Talk:Homosexuality

Know vs Believe

Thanks for the edit. I can't believe I mis-spelled lesbian. ;)

Though I chose know rather than believe with intent because that better reflects the level of scientific understanding. Its like the 'theory' versus 'fact' debate between scientists and creationists. Scientists refer to the 'theory of evolution' and creationists seize that and claim evolution is 'only a theory' (using the vernacular meaning of the word theory meaning 'imperfect fact.') This is what Stephen Jay Gould meant when he defined evolution both as a scientific theory and a scientific fact. That is, evolution is a scientific theory, but it is also a scientific fact: “In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'“

That homosexuality is determined by biology is known with that degree of certainty. So I chose the word 'know' rather than believe to distinguish by connotation. So, evolution through random mutation with natural selection is a scientific fact. And homosexuality as an innate biologically determined characteristic is a scientific fact. Nick

Your choice of parallel is perfect, in my view. And while I agree with the conclusion that the range of human behavior here is very likely to be biologically determined, perhaps it is still too 'soon' to say the weight of evidence is sufficient for proof? That is, has "that degree" really been reached? (Sorry - I hate that kind of argument.) Shenme 05:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The evidence that homosexuality is effected by genetics is well past sufficient. The question of whether it is a choice is also well past sufficient since no decent study of reparative therapy published in the peer-reviewed literature that shows it works (despite a lot of people trying.) Now certainly, homosexual behavior can be changed, but orientation isn't – which generally means that unless significant social pressures exist, any changes in behavior are temporary. (Ex: FoF's John Paulk, Falwell's Michael Johnston.)

Basically it is at the same level as Evolution and Creationism/Intelligent Design. That is, sexual orientation as a biological trait that is essentially immutable is accepted by the vast majority of legitimate scientists and clinicians. Many of the major medical associations (Royal College of Psychiatrists, both APAs, the American Academy of Peds, the AMA, etc) have gone to the trouble of making public statements that reparative therapy is unsupported, unhealthy, voodoo. There is a ton of literature published in peer-reviewed journals that support this conclusion through multiple logical pathways (studies of twins, animal studies, genetics, pathology, trials.) However there is a very vocal and motivated minority that makes its conclusions based on religious dogma and then tries to cloak it in the trappings of science. For example, NARTH's oft quoted study of 'ex-Gays' with a 70-something% success rate, that was 'done by researchers at Brigham Young University' (but which... oddly enough has never been published in a peer reviewed journal.... hmmm. I wonder why?) Or even better the 'American College of Pediatricians' which is a bunch of fundies who established it in 2002 when the AAP (which they are obviously trying to imitate) came out with a policy statement supporting co-parent adoptions.

The evidence is not as robust as the evidence today is for evolution, however, evolution reached that level of 'truth' many years ago. Nick

there is more than the UK

Great text... just one quick note: the last section (military and legal recognition) would be much more interesting if it included some references about the USA and other countries.

For example I find it strange that no reference is made to the fact that people of the same sex can get married in Holland... or that you don't mention the famous "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the USA Army.

(I'm not a native english speaking so I'm not going to venture in changing the wikipedia entry...)

82.154.234.45 12:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not a choice

No, modern science does not believe it is either a choice or malleable. There may be some crackpots who believe differently like those bigots at NARTH. However, that is not the prevailing viewpoint of science and medicine. The AMA, all three APAs, AAP, AAFP, and other groups have made official position statements regarding the innate and immutable nature of sexual orientation (as well as declaring reparative therapy as provided by the NARTH crackpots as not only ineffectual, but in fact, harmful.) The more we research it, the more there is evidence that it is due to a complex interaction of genetics (about half of all identical twins are concordant for same sex attraction,) early hormonal influences, as well as other possible biological effects.

Stating that the prevailing scientific belief is that it may not be a choice is like saying that descent with modification and diversification through natural selection and mutation might be but not necessarily is the way science believes that modern forms of organisms came to exist.

Just because your POV is that it is a choice, that does not change the factual statement that mainstream modern science understands that it is no more of a choice than is left-handedness. NickGorton 15:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with your point about modern science Nick, there are also certain situations where people act in a homosexual (or heterosexual) way when they wouldn't otherwise. Consider men in a prison situation or the pederasty (the relationship between a young and an older man) among the ancient Greeks. Would you consider them gay based upon their actions or would you say that they are not based upon their beliefs? They may act in a homosexual matter and would have heterosexual relationships outside of that but would never consider themselves bisexual. I would say that another part of homosexuality is based on actions, not only on relationships which isn't really discussed here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Much better explanation than I am going to give you here ;)

PFLAG's summary of reparative therapy and the underlying premises as well as condemnation by the big major medical organizations.

Basically, there are two competing definitions of homosexuality. The definition accepted by most human rights groups, the medical/psychological profession, and LGBT people themselves is that it is about ones orientation. That is, what one feels inside. Homosexuality is defined by who one is attracted to.

The definition that you are proposing is the one used by the religious right. (Not that I think you are a member of the religious right, but it gets cultural play, so I can see how you would see that.)

While I think it would be fine to say that there are people who are religious conservatives who believe that homosexuality is a behavior (like NARTH and others who do reparative therapy), I think it is important to put this in context. That context is that reparative therapy, and the underlying principle that homosexuality (or heterosexuality) is defined not by who one is, but how one behaves, is condemned by the medical profession and almost every human rights organization. For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics, all three APAs, the AMA, etc have all condemned reparative therapy and its premises as not only useless but psychologically harmful.

But the best way I can ask this question is this: (I am assuming you are straight) If I put a gun to your head and made you have sex with a man, would that make you gay? If not, then its the way you feel inside – your emotional and sexual preference – that determines your orientation.

Of course this brings up the whole self-definition issue too. -NickGorton 01:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, if there are two different issues, then we need to mention them both. English refers to three meanings: (1) The sexual orientation aspect of caring for somebody with the same sex as discussed throughly here (2) The act itself and (3) how being considered gay affects a person's identity. We only discuss one. If there is a disagreement about the meaning of the term, that is what the article should focus on. Frankly, I'm a little annoyed that you seem to feel that anything by the religious right should be dismissed out of hand completely (I'm no fan of them by any stretch) but it is still worth mentioning. State their position and contrast that with the opposition. The article isn't supposed to give an opinion. The information about issues gays face (both personal and societal and both in more length), organizations (more specific and even some history), etc could be cut in specific here and put in detail in separate articles. Also, the only context of behavior is not reparative therapy. I think that's pretty clear here. Frankly, perhaps that argument should be separated into a separate article where it can be more clearly defined. We don't need to have everything in a single article, you know? That way, the discussions regarding each section aren't stuffed into a single mess. Would you agree to that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Alan Turing

From Talk:Alan Turing:

From en on Torture: “Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation, deterent or punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or confessions. Sometimes torture is practiced even when it appears to have little or no functional purpose beyond the gratification of the torturer or because it has become the norm within the context.” (my italics)

Amnesty International's Definition of Torture

A New England Journal Article about Medical Torture – I will be happy to email you the PDF of the full text that I can get because I subscribe if you'd like to read it.

Another NEJM article about the same – Same deal.

This one is NEJM and full text available There was a whole issue about medical torture.

So pretty much by any definition of torture or medical torture, I believe forcing the man to take foreign hormones to suppress his libido that placed him at risk of death (DVT/PE) and subsequently caused him to enter such a depression that he committed suicide rather than continue his life in such a way qualifies as torture. -NickGorton 01:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to play a game with you regarding the strictest definition of terms. When you say that he was tortured, people have a certain interpretation of that word. Ok, he was psychologically tortured due to his decision to take the hormones rather than go to jail, a decision he shouldn't have been forced to make. Still, that's not what people think of when you say he was tortured. Frankly, I think you could even remove the "Without Turing, the Allies might not have won WWII" sentence. State the facts of what happened to Turing and leave it at that. I think it is pretty clear to the reader that what was done to Turing was not good. I do not like the idea of inserting a view into the article. That goes against the whole point of NPOV. Frankly, why is there this much detail regarding Turing in this article? It is supposed to be about homosexuality in general. I think noting that it used to (and continues to be in some places) considered a crime is sufficient. Also, you do not need to move article information over. Just link to it and it will be fine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Mostly because he's a really good example (and to be honest, because there is an article about him already on simple.) I also put in the example of the two teenaged boys who were recently executed in Iran.

With regard to whether or not its NPOV, what is not N about it? Like specifically? I am seriously asking. This isn't just a stupid 'well its all just facts' logical fallacy I am positing... but seriously, what is the objectionable POV and what would be a better neutral statement of same.

Sorry to be a bit nit-picking like this. But this seems to me a bit like making a claim that someone did not have an NPOV when writing about the Tuskeegee Syphillis Study if they didn't talk about the medical 'knowledge' gained from the TSS. I mean, it was wrong by any modern definition, so why is bad to have to say so?-NickGorton 02:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I understand perfectly. I think the level of detail regarding Turing should be the same as regarding Wilde. Something like "Alan Turing, the man helped the Allies in WWII by breaking the Enigma code used by the Germans, was convicted of this crime and ultimately killed himself over the effects" and leave the details at the Turing article itself. It's not that I don't want the Turing information there (it shows the point incredibly well). It points out how quite clearly that a number of great people have been effected by this closed-minded thinking. It's just that I don't want the article to try to be an all-inclusive long-winded article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ricky and have made this change. The Alan Turing article has enough information to stand on its own without duplicating the content here. BallSack 03:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of edits

"Afraid to admit” -> “do not tell” - because many people who come out of the closet are afraid when they do so (I know I was!) Fear does not define the closet, but simply whether you tell people.

“fear of what would happen” + “or because they do not live in a safe place.” That is more subtle. If you live in Canada, its probably fear. If you live in Iran, you may be brave but not stupid (because you do not live in a safe place.)

“choose to” -> “stay in” Not everyone who is out of the closet chose it. People are outed against their will all the time.

The bit about Turing and torture, I left till I hear your response so we can come to an agreement about wording. -NickGorton 01:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Far to Go

I removed this wording because it sounds like opinion (however true it may be). Frankly I think it can be left out because the paragraph already details the improvements over the years. But if someone wants to rewrite it without the POV, then feel free. BallSack 03:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The entire point of that comment was to indicate that while the UK has changed many things, LGBT people still do not have full equal rights and many things will need to be changed to make that equality complete. That is, while the UK has done much, they have not yet granted full equality under the law to their LGBT citizens. However, in the interests of keeping it simple and short, I used that phrase. A longer, less simple, version is now in the article.

And why is it POV that a country that does not grant full basic human rights (as in natural rights, not legal or civil rights) to its citizens has a way to go? Or is it your POV that some groups do not deserve basic human rights (as detailed in the universal declaration of human rights)? That is, for example, would you also have that complaint that the article isn't NPOV if Brown versus board of education didn't explain how the white parents in Topeka, KS were made uncomfortable by African American children in their grade schools? Would it be bad to say in an article on the civil rights of women in Iran that while there has been progress made there is a ways to go.

Or is this a double standard. Universal human rights are universal... except for some groups? In some groups its ok to stop half-way?

But if it is the case that one accepts human rights are a standard, why is it POV to state that the UK has a ways to go before they extent full human rights to all citizens (since they do not at present)?-NickGorton 03:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I think the replacement text "However, gays and lesbians still do not have full equal rights" is much simpler to understand that the idomatic english phrase "far to go". BallSack 03:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually there are less words and less unsimple words in far to go (zero actually.) That is also an understandable idiom in context. (Being 'far off' or 'far away' or 'distant' have similar implications cross culturally.) Moreover, the point wasn't just that they don't have full rights, but that there is much that needs to be done in order for the UK to rectify that.-NickGorton 04:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

There is really no need to include the commonly used negative names for gay people and lesbians; I have to wonder why this has been included - would a page about race include a list of racial slurs? Does adding that add any kind of informational value to the entry? I doubt it.

I agree, especially as this site is supposed to target young students and children. I'm removing the list. 69.221.230.59 (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Slang Terms

Do we need to be teaching people (especially children?) unfamiliar with this topic how to insult homosexuals? The slang list has been removed and reinstated repeatedly; I think it should be taken out permanently. Assent/dissent?

Agree

If the words were "difficult" words, then there would be a banner put at the top of the page to say that the language was not appropriate.

Given that language is a major issue at this site, then I really cannot see any point in expanding the vocabulary of those with literacy/language difficulties into terms that are essentially "wrong" by nature of being offensive.

Kids are one of the major targets of this site.

Amandajm (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If children are going to be reading this Wiki, I really don't think including "Slang Words" are going to be useful.Beefball (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Bringing Up-To-Date

I have just attempted a major update to this page as the number of territories issuing same-sex marriage licenses has grown. If anyone can help it would be much appreciated as I have not previously contributed to Simple English Wikipedia. Timeraner (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Frequent use of "homosexual people"

I have just edited the article to change some references to 'homosexuals' to 'homosexual people', following the general and common approach that it is better to use adjectives than nouns for this sort of description. However, might it be better to change the references to "gay people" or something similar, as "homosexual" is widely considered to be offensive for example, by GLAAD. --BobEret (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@BobEret: The problem is that using the adjective is a more complex way to say it, and this is the Simple English Wikipedia. We shouldn't be wording it to be more complex purely because some may find it offensive. --IWI (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@IWI: I'm not sure that this is current English. Just as Black people very understandably doesn't refer to 'blacks', even though by this logic it would be simpler, referring to "homosexuals" (as opposed to "homosexual people"; point taken about how using "gay people" could be more confusing), is very dated (see e.g. Merriam Webster). Using "homosexual" as a noun in the article suggests that this use is common enough to go in the Simple English wiki, which is not the case anymore. This could then be confusing if these speakers were to read almost anything from the last decade or two on this topic. Most of the article already used "homosexual people", and I was just changing a few outlying uses of "homosexuals". --BobEret (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@BobEret: Yes I see this now. There is something that sounds wrong about "gays" or "blacks", despite its simplicity. This would have to be an exception, but generally if you can shorten a phrase to one word, you should. --IWI (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

PLease note, that homosexuality is not something limited to people; I remember, there's at least one case of homosexual penguins in an US zoo, see en:Roy and Silo. There's another couple in Berlin zoo, see this note from the BBC. --Eptalon (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)