Talk:Homosexuality - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 01:58, 22 January 2013 (Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 30d) to Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 22.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:58, 22 January 2013 by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) (Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 30d) to Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 22.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homosexuality article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Homosexuality. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Homosexuality at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Homosexuality was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 5, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
August 2, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted
January 9, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 26, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Social and political philosophy

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sociology High‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology Top‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do: E · H · W · R

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

Archives

Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Epigenetics

Should there be information included in the article with regards to epigenetics and homosexuality? The Quarterly Review of Biology by the University of Chicago has published a book stating a new theory on it.Ylsuomynona (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality as an orientation has in no definitive physiological research been proven as fact.

To classify homosexual preference as an "orientation," inferring a biological predisposition, is an error that needs to be corrected immediately. Yes, some might like to believe that one's sexual orientation is determined "in the genes," but there has been no substantiated research to date that holds up to a rigorous muster of this hypothesis.* A homosexual preference is no different than a bi-sexual preference or for that matter a heterosexual preference. While there is an innate drive to reproduce and nurture one's species, a sexual preference can be claimed by anyone as a preferred choice of sexual gratification, pleasure or leisure. It seems that social, cultural or religious taboos are the only arbiters of preferred sexual practices in societies that, for example, restrict or ban sexual behavior other than an accepted heterosexual (being most general here for argumentative purposes) norm.

If anyone thinks this idea is spot-on, or just nuts, please feel free to validate or forward material that substantiates either opinion.

Thanks,

Jantoine01 (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC) JJ Maumee OH

HOMOSEXUALITY - An Analysis of Biological Theories of Causation

Dr . Tahir I jaz, M.D., Winnipeg, Canada

See WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 21:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Romantic, sexual attraction"

MrX, regarding this revert, I don't understand your reasoning. The wording that you reverted to -- "romantic, sexual attraction -- which is not the long-standing wording or the wording used by the sources, implies that "romantic" and "sexual" go hand in hand. While they often do, that of course is not always the case. You are thinking of "or" as exclusive. But the word "or" doesn't have to be exclusive. See WP:ANDOR. It is important to stress that, like the sources do, homosexuality may refer to romantic feelings, sexual feelings or sexual behavior. Not imply that either automatically comes with the other. I would have suggested we use "and/or," like the American Psychological Association does, and the lead used to do, but the WP:ANDOR guideline is why the combination "and/or" was removed from the lead some time ago. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The meaning I read from the current construct: "Homosexuality is romantic, sexual attraction or sexual activity between members of the same sex or gender." would seem to mean and/or, whereas I would read your version (or between each definition) to be exclusive or.

The guide states:

Where more than two possibilities are presented, from which a combination is to be selected, it is even less desirable to use and/or. With two possibilities, at least the intention is clear; but with more than two it may not be. Instead of x, y, and/or z, use an appropriate alternative, such as one or more of x, y, and z; some or all of x, y, and z.

Perhaps the lead sentence should read: "Homosexuality is any combination of romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual activity between members of the same sex or gender."

I think I agree with your intended meaning, but feel free to whack me with clue-by-four if I am still missing the point. - Mr X 22:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

ETA: An early version of this sentence...

"Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender."

would be more clear as...

"Homosexuality is romantic or sexual, attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender."

meaning...

Homosexuality is romantic attraction and/or romantic behavior and/or sexual attraction and/or sexual behavior.

- Mr X 23:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your feelings. I'm not fond of the WP:ANDOR guideline because of problems such as these. Sometimes, using "and/or" is simply needed. So I definitely understand how you and others could read "or" to only be exclusive, even though the links I pointed to above show that "or" should not be automatically thought of as exclusive, and I'm sure that most people will know that we mean any of the aspects can be exclusive or combined. I don't agree with "any combination of," however, because it's suggesting that none of them can exist alone.

I propose that we use your wording without "any combination of," since your proposal is clearer by having added "attraction" to "romantic," leaves out the extra "or," and since, as stated, the word "or" can be inclusive; there's no reason that readers should take it to mean that we are being exclusive. It's well known that homosexuality involves these three aspects and that these three aspects are often felt simultaneously. But if you feel that it is necessary to stress the combination possibility, we could do like the Sexual orientation article currently does, so that the line is as follows: "Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual activity—or some combination of these—between members of the same sex or gender."

I don't see how "Homosexuality is romantic or sexual, attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender." would be more clear. In that example, "attraction" is separated from "romantic or sexual" by a comma and is therefore ambiguous; "attraction" could mean anything by itself. Flyer22 (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that (1st) suggestion is an improvement, and sufficiently clear, so I have made the edit to the article. - Mr X 23:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll go ahead and do this at the Heterosexuality and Bisexuality articles as well. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Evolution of homosexuality

I suggest a section on the evolution of homosexuality be included into the article. It is after all a seeming paradox: if homosexual people tend to have fewer children, why hasn't homosexuality been strongly selected against? There are many assumptions that go into this question, all of which I feel should be in the article, e.g.

The idea that homosexuality can be strongly selected against assumes that homosexuality is genetic. This does appear to be so (see main article).
The idea that homosexual people tend to have fewer children may not be true. Nonetheless from my searching it appears that although some homosexuals do have children, as a group homosexuals do indeed have fewer children.
Maybe homosexuality is selected against but not strongly selected against, so it exists. This implies that homosexuality will eventually become extinct. This is addressed in some of the articles I've seen from cursory searches.

Possible sources:

Haven't looked at those sources. Do any contemplate the scenario of homosexuals being part of an extended family, providing better care for children who are related but not directly their own? HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem the OP is having is that "genetic" is not the same as "hereditary". All sources indicate that the percentage of children of heterosexual parents who are gay is the same, with a negligible difference, as those of homosexual parent(s). Black Kite (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Categories: