Template talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 2

Why does sexual practice define you as a human being?
I just don't understand why how you get off is an acceptable definition of who you are as a human being. Really, does it matter?--Mijeff (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Gayelle
I am going to add gayelleNewAtThis (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not add that. I saw the article on your page, and can tell you right now that it's not notable. For one, you cite urban dictionary. Bad source right there. Also, you cite a Neology.(see WP:NEO.)

Those weird footnotes are back
The footnotes really should be on the template at all. If they don't belong in any one article then maybe they aren't worth keeping. Banj e b oi   01:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The footnotes have been set to "noinclude" and will not appear on the pages the template is placed. the only way one can see the references is if they click the footnote link at the bottom and will be redirected to the template page. We have solved the issue with the references "bleeding over" onto pages the template is placed on. The references do no affect pages and are not harming anyone. And like i ahve said 10.7 trillion times, references can be on templates, they are in the template used on the United States. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually every instance of the template shows a weird "template footnotes" section which seems peculiar and unhelpful. If something needs explaining or referencing on a template we should instead fix it, simplify it, clear it off. Maybe another template that includes terms not appropriate for this one may make more sense. Maybe they don't need to be on a template. Banj e  b oi   20:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I keep telling Cooljuno that points which lack consensus and sourcing shouldn't be on templates at all, at least not until they have achieved consensus on article pages, but he is insistent on imposing this perspective on the template (I assumed because that gets his message across on the most pages with the least effort that way). don't know what to do about his attitude, except to keep reverting his OR until he takes the issue up properly on an article page.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, well let's assume good faith but agree that templates are not appropriate venues for content disputes in general and, in fact, should have consensus for controversial items as they effect more than one article at a time. Banj e  b oi   21:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the point of the references? They mostly seem based on a wiktionary reference, but wiktionary isn't reliable.. so why are we even tagging a template with this?--Crossmr (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality vs sexual
The sexual orientations on this list end in sexuality rather than sexual. Is that right? For example, I would say a gay person had a homosexual orientation, not a homosexuality orientation. If I understand right, sexuality includes more than just a sexual orientation, but also sexual behavior. This causes problems when writing the different articles. For example, on the homosexuality page, the intro reads "Homosexuality refers to sexual behavior with or attraction to people of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation." Wouldn't it be clearer just to have pages and links to sexual orientations, not sexualities? Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Therefore, I purpose to list the various sexual orientations as heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual instead of a heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality orientation. If no one objects, I'll go ahead and make those changes. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No objection here, either one works for me. --User0529 (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

re-add Non-heterosexual
It can wait until the AfD is completed but please re-add Non-heterosexual as it covers Sexual orientations that are ... non-heterosexual but also not bisexual or homosexual. Banj e b oi   21:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Zoophilia's separate listing
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | This discussion has been collapsed.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Zoophilia is linked to directly on this template, beside paraphilia. Yet the paraphilia article includes mention of zoophilia as a paraphilia:
 * Under Paraphilia NOS, the DSM mentions.. zoophilia (animals)

Why does it receive this distinction when other paraphilias are not directly linked to? Shouldn't it be removed, or if not, the other prominent paraphilias also linked to directly? The implication here is that zoophilia, referenced as a paraphilia, is included within 'sexual orientation'. This is a contested idea, similar to pedophilia, another paraphilia, also being contested as being viewed as an orientation. To conclude positively on this association in regard to one paraphilia and not another is probably a bit of a bias in the presentation, even if an unintended one. Tyciol (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Zoophilia's involves animals, which paraphilia does not, generally, denounce. paraphilia is generally connected with objects, non-living.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your use of the word "denounce." This seems like a simple question of V: does DSM IV list zoophilia as a form of paraphilia, or doesn't it? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

template POV problems
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | This discussion has been collapsed.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

This template includes a number of unusual terms that only a few writers argue are "orientations" while most psychologists would class them as paraphilias, and the common-usage understanding of "orientation" refers only to gender of attraction. Since you've done this for some terms, it's also POV to exclude certain other paraphilias that their advocates argue are really "orientations." In general, the prominent place the template has in high-traffic articles like homosexuality gives undue weight to fringe ideas.

And it's completely silly to have the joke term "pomosexual" on there.

The fix I propose is to list only those orientations widely accepted as being orientations in common usage -- heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. A general link to sexual orientation and paraphilia can then direct readers to a discussion of various ways orientation is defined by various writers, and whether more unusual terms ought also to be considered under this category.

Dybryd (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work on cleaning it up... though who knows how long before the zoosexuality people want to reclaim their status lol. I tightened up the formatting some and replaced the Homosexuality and transgender item (since it only related to homosexual orientation) with Third sex and Two-spirit (under the non-westernized concepts section) and Transgender under see also. --User0529 (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverting, your case is not logical and based on personal opinion. Sexual orientation is a personal choice, not what some doctor says, you have no right to say what is a sexual orientation or not. I changed it from "Classifications" to "Sexual orientation identities" so all terms can fit snug in this category without any conflict.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think Wikipedia can meaningfully define anything according to personal choice -- we must use the published consensus. Dybryd (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As the content is disputed, I think explicit sourcing may be a good idea. However, are references normally put in a template? It seems unsightly. Could they be added invisibly, commented out -- is that legit? Dybryd (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If what to call the first section is going to be that much of a debate, we could just remove the heading for it, or comment it out. (Personally I can see both sides of the debate, as it is an identity that a person self-identifies as, and it also is used as a classification that some people  project onto others (example: List of LGBT people categorizing ancient peoples as homosexual or bisexual when such classifications did not exist before the 19th century CE) User0529 (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There is already a Template:Sexual identities which is quite good, and more like the all-inclusive list that Cooljuno411 seems to be looking for.

Whether to define a given form of sex as an "orientation" is a highly contentious question in some cases, one that advocates on each side have strong contrary opinions about. That being the case, it's still more important to stick close to academic consensus to avoid "taking a side" in these debates.

However, it's true that I gave no source for reducing the list of orientations to the "big three" and there really ought to be one, given that the question is controversial. But as I said -- I don't know how to give sources in a template. Any advice on this?

Dybryd (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I dunno, methinks it might be overkill to put citations in a navigation template though. You could maybe. ??  I think asexual has place in the list, but the others (zoosexuality, autosexuality) seem more questionable User0529 (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, our own opinions about what has a place shouldn't matter. However, I've read a bit about asexuality, and many people who identify as asexual also identify as gay, straight, or bi -- they just seek purely affectionate rather than sexual relationships with the gender(s) they desire. Others may consider it an orientation -- I haven't read enough to know. But, again, it's academic consensus we have to go by.


 * I asked about this at the Help desk, and the reply was that sourcing for templates is usually just done by referring to the sources of the articles included in the template, rather than being explicitly included in the template in any way.


 * Dybryd (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources and Citations can go on the talk page, but do not belong in the template. What is the main audience for this template? Trying to make a template fot for all things will cause problems. Is it for science, biology and includes other animals than humans? Or is it primarily for human anthropology, sexuality or sociology? The list has included asexuality for some time without issues, why is there an impetus to change that now? On the other hand, pomosexuality doesn;t seem to have any support for inclusion beyound the person who put it there. If you asked the average girl on the street, she would probably list homsexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality. I would bet not one in a hundred would list zoosexuality, autosexuality or pomosexuality as a sexual orientation. Probably only some small percentage would list asexuality. Why not consider making the list realistic and pragmatic, rather than inclusive of all terms that could possibly be considered as a form of sexual orientation. I suggest keeping it simple with the big three, and possibly asexuality. Atom (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article asexuality says it is "considered by some to be an orientation" and gives a link to a magazine article which describes the personal feeling of some asexuals that asexuality is their orientation. No more academic background is given.


 * I won't kick and scream if the consensus is to include it, but I'd really like to find a neutral, authoritative list. There are many forms of sex that their advocates like to describe as an "orientation" as a politically legitimizing strategy.


 * Dybryd (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The big three (with or without Asexuality) would seem to be neutral for me. I think asexuality has more place in the template than the other non-big-3-classifications (such as auto- and zoo-), but like Dybryd, I won't kick or scream over its inclusion (or lack thereof). User0529 (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you've removed paraphilia. I'm actually the one who inserted that -- I did it because for many of these specific cases of unusual forms of sex that some want to call orientations (like zoosexuality), others want to call them paraphilias. Basically, an ideological conflict between the wish to legitimize and the wish to pathologize. So I think paraphilia is perfect to go under "alternative concepts" because it's a different way of conceptualizing some of the same things. Dybryd (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do think asexuality should be included. I'm not sure it's a good idea to have removed the template from all the pages, esp. the "big three", while discuss this. Aleta  Sing 19:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I did so hoping it would draw the editors of the relevant articles to the discussion. And, in general, I'm strongly in favor of getting disputed content out of article space until the dispute is resolved. Better to be temporarily skimpy on content than to have mistakes or bias turning up in the search results of folks innocently doing research. Dybryd (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverted Paraphilia back into See also: under the orientations. I agree w/ your reasoning, just was trying to thin out the miscelaneous some. Problem with putting paraphilia with the other alt concepts is they are all gender-based constructs (Non-westernized male.. refers to male sexuality within gender-based societies of the non-west, Third sex is what transgender and effeminate (female-gendered) homosexuals are called in some places like India, etc) User0529 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

readded pomosexual to "see also", hello it is a RELATED TOPIC, hence in the SEE ALSO--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To me, it comes down to verifiablity. Zoosexuality, autosexuality, and paraphiliac identities would be wholly appropriate on a template for sexual identities (ie. Template:Sexual identities), but I don't think there are any reputable sources citing an "is a" relationship between zoosexuality and sexual orientation. Likewise, I think a "see also: paraphilia" is inappropriate. This suggests a linkage with sexual orientation that is both inaccurate and unverifiable. Queerudite (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't about being unverifiable or anything to do with that, this is about "orientation identities", whether or not it is a mental paraphilia or not, it is an identifiable sexual orientation that one classifies themselves as. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cooljuno, it sounds like your argument is essentially that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation because zoosexuals themselves identify zoosexuality as a sexual orientation. I don't dispute the validity of that argument, I dispute the verifiability of that argument. Are there any reputable sources stating that zoosexuals commonly identify themselves as having a sexual orientation of "zoosexual"? If there aren't verifiable sources, then it should be removed as per WP:Verify. Queerudite (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Queerudite, are you in favor of expanding the template to a list of all forms of sex which some people self-identify as their "orientation"? I think that would be awful (NPOV, UNDUE, etc.), but if it were done it would have to be done comprehensively, not just with the couple of terms that were in the template in its previous form). Dybryd (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (As I mentioned above, the criteria of self-identification for inclusion seems more appropriate for the existing template Template:Sexual identities, which already has a much longer list). Dybryd (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverting, there is lovely references and great detail on the Zoosexuality article, feel free to take a look at that for info and references.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, that's interesting. I didn't realize there has been a research study supporting zoosexuality as an orientation. I was surprised too that there doesn't appear to be any academic resistance to the application of the term to zoosexuals (in contrast, to say, the resistance to deeming pedophilia as a sexual orientation). I am still a little concerned that (1) Zoosexuality and autosexuality don't fall under the commonplace understanding of "sexual orientation". That is, "sexual orientation" is generally understood to mean a gender preference as opposed to an animal/human preference. (2) That the sexual orientation template is going become a duplication of Template:Paraphilia, except with homo/hetero/bi/etc-sexuality added. I agree with Dybryd that such a "comprehensive" approach would be excessive. What do other people think? Queerudite (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * just 3rd-opinioning here... paraphilia generally refers to some sexual behavior that is (considered to be) destructive to the self or others.  Zoophilia is not destructive in the same sense as something like pedophilia, and so I can see why it would be seen as an identity and not necessarily a paraphilia.  however, I don't think zoophilia counts as an orientation for the simple reason that (as an identity) it doesn't tell whether a zoophile is attracted to male or female animals (or both...).  thus there could be 'gay' zoophiles, 'straight' zoophiles, 'bi' zoophiles...  Orientation is too deeply connected to the same-gender/other-gender distinction.  IMO, the template should include the following: Bisexual, Heterosexual, Homosexual, maybe Pansexual (to the extent that it's different from bisexuality), but not Asexual, Autosexual or Zoosexual (which are sexual behaviors or identities more than orientations), or Pomosexual (which is an intellectualization of bi- or pansexuality, not a separate orientation).  -- Ludwigs 2  20:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What input there has been on this has generally supported the changes I originally made. I'm going to remake those parts of the changes that have received support. Although not that many have commented, consensus among those who have about removal of the neologisms seems pretty clear -- except from Cooljuno411.

I'm hoping that rather than simple reversion, he'll make an effort to get his point of view across on the talk page first.

Dybryd (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted, opinions are great but we can't let them get in the way of orderly and informational process, regardless of your opinion on paraphilia or pomosexuality, they are a vital and related topics to sexuality. And the neologism argument for removal is being used incorrectly, the term [paraphilia]] and pomosexuality are well document and written on subjects. Using this incorrect neologism argument would be just the same as arguing the deletion of an article of a newly discovered disease with the same bases of the name being a new term. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cooljuno - while these topics are certainly "vital and related topics to sexuality" they are not vital and related to sexual orientation. let me try a compromise edit, though...  -- Ludwigs 2  16:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Like compromise edit, rearranged into a more organized fashion.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * errr... so liking compromise edit means revert to your preferred version, except for one word?  Cooljuno, if you want to be hard-core, at least don't be disingenuous about it.  I'm going to revert back now (just to make the point), and then we can discuss the matter properly.  or you can revert again and try to turn it into an edit war; your choice.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your organization is all off, you basically through many terms that are organizable into an "other" category. You made a "compromise", aka an edit you did without input from others and slapped a "compromise" on it, well i took the terms you used from your "compromise" and organized it into something better then an "other" category. I feel that you have a bias towards such terms as "pomosexual" and "zoosexual" and you have a motive to not place your preferred traditional labels, like heterosexual or homosexual, together with these "other" sexual orientation identities. And i would love to hear why these sexual orientation identities deserve not to be in the same category, cause the only thing i really noticed was this whole "neologism" thing, not a reason why it should be separated, so before YOU go making edits without consulting or to make a "comprise", consider using the talk page. Now until you actually make a reasonable argument why these terms can't be in the same category, i am reverting back. Sorry to break it to you, but it's the 21st century, times are changing.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cooljuno - I'm sorry, but you keep confusing sexual orientation with sexual identity. the conventional definitions of these terms mark orientation as a same-gender/different-gender issue.  sexual identity is a different term having to do with self-perception around sexual issues.  creating a new category called 'sexual orientation identities' is an interesting move, and not one I would necessarily object to, but it's original research since that category doesn't (to my knowledge) exist anywhere in the extensive academic literature on the topic.  give some citations that show that term being used, and we can talk further, otherwise we need to stay within the categories handed us.


 * , bellow i mention the possibility of "sexual preference and orientation" as well.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * unfortunatley, it seems clear to me from this article that Mohr and Fassbinger are not creating a new term 'sexual orientation identity', but rather examining the collective sexual identity of couples. orientation comes in as one of the factors of compatbility.  I suspect the article was originally titled 'Sexual Orientation, Identity, and Romantic Relationship Quality in Same-Sex Couples' but that the commas got dropped in press.  do you have any more evidence that this is a real term in the field of research?  and what precisely does the term stand for (separate from sexual identity and sexual orientation)? -- Ludwigs 2  05:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I said we can use other terms. But i don't know why your the one putting me on the spot, you are the one changing the context of the template, not me. And you have yet to give me a reason why pomosexual and zoosexuality are separate from heterosexual. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC) . NOPE, never mind, read the sexual orientation article, it says "Sexual orientation refers to "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, OR affectional attraction toward others."" Does that say only human partners, no, does it say it has to be a sexual attraction, no. You grouped all these "other sexual identity" into an exclusively sexual context, well sorry they are just like any other sexual orientations that include "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectionate attraction toward others". I am reverting back, you have not proved why your new addition should be kept, do not revert until you can prove your point of why they should be separate.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cooljuno411 - you're edit-warring; stop it. there is a reasonable consensus for the other version - you need to convince us by talking about it, not by constantly imposing your version on the page.


 * wikipedia is not a valid secondary source (see wp:PRIMARY), and so it can not be used for establishing new terminology. even if we accepted the sexual orientation page, however, please note that it also says "The most common forms exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex) to exclusive homosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the same sex) and includes various forms of bisexuality (being sexually attracted to members of either sex)."  note that that's a gender preference dimension, nothing more.  why are you so insistant on pushing the limits on this template?  -- Ludwigs 2  19:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) Your the one imposing your edit, an you are the one changing a status quo, and YOU have not provided evidence these terms aren't orientation. And maybe you need to look up a word in the dictionary... because i don't see anywhere in your definition '"The most common forms exists along a continuum ...." i don't see a requirement for a male or female attraction. (2) And if you don't like the word "sexual orientation identities", i will drop the word "identity". And like i said, you have yet to prove a point, i have. I have given you definitions of sexual orientation, i have given you reasons why they are sexual orientations and the you keep arguing about this word "identity".... ok fine, i'll drop "identity", but you have yet to prove to me why these terms aren't "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, OR affectional attraction toward others.", aka, a sexual orientation.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC) I separated the terms into "hetero-homo continuum" and "non hetero-homo continuum" to help distinguish them.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cooljuno - I keep restoring the edit that a number of different editors here prefer. so far as I can tell, you are the only editor pushing the inclusion of these other elements as orientations.  it that's incorrect, would another editor please help Juno out here?


 * with respect to your "you have yet to prove to me why these terms aren't "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, OR affectional attraction toward others", aka, a sexual orientation. - I didn't say anything about these not being enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others; I said that this is not the normal, established, cultural or academic understanding of 'sexual orientation'.  please see the APA's understanding of sexual orientation, which deals only with the (in-species) continuum from homosexual to heterosexual. there are plenty of places on wikipedia for you to advocate for different sexual identities while staying within Wikipedia policy - however, trying to change the established meaning of 'sexual orientation' is original research, and just doesn't belong on this page.


 * I've left a warning on your talk page about edit-warring. -- Ludwigs 2  20:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I recognize this is important to you, but please keep in mind that wikipedia can't go off into uncharted territory. -- Ludwigs 2  19:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well good think we aren't, these terms weren't published by a 13 year old after school one day, people who specialize in these fields wrote about it, try looking at the articles if you need more information.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think an RFC is the appropriate next step. I can't help but notice that Cooljuno411 has been blocked for revert-warring on this template before.

Dybryd (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * if that's what you choose - this isn't really my page. hopefully he'll be willing to discuss the matter fairly though.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The use of "continuum" for orientation
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | This discussion has been collapsed.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

I don't support the use of the word "continuum" in the template. The idea that sexual orientation is a continuum is a particular POV, one with notable supporters, but also detractors. I don't think it's appropriate for the template to take a side on this question.

Dybryd (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "The most common forms exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex) to exclusive homosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the same sex) and includes various forms of bisexuality (being sexually attracted to members of either sex).", that is a quote from the sexual orientation article, it as well has a reference on the page, feel free to look at it. When i added the this term, i want to add a small side note saying something like "continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality" but would look unattractive on the template, maybe you can try fitting it in, in a way that looks good.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. It's as much a problem to have this POV directly endorsed in the article as in the template. Dybryd (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * continuum : a set of elements such that between any two of them there is a third element. Hetero and homo are the two sets elements with bisexual as the third inbetween, don't see the issue, correlates directly with the definition. Please tell what you recommend as a alternative.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC) As well, if you search Continuum, anything that goes through a gradual transition from one condition, to a different condition, without any abrupt changes....--Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a footnote that gives the definition of the hetero-homo continuum.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)