defined it as a "few" and only "authors" is quite inconsistent with reality.  And I noticed anon 152. whatever had actually vandalized this article before adding explicit statements reading "God invented AIDS to kill gay people".  If you can put aside your personal disapproval of homosexuality I believe we both can make good contributions to gay-related articles here on Wikipedia.  Cheers. Apollomelos 06:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is tricky. And I am very mistrustful of translations, from personal experience. But this is something best left to bible scholars. Though I think we would do well to bring in some mention of the episode where Jesus heals the soldier's beloved. I have seen some very enlightening explanations of the story, casting it in very different terms from the St. James bible. Haiduc 06:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I have actually not heard of the passage you are referring to Haiduc, perhaps you can enlighten me. And I added some examples from Bible passages concerning translations to the article that I found from this source which I then checked with other sites to verify.  I've noticed the part of the article dealing with this is getting quite long.  In fact I believe I'll create another article to research these claims in-depth, that way if this gets longer we can summarize and copy it into a main article on the subject. Apollomelos 07:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Bear with me, because I am anything BUT a bible expert. There is a story about a Roman soldier bringing his "servant" to be healed. However, the phrasing in the Greek version is such as to make it very likely that this servant was actually a young slave, and the wording is consistent with them being in a standard pederastic relationship. Haiduc 23:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: Apollomelos' comments: I was *not* the one who added the line claiming that "God created AIDS to kill gays" - you need to remember that "shared IPs" are used by thousands of people on large services like MSN or AOL, rather than being exclusive to one person. Concerning your recent edits: you have introduced the subject of Old Testament passages into a section dealing with the writings of Early Christians - two different time periods separated by over a thousand years. This is becoming a mess. I would also note that your sources do little more than cite views by members of the radical minority such as Paul Halsall - a guy who also claims that Jews allegedly worship a pagan deity, which should give you some idea of his degree of credibility (or lack thereof). As someone else already pointed out several days ago, the revisionist views you are citing are in fact held by a small minority of scholars, regardless of how prevalent these views may be on the internet (so are Flying Saucer theories).


 * These are not the views by a &#8220;radical minority&#8221;. Whether you agree or not there are others who legitimately believe Christianity is fully compatible with homosexuality.  This is why you see groups such as the Anglicans in North America and Western Europe ordaining gay clergy.  Gay ordinations are not a product of the politically correct; they are a result of respected scholars on the subject.  Churches making these movements are not doing so in an effort to modernize as some would prefer characterizing them; they are revising what they devoutly believe to be ill fated mistranslations of God&#8217;s word.  To consider these scholars on the same level of conspiracy theorists espousing flying saucers is inaccurate.


 * I appreciate your recent additions of opposing views; however I will continue to edit your mischaracterizations of others views and insertions of loaded terms. For example the opposing side &#8220;cites&#8221; while others with different views only &#8220;speculate&#8221;. Apollomelos 06:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The recent action by the American branch of the Anglican Church has been opposed by virtually the entire worldwide Anglican community, especially the churches in Africa and Asia as well as by many churches in the U.S. itself - making it, ironically, a good example of how this issue has in fact been promoted by a fringe group rather than by the mainstream.
 * Re: the article: I added the word "speculation" only to refer to cases in which theories are in fact based on speculation rather than hard evidence, such as the idea that Augustine was having sex with men (based on what proof?). Virtually all of these revisionist theories, in fact, are based on speculative ideas (the notion that certain words *might* have referred to pederasty, etc) rather than solid evidence, and that needs to be stated honestly. Instead, you have not only changed the text to make it sound as if such theories were based on incontrovertible proof, but you have also deleted entire sections of text which presented the opposing view. Now *that* is vandalism, my friend.
 * That having been said, my new edits take your criticisms into account by rewording the way the opposing view is presented, and by phrasing the issue of speculation differently. I think we can work out an acceptable compromise. 64.12.116.11 00:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This section is becoming top-heavy
Since this topic is so extensive it seems to me that some of the more arcane arguments on translations and interpretations should be assimilated into the article on Christianity and Homosexuality, with this section setting out the issues and leaving out the details of the debates. Haiduc 13:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Captions
Some of the images on this article have huge captions. Does anyone think that all that information should belong to the text (the article's body), and not to captions? I find it pretty bad to look at images with that much text on them. Aesthetically, it doesn't work well for me.--Kaonashi 02:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what the solution is. This is a long (perhaps too long at 49K) and complex article, and using the captions compartmentalizes the information in a very effective way. It is a standard publishing practice, especially in academic texts. Haiduc 02:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pictures on Wikimedia Commons
I've added some pictures in the category LGBT on Wikimedia Commons. They can be addressed from all Wikipedia versions, be it the English, the German, the French or any other, without prior upload. Just add to the source code of the respective article. --Amys 07:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedia
Perhaps someone's here who speaks Polish. The Wikipedia article pl:Homoseksualizm classifies homosexuality as a mental disease and categorises the whole issue under "psychiatry". Misleadingly they cite the ICD-10-catalogue (F66...), which does not pathologize any sexual orientation at all, but I guess they translate it in a distorting manner. Perhaps someone can help. I have removed the article's first section ("Diagnostic criteria"), but I can neither understand what exactly was written nor state my opinion in Polish. Someone should have a serious look on that. --Amys 04:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, meanwhile I've found out that the paragraph clearly states that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. But strange anyway that they group the article into the category "psychiatry". --Amys 17:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I would not worry. I took a look and noticed that "Heteroseksualizm" is also featured under the "psychiatry" category. If it is sauce for the goose. . . Haiduc 22:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See also link consolidation
There were many articles missing from the "see also" links, but it would be rather arduous to try to maintain a comprehensive list, and to try to decide which belong there. Categories exist to deal with exactly this sort of situation. So, I consolidated a bunch of links so that now people should be able to find articles on topics of interest by following category links (which hopefully have a comprehensive list of articles on the topics) or to the main article on the topic. I made sure that all the articles that used to be on this list can be accessed from the appropriate category or main article that remains. -- Beland 04:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

St. Sergius and St. Bacchus
The image seems to be a modern icon by Robert Lentz. I will delete it from Wikimedia Commons, because it is copyrighted. Perhaps it should be deleted in the English Wikipedia, too. I don't think it qualifies as fair use, does it? --Amys 07:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I am glad you caught that. I saved it from a gay Christian website that said it was hundreds of years old and from Mnt. Sinai.  I guess this just goes to show the problems with the internet. Apollomelos 12:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have updated the tag to reflect fair use and also made a notation for readers on it's picture page. Apollomelos 13:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Determination of neural gender in utero
I think this associated press quote has interesting bearing on this topic:
 * "The scientific dogma used to be that hormones alone could &#8220;masculinize&#8221; the brain, he said. But he identified 54 genes that work differently in the brains of male and female mouse embryos just 10 days after conception &#8212; before sex hormones are ever produced. Doctors also once thought that how people were raised and their genitalia were enough to determine gender...But Reiner began seeing children who had been assigned to one sex as babies and a few years later began identifying themselves as the other."

--Nectarflowed 19:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

sounds like a good possible addition to an article on gender identity

What About Social Constructionism and queerness by choice?
If the article is supposed to be NPOV then why are the only two voices in the nature v. nurture debate are "its wrong" and "but I can't help it", what about people whove taken the affirmative position on homosexuality?
 * I would guess that is because no one has written in other views. Go ahead.  -Seth Mahoney 21:35, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hunting lice by candlelight
About the image in the art section "Hunting lice by candlelight", is this the best we can do for this section? I think not. The caption is ridiculously huge and, if you ask me, overly grasping and pedantic. It is highly conjectural and subjective, drawing inferences about the subject which I doubt exist at all except perhaps in one particular viewers mind. I submit that the comment is in fact what would best be described as original research. A google search for the painter OR the painting and the word(s) homosexual or homoerotic reveal absolutely nothing. Wikipedia articles are really not the place for individual art interpretation (though if you WERE to ask me, I'd say that image is creepy and well... uninteresting :). I propose the image be replaced with perhaps a non 2-dimentional work of art, something like...I don't know...the the warren cup, for instance. Thoughts?


 * You are probably right about dumping the Both picture and caption. But as for the Warren cup, it seems a bit provocative, and then, how would you decide which side to use. Not having both images would seem to be a bit POV, no? ;] Seriously, though, I suggest something more modern, maybe even 20th c. How about Cadmus' The Fleet Is In! Haiduc 14:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it'd be POV to use only one side but yeah the side with the servant on it is uhmmm....unsettling. My reason for not suggesting modern art is copyright issues, but I'll look into it.--Deglr6328 16:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * We're ok as far as copyright, we can use it under "Fair use" law. Haiduc 17:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm alrigty. This is nice and big but the color's all wrong....color's good here  but image is too small..... dunno where to get a large high quality scan.--Deglr6328 03:09, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, what a scan! If the color is off it may be because it had not yet been restored (it hung in the Alibi club in DC for fifty years. I say let's take a detail of it, the part with the blond dude hooking up with the burly sailor. Haiduc 03:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Here: [[Image:The Fleet Is In - Cadmus - detail.jpg]]

Haiduc 04:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * ok I'll leave the rest to you then.--Deglr6328 06:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Latest images
I'm not so sure fair use is acceptable in the use of these latest 2 copyrighted images added to the article. I would almost certainly suspect the pengin pic is a copyvio in this instance even with mention of source.--Deglr6328 01:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Up to more expert users to decide. The penguin came from http://www.sensualism.com/gay/, and the Weegee pic from http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/2002/03mar2002/ae01_outlaw.htm It seems to be the property of http://icp.org/weegee/ and I have contacted them regarding its use. Haiduc 02:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lesbians
There not a single historical image of lesbianism among the various images of male homosexuality. Can anyone suggest one? - Montr&eacute;alais 15:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * May be some picture of a "passing woman" that we could find. Could go well with the Anthropology section too. Haiduc 18:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I noticed that in the article, and came here to see if anyone had mentioned it. The images in the article seem to be rather male-biased (though I'm sure that that is due to the historical prevalance of the images). A little balance would be good. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  11:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Homosexual Marriages in Spain
The map that appears in this article is quite out of date. Homosexual marriages have been legalized in Spain (it is even possible for gay couples to adopt children). Homosexual unions had already been recognised years ago in some Autonomous Communities like Navarra, Asturias and Catalunya.


 * I'll change the caption until someone appears who knows how to change the map. Haiduc 11:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edits made by 205.188.116.71
First off, don't accuse other users of vandalism whenever they edit something you did. Secondly, look at what you are changing. You're removing a detailed, cited quotation which helps explain the picture. Furthermore, the original version clearly states that "This interpretation of the myth is not accepted by Christians holding same-sex love to be a "sin." Your edit changes this to "Many scholars have pointed out, however, that neither the language nor the context of the relevant Biblical passages have anything to do with homosexuality."

Can you see the POV difference? Your edits are clearly coming down on the side that this image has nothing to do with homosexuality. That's POV, that's why I reverted. --Feitclub 19:19, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * 205.188.116.71, thank you for your new contribution. I am editing it based on the following information:

Ahbh is the same word used in Genesis 29:20 for Jacob's love for Rachel, and is used repeatedly in Song of Songs. It is typically translated as love in the context of a marriage or sexual desire (Proverbs 5:19, etc.; see Strong's concordance #0160)
 * Haiduc 23:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of artists lists
Re RickK' deletion of the lists of artists, I do not think that merely saying these people are mentioned elsewhere is sufficient. If we had titled lists grouped by profession then we could link to them and that would be fine, especially as this article is a bit top-heavy. But as it is, information is being lost (and I did not even check to make sure that the deleted names all figure in the named list). So I suggest that either we create named lists by profession somewhere and link to them, or bring back the delted material. Haiduc 12:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It makes no sense to me to have the same information reproduced in two areas. This is duplication of effort. If we already have an article which lists gay, bisexual and transgendered people, and it's formatted wth bullets and further information, why do we want an unformatted list with no further information here? RickK 19:52, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I went back again to check out the list you mention, and I stick by my previous comment. However! There IS a better way. If you remember, in the Music category we did not list any composers but simply had a See link to the list of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual composers. So, if you would not mind creating analogous articles for the other lists and putting those names there, where they would be listed _by category_ then I would be in complete agreement with your edit (if replacing the removed names with see links). If you are too busy then I will do it when I get a chance, but in that case please restore the lists in the mean time. Thanks, Haiduc 03:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Common" slang term
I moved this section here, because for one, I've never heard this ever, and I've heard a lot of slang describing gay people. Is it a regional thing?


 * The common slang term for a homosexual individual is G.S.er, or Gay-Sex-er. the act of homosexuality is also reffered to as G.S. (gay sex).Homosexuals may be called "Hersaje" (the word G.S.er reversed with a sound recorder).

-Seth Mahoney 01:43, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Male vs female form

 * "The male form is superior to the female form."

I don't really get what it's trying to say at all. I'm trying to translate this article into russian (slowly), but this just sounds rediculous... and almost chauvinistic. Beta m (talk)


 * The lists in the Polemics category are simply lists of arguments (some perhaps valid, some perhaps invalid, some chauvinistic, some mysogynistic, and so forth) that have been used over the years as ammunition in the debate on what is proper love and what is the best love. Good luck with your translation work. Haiduc 11:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)