Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:45, 8 September 2007

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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

	Homosexuality has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 5, 2006 Good article nominee Listed

Archives

Index July 2003-August 2003 August 2003-April 2004 April 2004 April 2004-July 2004 August 2004-October 2004 October 2004-March 2005 March 2005-June 2005 June 2005-July 2005 August 2005-December 2005 January 2006-August 2006 September 2006-July 2007 September 2007-May 2008

Physiological differences in gay men and lesbians

This section claims that "Gay men have slightly longer and thicker penises than straight men." While the source is cited and such, and I personally don't have access to it, I must wonder how such a conclusion has come about, and whether it truly represents a factual statement appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I question whether such a widespread conclusion can even be accurately made, similarly to how it is difficult to impossible to make sound conclusions regarding differences in intelligence and athletic ability between races. --Agent of the Reds 19:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it actually claims that "There's evidence that... gay men have slightly longer and thicker penises than straight men." The source is from a respected journal, and the conclusion is encyclopedic insofar as, if true, it may "provide additional evidence that variations in prenatal hormonal levels (or other biological mechanisms affecting reproductive structures) affect sexual orientation development" (quoting from the article's abstract). Fireplace 12:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have read the article (one of the benefits of being a grad student in genetics is access to scientific journals!). The data are derived from the studies performed by Alfred Kinsey and colleagues from 1938 to 1963, where roughly 5,000 self-identified gay and straight men were asked to provide both an estimate of their penis size and an actual measurement. The results found that, on average, the men who identified as homosexual (i.e. having "extensive" sexual experiences with other men) reported longer and thicker penises. I looked at the data myself, and there is statistical significance to the differences. The probands ranged widely in age, height, and ethnicity. So, as far as I can tell, these data are true, but I don't think anyone should scream from the rooftops that gay men have bigger cocks: I am gay, and admittedly do have quite a large penis, but the sexual partners I have been with (also gay men, of course) have all possessed smaller penises than mine, more along the averages reported for straight men, according to this study. So there really is no direct correlation, as far as I can tell. The referenced article represents a subset of the population (i.e. those willing to take part in such a study), and I would imagine that on average, taking all men into consideration, you would not find too much of a difference between gay and straight men, to be honest. Eganio 18:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hehehe. I can relate to your biases. You may be right about the reliability of the data, but that'd count as original research. Fireplace 21:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So does this mean I can go and edit the article on Africans to say something like "there is evidence that people of African descent often have lower IQs than those of other races"? I saw some study that showed that once. Or is it only okay to add when it's something good (i.e. black men typically have bigger penises than men of other race)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.6.23 (talk) 23:58, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

You're probably talking about The Bell Curve, which has been widely criticized by reputable scholars in reliable sources. I'm not aware of any such criticism levied against this study. Fireplace 00:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that my own personal experiences would fall under the heading of OR, and I agree we should defer to the referenced study. I am just cautioning against such a limited comparison providing fodder for absolutists who seek to categorize people in a binary manner, just because it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Eganio 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the whole African descent vs. intelligence issue is akin to such things as phrenology, biological anthropology and eugenics, which were very popular amongst those practicing pseudoscience in the 19th and even 20th centuries. Such things have historically been used to justify institutionalized and popularized racism, and are understandably highly ridiculed by the scientific community, although I'm sure adherents still exist. The issue under discussion within this heading is a report of a simple physical measurement, rather than the ill-conceived correlations made by pseudoscientists to support their own biases. Someone's IQ is far more difficult to measure than penis size, and is itself an issue of debate in the scientific community. I would venture a guess that any study relating ethnic origins to intelligence is regarded as highly questionable, even among the peers reviewing such a study, and would be of little value to an encyclopedic resource such as Misplaced Pages. Eganio 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Coming out" in the US in the 21st century

Nmcmurdo was right to be concerned about this sub-section header. The section does lack a world view. However, I strongly disagree with a title that limits it to the 21st century (only 7 years?). The process of coming out has existed as long as there has been a closet to come out of. At least since Stonewall within a relatively similar cultural context in the US (at least compared with the anti-gay horrors that existed before that), and that's since 1969, or so, at least 35 years ago. Also, isn't the coming out process similar in other western cultures? (I know, for example, that Asian and Oriental cultures are different, and we can't speak for them.) If it were renamed to something like "Coming out in the US since Stonewall", or "Coming out in the US in the modern gay rights era" I would be OK with it, I think, or at least enough to not complain. But I think it's misleading as it is. Alternatively, could the section could be recast by someone knowledgeable to make it less US (or Western) centric without taking away from the main article "Coming out"? Then we wouldn't need qualifiers in the title at all. Comments? Becksguy 00:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've taken care of that problem, and moved sections into what seems to me a much more logical, encyclopedic order. (Whew! I should NOT have started this at bedtime, which I'm way past now.) By way of explanation, I ended up lumping "Law, Politics, and Society" together after several attempts at keeping them separate--because most of the subsections rightly partake of all three areas. Maybe somebody else can figure out a way to make distinct categories there, but I couldn't at this very late hour. And BTW, IMHO, this sprawling article is just too damn big, and needs to be cut way down, with a lot of this good, detailed material being spun off into separate wikilinked articles, many of which already exist--as is suggested at WP:NOTPAPER. Well there's my "bold" deed for the day. Revert if you don't like it.  :-) --Textorus 09:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I like the new ordering. I don't have a problem with the length, however, since this is the central article on a major topic. Fireplace 15:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fireplace. Nice job, Textorus. It appears more organized and it's easier to read now. Very long articles are often hard to organize for the knowledgeable, and even more difficult to organize in a way that makes it easier for the reader that is just looking for information (which is what we are here to do). Especially on this subject which touches on so many areas of life. Thanks. Becksguy 20:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I agree it should be a big article, though there's a difference between BIG and TDB, in my mind. Some sections could be condensed, and the detailed material put in the wikilinked articles. But hey, I've just contradicted myself by inserting a few paragraphs on terminology, early gay rights movements, and pre-Spanish Conquest sexuality. Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. And you can quote me on that.  ;-) --Textorus 00:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

With topics like these, length is required. Although it is a hefty read, the article is concise, NPOV and well written. Nice job to all. Trodaikid1983 07:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Disingenuous

Damn. There's gotta be a better place for me to note this but at present this is all that appears on the main talk page for this subject. In any event, I wanted to make a quick note to the effect that I find this article in its entirety to be disingenuous. The article is so full of disorganized information that the most basic question that a querier would want resolved in an article entitled "Homosexuality" is damn near impossible to find and even when you do come across the information it's written in such a way ("some scholars believe", "a theory is" etc.) that only the most analytical and discerning mind will not be mislead. - The basic issue to be discusssed on "Homosexuality" is whether it is indeed something biologically mandated that is inherent at birth (as modern westerners generally believe) or whether its manifestation is largely dependant on environmental circumstances. People want to know, "WHAT IS HOMSEXUALITY?" An encyclopedia ought to have the courage to face the issue honestly and to state what every non-biased scientist knows: That people self identitify as homosexuals for a very very wide variety of reasons and that under radically different circumstances the vast majority of these people would NOT self-identify as homosexuals and indeed would not be lacking in heterosexuals desires as they so often believe themselves to be. I realize of course that what I'm saying differs quite radically with what all right thinking people are supposed to believe but the scientific evidence does appear to lead to just these conclusions and I think that this ought to be put displayed simply and plainly before the masses of people who come to this page for reasons other than any historical interest. Right now, the view under fire that is itself "in the closet" and that no respectable scientist dare "speak its name" is the one that every byte of science and common sense points to. Should not Misplaced Pages therefore be on the forefront in expressing this view in an unambiguous manner? - mnuez

You should be careful what you read. Really, this also differs quite radically from what many scientists believe. Scientific knowledge about sexuality really is very very limited. And this is not because they're scared of publishing results that implies homosexuality is a choice (or indeed that it's not). It really is because finding the necessary evidence one way or the other is very hard, particularly in an area as complex as human sexuality. But look: Misplaced Pages is the encyclopaedia you can edit yourself. Don't curse the darkness. If you have good, reliable sources (ideally from peer-reviewed journals) just edit the article yourself. But I stress the citation issue. What Misplaced Pages is not about is original research. garik 09:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• This article is not neutral!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Compwhiz2000 (talk • contribs).

Please point out specifically what you feel is not neutral, so we can fix it, if that is actually the case. Thanks, 68.6.46.209 04:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

molestation and sexual orientation

There seems to be a very non-negligible number of people who believe that homosexuals are homosexual because they were molested when they were children. Is there any information about how prevalent this belief is? If it's fairly common, it needs to be included in the article, probably in the "Theories on homosexuality" > "Non-biological explanations" section, with references to reliable studies about the validity of this belief. Herorev 02:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That looks like a remarkably stupid belief. I'd like to know how anyone arrives at such a conclusion. Not through any scientific study, I'm sure. Soczyczi 03:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it should be included in the homophobia article given that it is not a credible theory as such.--Agnaramasi 00:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're familiar with this guideline, but please check out WP:MOS:Identity. It's not considered good form to refer to groups of people using nouns, e.g. rather than "gays, blacks, Jews", we say "gay people, black people, Jewish people", etc... Popkultur 04:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Teenage Homosexuality

Many teenagers, maybe those who are questioning whether or not they're homosexual, want to know more on the subject. Perhaps a page should be made by someone who knows more on the subject than I should make a page about it for those searching for more information. Rikkiatia 22:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In consideration that Misplaced Pages is not a place for advice or how-to content, and that all articles must be verified with reliable, published sources, I seriously doubt an article specifically on teenage homosexuality would be fitting. Seeing as technically such an article would fall under the purview of Child sexuality, it would be extremely controversial and might even fail the notability test. Thank you for making a suggestion though! VanTucky 22:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you edit the "Other Languages" links?

I just noticed that in the Languages links at the top of the page, the Russian link goes to an article dealing specifically with Soviet-era perceptions of homosexuality, rather than to the main Russian article that discusses homosexuality in general terms. Throbert McGee 10:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The links are placed at the bottom of the article proper, usually, and are of the form: ], this one for example being Russian (language code ru). I'm assuming that ru:Гомосексуальность is the proper link, but I don't read Russian and therefore cannot attest to the accuracy of my own statement.—Kbolino 17:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kbolino! I've fixed the Russian link so it goes to Gomoseksualnost, the more neutral term, rather than Gomoseksualizm, the Soviet-era usage.Throbert McGee 06:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Information hidden in "Prenatal hormone theory" section

I have a question concerning the "Prenatal hormone theory" section. It appears that the section consists only of a single blocked quote. However, I noticed in its edit box that there's a whole paragraph below the quote nestled in comment fields, making it invisible in the article. I am to understand that the use of comment fields generally serves as communication among editors, indicating what in the article they think shouldn't be tampered with or how they got the information, etc. Now, it seems to me that this has been accidentally used to hide information intended to be included in the article—the hidden passage even contains links and references, as well as much pertinent info. I think its inclusion would improve the article. I will withhold editing this section until I'm sure if this was done intentionally or no. If it is intentional, I would like to know why; if not, may I request permission to fix the error? Thank you. Velvetron 01:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Skimming the archives, it appears this topic was discussed in Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 9#"Biology is destiny" and Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 9#Hormones. I didn't really read it, but it seems someone considered the subject tangential, pointing to Fetal hormones and sexual orientation. ZueJay (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I added the Levay quote and (I think) commented out the other language. The Levay quote is extremely clear, which is why I didn't bother rewriting it in my own words. The quoted-out passage, on the other hand, seems too technical and confusingly written (especially for a summary-style article). Fireplace 04:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Pedophilia

An editor reverted without a proper explanation this section added by me. He claimed that the theory that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia is WP:Fringe. "One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject."

However, "Archives of Sexual Behavior" is a peer-reviewed journal and the authors are respected academics.

Some scientific studies indicate that there is a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. According to Blanchard et. al. "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles." The high prevalence of homosexuality in pedophiles indicates that that the factors that determine sexual preference in pedophiles are not different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults.

The abstract: Whether homosexual pedophiles have more older brothers (a higher fraternal birth order) than do heterosexual pedophiles was investigated. Subjects were 260 sex offenders (against children age 14 or younger) and 260 matched volunteer controls. The subject's relative attraction to male and female children was assessed by phallometric testing in one analysis, and by his offense history in another. Both methods showed that fraternal birth order correlates with homosexuality in pedophiles, just as it does in men attracted to physically mature partners. Results suggest that fraternal birth order (or the underlying variable it represents) may prove the first identified universal factor in homosexual development. Results also argue against a previous explanation of the high prevalence of homosexuality in pedophiles (25% in this study), namely, that the factors that determine sexual preference in pedophiles are different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults. An alternative explanation in terms of canalization of development is suggested. http://www.springerlink.com/content/hh300395g834h386/ MoritzB 20:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is just gay bashing and as such inappropriate for this article, indeed extremely inappropriate, merely sourcing isnt enough, nor is edit warring, SqueakBox 21:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize that it is totally irrelevant whether it is "gay bashing"? Political correctness is not a reason to censor scientific studies according to any Misplaced Pages policy.MoritzB 23:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but drawing your own conclusions from such studies is WP:OR and therefore not welcome. According to the abstract, the study only suggests a factor in homosexual development, not a specific link between homosexuality and pedophilia. The section which is quoted earlier (but unverifiable from the posted abstract) provides some additional statistics but again claims only that the factors of sexual development may be linked -- not the preferences for age and gender themselves. We're here for facts, not what you infer from them. HalJor 23:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I drew no conclusions and simply reported the findings of the study. MoritzB 02:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I realise it isnt. We dont do gay bashing here, I suggest you get a better understanding of how things actually work here before making silly comments. Gay bashing is illegal in many places and an extreme fringe belief that is likely to get the ediotr blocked if it persists, SqueakBox 23:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. This a mainstream scientific study published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Nambla members might use the study to show that pedophilia is just as normal as homosexuality. Some other people might have other conclusions. But Misplaced Pages does not censor information because it is "politically dangerous".

MoritzB 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It certainly isn't illegal in the United States, and in any event, as far as I can tell, he isn't gay bashing. Some people feel threatened when studies show something that is a bit discomforting, but just because studies show that blacks are a full SD lower than whites in IQ tests doesn't mean that all black people are stupid, but rather that on average blacks have a lower IQ than whites. In any event, if it is well sourced, from a good scientific journal, peer-reviewed, and relevant to the subject matter (which this appears to be, though doubtful as more than a single paragraph, if that - this is more appropriate for the Pedophilia article) it should appear in the article. Titanium Dragon 06:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for what I'm sure are good intentions Moriz, but this has been argued over before, and it is not acceptable. First off, just because something has been published or been advocated by academics does not protect it from falling under the purview of WP:FRINGE. Nazi eugenics got plenty of academic support in their day, and we certainly don't give white supremacists equal weight with the scientific consensus on racial issues. Second, by your quote there, they are obviously flawed studies. They are both begging the question and confusing correlation with causation. Hardly good science. Frankly, creating a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia is a pet project of the conservative christian lobby one would find on Conservapedia. One peer journal article out of multitude that oppose the idea is not the mainstream. According to the contemporary scientific consensus is a patently fringe concept. Not to mention being completely bigoted. But most importantly, the reason your addition is unacceptable is that it takes statistics from a reliable source and then draws its own conclusions. That's original research. VanTucky 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but most the best scientific studies available indicate that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia.

“approximately one-third of had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls.”

“Interestingly, this ratio differs substantially from the ratio of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature males), which is at least 20 to 1." Freund, K., Watson, R. & Rienzo, D. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. The Journal of Sex Research, 26, p. 107

According to the literature, findings of a two-to-one ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles have been documented." John M. W. Bradford, et al., “The Heterogeneity/Homogeneity of Pedophilia,” Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa 13 (1988): 225. Elsewhere the study notes: “Researchers have variously estimated the incidence of homosexual pedophilia between 19 percent and 33 percent of reported molestations,” p. 218.

A study of male child sex offenders in Child Abuse and Neglect found that fourteen percent targeted only males, and a further 28 percent chose males as well as females as victims, thus indicating that 42 percent of male pedophiles engaged in homosexual molestation. Michele Elliott, “Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What Offenders Tell Us,” Child Abuse and Neglect 19 (1995): 581.

MoritzB 23:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that to establish the link between paedophilia and homosexuality we not only need to look at paedophiles gender preferences in children but also their sexual preferences amongst adults.

If a male paedophile predominately abuses boys they may still consider themselves heterosexual and their adult partners may all be female (Pi 00:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Moritz, you're still failing to understand a basic definition of original research. Taking the stats you just quoted, which at best contain a numerical correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia, and then assuming that homosexuality is a causation factor for pedophilia, is original research. VanTucky 00:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

These academic studies simply report a correlation. (Although Blanchard proposes that homosexuality and pedophilia have a common cause). The findings were relevant and should be included to the article in a neutral manner.

MoritzB 00:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is wrong for us to discredit the report simply because it doesnt fit with our beliefs about homosexuality, if the statistical collection is good then we must surely consider it as a valid piece of evidence in the academic study of sexual behaviour. It isn't however any kind of proof that homosexuals are all paedophiles, or that they are more likely to be so. I disagree with Sqeakbox, i think that if we use this study reasonably and don't read meaning into it that isnt there then using the data from the study in the article is not gaybashing, it is simply reasonable academic study.

After all, wikipedia is supposed to be impartial and fact-based.(Pi 00:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

I think that the original section by MoritzB certainly doesnt constitute gay bashing as it males clear the source of the statistic and does not present the link as a fact, which would be unreasonable as it isnt proven. I think that the section could still be included in the article if written in an impartial way without using unfounded conclusions from the data(Pi 00:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

I'm inclined to agree with this fellow... I really haven't been able to see what the problem is, here. I haven't quite been reading it the same as you other folk, since I saw it. "More male pedophiles are attracted to boys than male non-pedophiles", that doesn't really seem like gay bashing to me... gay bashing would be more like... "Gays are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals." I dunno... if there is gay bashing going on here, I don't see it... Lychosis /C 00:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not looking at it from the angle of gay bashing at all; I'm looking at it from the angle of OR and drawing unwarranted conclusions, whatever they may be. A statistical correlation is a far cry from any kind of causal link. Taking another example, there are more red cars involved in high-speed automobile collisions than any other color car (that's actually trivially but factually true). Would you say from this that red cars are more prone to accidents? I wouldn't expect you to, and you would be absolutely right not to draw any conclusions as to any kind of causality whatsoever. Just hoping I made a clear analogy here.--Ramdrake 00:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there some OR in the section I proposed? It simply reports the findings of a scientific study. MoritzB 00:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the word "link" as you used it suggests some kind of causality, which is an unwarranted conclusion from the study, therefore, OR.--Ramdrake 00:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Some scientific studies indicate that there is a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilic tendencies." Much better.

MoritzB 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is no "gay bashing" in the section I added.MoritzB 00:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ramdrake on this. I don't think its fair to call the content an intentional attempt to gay bash. But it is quite obviously original research. The following passage

The high prevalence of homosexuality in pedophiles indicates that that the factors that determine sexual preference in pedophiles are not different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults.

is an insufferable and obvious attempt to equate homosexuality and pedophilia in a direct, causal fashion. Taking the correlating statistics and using that to draw a causal link between homosexuality and pedophilia is not what the study does. Moritz's addition is unacceptable POV-pushing and gives undue weight to a fringe theory. Even without the improper OR analysis of the numbers, including stats from a single rs and saying it's a mainstream, conclusive correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia is intolerable undue weight. VanTucky 00:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just stupid, but I read that in a completely different way. I thought it meant more along the lines of... "The factors that determine sexual preference (male/female) in pedophiles are not different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults (male/female)". Am I looking at this absolutely wrong? Lychosis /C 01:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I read that too. In clear, I'd translate as "the mechanisms that control sexual preference in paedophiles are not different than those that control sexual preference in normal adults." The mechanisms that make a bowling ball fall to the ground are the same as those that make a feather fall to the ground. Does that mean the bowling ball has anything to do with a feather, besides being subject to the same physical laws? That's the foundation for my OR objection. Hope this is clearer put this way.--Ramdrake 01:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotcha. I just didn't quite see that they were saying "There's a link". Still don't quite see it, by the way, but thanks for confirming that I'm not the only person who read it that way. :3 Lychosis /C 01:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The passage you quote is Blanchard's view which was expressed in the peer-reviewed study. Your claims that the study isn't mainstream or doesn't indicate general scientific opinion are OR.MoritzB 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha. OR guidelines don't apply to talk comments, obviously. Let's be frank here. Creating a link between homosexuality and pedophilia is a pet project of the conservative Christian establishment. Letting this article use the statistical evidence of a single statistical study to further push such a WP:FRINGE concept is a stain on Misplaced Pages's neutrality. The content is question is only being pushed on this article because it was rejected at the main pedophilia article, which is where it would belong if it didn't contain the OR metaanalysis. VanTucky 01:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this information has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Thus, WP:Fringe does not apply. There is nothing political in the proposed section.

MoritzB 01:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually... if you look at his contribs, this was originally placed here before it was removed from the pedophilia article for the first time... I think... just thought I'd point that out. Lychosis /C 01:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually added this section to both articles at the same time. MoritzB 01:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this should be here. Including an unadulterated version of the stats in the pedophilia article might be in order. But it's just not relevant here. It doesn't have any implications for homosexuality, at least not without including OR analysis. To make it sufficiently relevant, you have to say that the stats imply something about homosexual physiology or psychology, and that's OR. Besides the fact that it's so enormously bigoted I can't even begin to explain why. It's like including stats on the high correlation between blacks or latinos and incarceration rates. It implies that there is a causal connection that lends weight to a fringe racist pov. VanTucky 01:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The statistics do imply something very relevant. Blanchard: The high prevalence of homosexuality in pedophiles indicates that that the factors that determine sexual preference in pedophiles are not different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults.MoritzB 01:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia is also sometimes debated in the MSM and is a common anti-homosexual argument.MoritzB 01:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So you're freely admitting that you think the statistics should be included because they imply that there is no substantial difference between homosexuals and pedophiles? VanTucky 01:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My motivations are irrelevant.MoritzB 01:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. But, since we agree here, that the content implies that there is no difference between homosexuals and pedophiles, I think it's clear as crystal that we will not be including what is a fringe, bigoted perspective not supported by a majority of sources. VanTucky 01:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your motivations are not irrelevant. You should be motivated purely to make a better encylopedia, you appear to be motivated by an agenda that equates pedophiles and homosexuals while calling those who oppose your gay bashing agenda with pro-pedophile activists. And Van Tuckey is right about non-inclusion, you were immeditately reverted by an number of editoras both here and at pedophilia none of which were Van Tuckey or myself, SqueakBox 01:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: The original addition was reverted by a total of two people. Just to clarify. :3 Lychosis /C 02:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ad Hominems are irrelevant. I don't equate pedophiles and homosexuals. There are even some homosexuals I admire.MoritzB 02:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if you dont equate the two why add the information that does? SqueakBox 02:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither I nor the study morally equates them. MoritzB 02:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Moritz, just so you're aware, canvassing for opinions to a talk page such as you did here, here, and here is not ever okay. Also not acceptable is making personal attacks and slander such as calling opponents in a content dispute "NAMBLA members". This violates WP:NPA and will not be tolerated. And just so you know, not everyone opposes or supports content because of their political affiliations, some of us actually are interested in creating a NPOV. VanTucky 02:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The comment about Nambla members described the general history of this article, not this content dispute. It did not apply to you.MoritzB 03:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Another study: It has been established that the probability that a man is homosexual is positively related to his number of older brothers, but not older sisters when the brothers are accounted for. This is known as the 'fraternal birth order' effect. In the past, efforts have been made to explain this phenomenon in terms of several alternative biological hypotheses and a psychosocial hypothesis. This note examines how well these hypotheses accommodate the fraternal birth order effect. It is concluded that: (1) the evidence for the hypothesis of maternal immunoreactivity to the male fetus is weak; (2) the evidence for the intrauterine hormone exposure hypothesis is also weak; (3) the evidence for the hypothesis of postnatal learning is stronger. Lastly, there seem likely to be causes common to male homosexuality and paedophilia. They may include sexual (or quasi-sexual) experience in childhood or adolescence.

James WH: The cause(s) of the fraternal birth order effect in male homosexuality, J Biosoc Sci;36(1):51-9, 61-2, 2004 Jan. MoritzB 03:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is the link to the study? VanTucky 03:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

http://bases.bireme.br/cgi-bin/wxislind.exe/iah/online/?IsisScript=iah/iah.xis&src=google&base=ADOLEC&lang=p&nextAction=lnk&exprSearch=14989531&indexSearch=ID

MoritzB 03:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The rest of the site is in Spanish, what journal was this published in? The cited studies in the article were published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, and it looks as if this, which is a refutation of the majority scientific consensus that fraternal birth order does have a biochemical origin, is also a fringe view. Just because you can find a link on the net to an abstract that looks scientific doesn't mean it was peer-reviewed and reliable. VanTucky 03:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Journal of Biosocial science which is a reputable journal: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=JBS

A PubMed link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14989531&dopt=AbstractPlus

MoritzB 03:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately payment and/or registration is required to view the article via these links, so they are not much help. I think we are also off the topic a little - surely the issue is not whether either study exists but:

• whether the results of the first study are being misinterpreted to confuse correlation with causation; and
• whether including details of one or both of these studies in the article is giving undue weight to their findings compared to the massive volume of research on the other side.

I acknowledge being a late arrival in this debate so if I have missed a key point please let me know. Euryalus 04:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for putting us back on track. I would say that both are true. VanTucky 04:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternative studies

The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study.

This study might help sort out this disagreement. They state that heterosexuals are at about a 20:1 ratio with homosexuals amongst people who are attracted to adults. In contrast the ration falls to 11:1 in the paedophile population. Therefore, although heterosexual paedophiles are about 10-fold more common than homosexual paedophiles, homosexuals are slightly over-represented amongst paedophiles than you would predict from looking at the general population.

In practice, this small effect seems not to be significant.

Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals?

This study addressed the question directly and found no increased risk of sexual abuse by homosexuals, with the vast majority of sexual abuse being carried out by heterosexuals.

Hope this helps sort things out. Tim Vickers 04:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes it does, thanks. When a study shows that only about 9% of pedophiles are homosexual, it makes a big difference in this discussion. Or should. — Becksguy 04:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the method used was phallometric testing.

I agree that we should include all these studies to the article. MoritzB 05:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim Vickers, thanks for the links, they are indeed helpful. On the general point raised above, I don't think we need to add any further comment to the article on this issue, beyond the sentence that exists at this point:

Gay men are also often alleged as having pedophiliac tendencies and more likely to commit child sexual abuse than the heterosexual male population, a view rejected by mainstream psychiatric groups and contradicted by research.

This adequately covers the facts - that there is a minority view that male homosexuality and pedophilia are linked, and that view is not generally supported by research. At best, the sentence might be edited to say "contradicted by most research", but anything beyond that would seem to me to be giving undue weight to what is clearly not the predominant scientific view. Euryalus 05:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The issue is often mentioned in MSM and one of the most common arguments used against the right of homosexuals to be teachers etc.

Even if there is no link between pedophilia and homosexuality there should be a section to debunk this association.

MoritzB 06:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The association is debunked in the above sentence from the article. I have suggested a slightly modified wording if you think the minority view needs more recognition. Beyond this slight modification, I think undue weight would be applied.

Also, pardon my ignorance but what is MSM? Euryalus 06:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that pedophiles being significantly more likely to be gay doesn't mean gays are significantly more likely to be pedophiles, right? Titanium Dragon 07:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• My educated guess is that in this case, MSM = Mainstream Media, i.e., the press. — Becksguy 07:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it means men who have sex with men.--70.53.153.65 12:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT to say that "Scientists" or "Science" as a whole rejects a contention when there are non fringe scientists or studies advocating such a position. It is best to let the facts speak for themselves and simply state that "Study A says..." but "Study B says..." and provide a possible explanation for the discrepancy (which must also be sourced). Suggesting that someone putting forth a position contrary to yours is necessarily "Gay bashing" isn't helpful at all. Wikidudeman 13:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the Blanchard paper

There are two problems with the paper MoritzB originally used as his source: Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles.

One is common to all academic papers, in that the abstract is essentially a long directory entry, designed to give an idea of what's inside for those searching for sources. In other words, it's a search aid, and "sells" the paper, as it were. Using an abstract to draw conclusions is irresponsible, unwarranted, dangerous, and not supported by the intended use of the abstract. It is a bit like reading the blurb on the back of a book, and then discussing the conclusions in the book without reading the book. The blurb is not the book, and the abstract is not the article.

The second is that studies are usually tightly focused, designed for one purpose, to prove/disprove the stated hypothesis. In this paper, based on the abstract (since I'm not going to pay $42 just to read the whole article) the subject of the study was to see if fraternal birth order had an effect on the orientation of the pedophiles included in the study. The first sentence from the abstract says: Whether homosexual pedophiles have more older brothers (a higher fraternal birth order) than do heterosexual pedophiles was investigated. Any other purported conclusions reached from this are just not supported, and are original research. All that one can honestly say is that the paper seems to be about that subject. — Becksguy 06:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If that helps, I have access to the full text. Of course, that doesn't mean I can just distribute it but at least I should be able to answer basic questions about it. Pascal.Tesson 07:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have the access, too. MoritzB 07:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain why you assume they don't have access; I may well have access as well, but I don't really have much desire to read the paper. Titanium Dragon 07:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's a reasonable assumption that at least some of us don't have access to papers behind a subscription wall. In any case, having full access doesn't change the nature of an abstract. And I think it's important to emphasize their limitations, regardless. I'm not interested in pedophiles either, but I am interested when statistics are quoted that would seem to disagree with generally held scientific views about gay sexuality. — Becksguy 09:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"The proportion of pedophiles in this study who were exclusively or primarily interested in boys, as assessed from their offense histories, was 25%. This result is consistent with previous studies that suggest the prevalence of homosexuality is about 10 times higher in pedophiles than in teleiophiles (Blanchard et al., 1999; Gebhard et al., 1965; Mohr et al., 1964)." Gebhard, P. H., Gagnon, J. H., Pomeroy, W. B., and Christenson, C. V. (1965). Sex Offenders: An Analysis of Types, Harper & Row, New York.

Mohr, J.W., Turner, R. E., and Jerry,M. B. (1964). Pedophilia and Exhibitionism, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. MoritzB 07:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You're conflating homosexuality and pedophilia without evidence. The fact that a pedophile is attracted to boys does not necessarily mean that said pedophile is a homosexual adult; i.e. attracted to adult men. An attraction exclusively to underage children may be entirely separate from adult sexuality. FCYTravis 07:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

True. "Ordinary (teleiophilic) homosexual men are no more likely to molest boys than ordinary (teleiophilic) heterosexual men are to molest girls." (Blanchard)

MoritzB 07:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A biological explanation to homosexuality

"Pedophilia and homosexuality tend to occur in the same men because these individuals are generally less resistant to factors that divert psychosexual development from the species-typical outcome of sexual interest in receptive, physically mature females. This hypothesis is consistent with evidence that other sexually variant behaviors, for example, exhibitionism, are also common in pedophiles (Paitich et al., 1977; Raymond et al., 1999; Rooth, 1973). This hypothesis proposes that the clustering of sexual variations results from the absence of a single protective factor, rather than the presence of multiple pathogenic factors, or a single pathogenic factor with multiple effects. The missing protective factor could be analogous to, or an aspect of, the biological phenomenon known as canalization—that is, the tendency for feedback loops to return a developing system to its usual pathway, when that system has been diverted to a minor extent from it."

(Blanchard et. al.). MoritzB 07:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Every so often someone hauls out these studies that the Family Research Council and NARTH love to point to. Here is a nice webpage that walks through each article and debunks the homosexuality/pedophilia link. And, more importantly, here is what the mainstream health organizations say:

"Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children."

Fireplace 13:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the APA's opinion. Of course that too should be mentioned. But you can't exclude various non-fringe studies that contradict the apparent majority viewpoint. Wikidudeman 13:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The quote is misleading because it talks about teleiophilic homosexuals. They don't molest children. However, there are relatively far more homosexual pedophiles than teleiophilic pedophiles.MoritzB 14:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I came here from the ANI post about MoritzB expecting more of the same trouble, but this time I don't see what's wrong. The sources appear fine, and his most recent version doesn't appear to make any controversial interpretation from them (though I can see replacing "link" with "correlation" unless a source actually supposes a "link"). The whole reason that researchers look for a correlation on this point is because it is an issue - I think it compromises the quality of the article to fail to mention these studies about this critical point. The Behnam 14:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the section, but used 'correlation' instead and also added the APA opinion for balance. I'm hoping that this compromise will allow us to start serious work on that topic, as I definitely think it is one of the topics that readers may really be wondering about when they read about homosexuality since they've probably heard stuff to that end. They'll go to Misplaced Pages to see if there is any truth to the alleged association of homosexuality and pedophilia - now they'll be able to find the topic addressed in the article. The Behnam 14:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Behnam's suggested section doesn't present the mainstream view as mainstream. I agree that there should be a paragraph or section mentioning this topic, but WP:UNDUE requires that the mainstream scientific view be given the most coverage and priority, followed by a short mention of the existence of a minority view. Fireplace 14:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a matter of order. Would it be acceptable if we mention the APA opinion first, and then mention Moritz's source as the "however"? I believe that would give the mainstream view "priority." If you agree please restore the content but make the switch. Thanks The Behnam 14:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors, but here's a draft:

According to mainstream health organizations, there is no evidence that gay people are more likely heterosexuals to molest children. The American Psychological Association states: "The perpetrators of child sexual abuse or assault are overwhelmingly adult heterosexual males. In one study, 88% of the adult perpetrators were identified as heterosexual whereas less than 1% were identified as possibly homosexual. In addition, three-quarters (75%) of these heterosexual male perpetrators were or had been in a close relationship with the child's mother, grandmother, or another close relative. This research is consistent with other studies that indicate that individuals who commit child sexual assault or abuse are rarely homosexually identified persons." One researcher explains: "Gay men desire consensual sexual relations with other adult men. Pedophiles are usually adult men who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. They are rarely sexually attracted to other adults." (ref to Stevenson 2000) A minority of researchers, most famously Paul Cameron and Ray Blanchard, have published articles disputing the mainstream view.

Fireplace 15:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like roughly the same set-up (mainstream then non-mainstream), except that for some added OR and exclusion of the actual findings of the minority. By OR I refer to such framing statements as "a minority of researchers," "most famously," etc. We'll need a source to state that they are a minority, as we aren't supposed to use our own judgment for that sort of claim. Also, why should we actually exclude the minority work? The reader may actually be interested in that, perhaps more so than the APA's work alone. The Behnam 15:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• The Behnam - Please wait to make changes until there is consensus, when those changes are under discussion. Thanks — Becksguy 15:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I'm worried that the reverts I'm seeing here, with their call to consensus and, ironically, a request to use the talk page instead of reverting, suggest that this page is subject to gang rule. As for my changes, I tried my best to incorporate concerns about Moritz's proposed inclusions at each step. First, I added the APA opinion for balance, then when Fireplace complained about priority, I adjusted the content to treat priority properly. I believe that the approach of 'fixing the problem' is much better than closeting it. In fact, I'm wondering why you didn't simply try to adjust it - is it that you think the topic is not appropriate to even discuss in this article? Even Fireplace doesn't seem to think that. Yes, it may be a contentious issue, but it is a fairly notable one that deserve fair coverage in this article. The Behnam 15:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just coming back to the discussion from a break, I have to say that Fireplace's addition would be fine. The problem that made Moritz's addition completely unacceptable is that it presented a fringe idea (and yes, two studies out of all the evidence available and the statemens of the APA is fringe) as the mainstream, factual truth. The studies he cited don't contradict the statements of the APA and such. They're just numbers. Using Moritz's POV interpretation of the stats to form an original research minority opposition based in scientific fact that doesn't exist is unacceptable. VanTucky 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I made no interpretations or original research. You are well aware of that. MoritzB 18:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No I am not "aware of that". You took studies and information, which included reliable statistics, and used them to prove your point causally connecting homosexuality and pedophilia. That's OR. Correlation is not causation. VanTucky 22:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I have a question about process and policy. Does the fact that MoritzB referred to the people who disagree with him as "NAMBLA members", "'LGBT'" people (LGBT in quotes, possibly implying derision?) and "left-wingers" have any bearing on whether or not his perspective is considered POV-pushing or OR? In other words - assuming for a moment that MoritzB has an agenda - does the fact that he has an agenda have any effect on the assessment of his edits? Also, does the manner in which his POV was discovered have any implications? I ask because this is a very interesting scenario that I haven't encountered before, although it may be more common than I realize. Thanks! Popkultur 22:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

While his canvassing, use of perjoratives, and history of conflicts on other sensitive issues is convincing to me, this is not the appropriate forum. Generally, we are admonished to stick to content, not contributors in discussing articles. Issues of user conduct may be brought up at WP:ANI and WP:RFC. VanTucky 23:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Popkultur 23:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Important comment. Blanchard agrees with the APA. He says that "ordinary (teleiophilic) homosexual men are no more likely to molest boys than ordinary (teleiophilic) heterosexual men are to molest girls" although he supports this statement with no evidence.

However, Freund says that "homosexuals are at about a 11:1 ratio in the pedophile population and at a 20:1 ratio in the general population".

Thus, Fireplace's version would misrepresent Blanchard. Blanchard's data indicates that 25-40% of pedophiles are homosexual, i.e. they are attracted to boys.MoritzB 18:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Animal section

Why is there information about animal sexuality forked into this article? This is supposed to be about humans, not other animals (as there are other articles for animal sexuality), so I find it to be quite irrelevant to the article. I'm not sure why it is there - is this simply a confusion about the article's scope or a more sinister attempt to use the naturalistic fallacy to support homosexuality?

I propose removal of the section. We can just have an italicized sentence containing a link to animal sexuality for anyone who came this article but really wanted to read about gay penguins. The Behnam 14:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The section seems relevant to me, but it could probably be trimmed and turned into a bullet list rather than a series of subsections. Fireplace 14:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How is it relevant? The article clearly indicates that it is discussing people. The Behnam 14:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The article about about homosexuality. We mostly care about homosexuality in humans. But, there is also a fairly rich study of homosexuality in non-human animals. Some social constructivists might have views about how non-human animals cannot be homosexual or exhibit homosexual behavior for social identity reasons, but on a simple understanding of homosexuality as relating to same-sex sexual activity, non-human animals are not exlcuded. Fireplace 14:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But we already have an article on animal sexuality that discusses their homosexuality. My understanding of the lead is that we are addressing the human orientation here, which receives wildly different treatment than other animals. The Behnam 14:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that my previous comment responds to that point in full. Also, you're being very aggressive about making contentious changes to the article while discussion is ongoing. Is that really necessary? Fireplace 15:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that your previous comment responded to that point in full, unfortunately. I've left a note (w/ link) at the top of the article for any readers who actually want to read about the animals, and I've removed the irrelevant information. I don't really see how inclusion can be justified unless we are working specifically from studies that compare human homosexuality with animal homosexuality, and associated conclusions. That section would probably be about the comparison, rather than being a list of information about arbitrarily selected gay animals. As for the hurtful characterization of my editing as 'aggressive', please read by response to that other guy above. The Behnam 15:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Truly aggressive editing may be this . A "new" user (a "gay activist" for that matter!), but no edit summary, no valuable addition to the talk page discussion. The only reason it can stand is because the 'weight in numbers' approach prevails in reality, even if it against Misplaced Pages policy. I also notice that you others haven't been saying much as of late. For now, I shall assume that this is simply because you are too busy... The Behnam 17:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already responded to you. This is a summary-style article about homosexuality per se, and non-human animal homosexuality is an aspect of that. I agree that the section is too long relative to the article, and can be trimmed. You seem concerned about a "naturalistic fallacy" -- you're welcome to add a sentence or two discussing the role that animal homosexuality has played in public debates over LGBT issues. Fireplace 18:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm concerned that the section is a barely coherent and arbitrary list of various gay animals. The animal sexuality does not remain within the scope - if you really think that we should devolve the article by widening the scope, please adjust the lead to reflect this. For now, this article is about a deviancy in people, and should only discuss points relevant to this. As such, I'm willing to discuss any RS comparison relating human homosexuality to animal homosexuality (regardless of whether or not the naturalistic fallacy is present), though I'm not familiar with public debates on the issue. Has the naturalistic fallacy come up in them? Somehow I think that you may know more about this aspect.

Anyway, if I assume that you want to widen the scope, I can take a hand at trimming the section. What I think may help is just removing the subsections devoted to certain animals, and perhaps discussing the comparisons instead. Overall I think it would be a mistake to widen the scope, as it would push this article closer towards a 'grab-bag' article rather than a concrete and unified narrative of the subject. The Behnam 19:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that no one is "widening the scope of the article" -- the homosexuality in animals section has been around for over a year (if not longer) without incident. Fireplace 19:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that its presence in the article has been inappropriate all of this time. The Behnam 20:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The studies and information done on animals is extremely relevant to a discussion of human homosexuality for one very important reason: opponents of homosexuality as a legitimate sexual orientation determined by biology often argue that homosexuality is not found in nature, or is not the same as human homosexuality. Humans are animals too, and a comparison of a human sexual behavior to its counterparts in the animal kingdom is relevant, especially considering the comparison is made in the media and science. Plenty of reliable sources consider human homosexuality in the context of the larger animal kingdom. VanTucky 18:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you for being honest with me. I suspected that this section was designed to advance one side of the debate over whether or not homosexuality is "natural." As VanTucky said, some critics say that it is not natural and therefore 'bad,' while apologists respond by saying that it is natural and therefore 'good.' I've brought up the naturalistic fallacy because it is the mistake made by both sides of that debate. The issue is within the article's human scope, but only if presented properly.

Anyway, now that the true purpose of the animal section has come to light, the section should be revamped to reflect this. Right now, generic information about animal homosexuality is being used to sneakily bolster one side of the silly naturalistic fallacy debate. It might make sense to use these particular studies in support of the apologetic side, but it is not our job to do their work for them, as this synthesis of claims to advance a position violates WP:SYN. As such, we should only use RS that directly discuss the comparison between human homosexuality and animal homosexuality and any conclusions they draw from it. Of course we should be neutral in that we cover both sides, etc.

If the section is thus changed, I believe that it will not only be more encyclopedic (by removing the OR issue and scope concern), but will also provide a better picture of homosexuality and issues surrounding it to the reader. The article will ultimately be improved. The Behnam 19:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're reading too many bad faith/scheming motivations into other editors. The article is about homosexuality, and animal homosexuality is relevant both per se and insofar as it enters into the LGBT rights debate. Fireplace 19:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I don't really insist that it was a scheme - I suppose "sneaky" wasn't the best wording since it may have been an inadvertent projection of beliefs via synthesis into the article. When I saw the section, which didn't appear to directly fit into the article's scope (clearly about humans), part of WP:OR's lead came to me... "The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." In this case, a synthesis that appears to advance a position. VanTucky's statement about why it is really relevant confirmed this to me. So there is a problem, but there is also a solution.

To be completely honest, I don't care if it was a 'scheme' or not - all I want us to do is fix it. Are you with me? The Behnam 20:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think the animal section is now overly short. It was fine as it was for at least a year (according to Fireplace), which implies consensus that it belonged in it's longer state. I'm OK with a bit of judicious trimming, but not this much. I think some of the verbiage on sheep should be put back in. — Becksguy 20:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free, just keep in mind that this is a WP:SUMMARY-style article, and we merely need to provide an overview of each topic. Fireplace 20:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You've totally misinterpreted what I said Behnam. Just because science deals with animal cases of homosexuality doesn't mean they use it in the same way that opponents try to, and this not what the section does. It never once makes an affirmative statement alluding to the idea that if animal homosexuality exists, then human homosexuality is moral. Animal sexual behavior has nothing to do with human morality, especially considering most opposition to homosexuality stems from a practice completely foriegn to the rest of the animal kingdom, religion. Presenting facts on animal homosexuality to put human homosexuality in a scientific context doesn't mean it morally approves of the practice. That's your conclusion, not the article's. VanTucky 22:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware that it never makes the affirmative statement, but it aims to provide the groundwork for one side of an unmentioned debate (hence I considered it 'sneaky'). As far as your statement, what I'm looking at "is extremely relevant to a discussion of human homosexuality for one very important reason: opponents of homosexuality as a legitimate sexual orientation determined by biology often argue that homosexuality is not found in nature, or is not the same as human homosexuality" - As such you admit that the information is relevant to human homosexuality because of a particular debate over whether or not it is 'natural'. The section of the article that you are claiming as relevant on this account does not actually use RS directly addressing the debate itself, but instead simply lists some of the studies that proponents of the 'gay is natural' position use to support their position. This grouping of studies appears aimed to advance their position (regardless of whether or not a conclusion is plainly stated), and hence violates WP:OR (and NPOV). This must be fixed. If the debate is what makes it relevant, let's use sources (from both sides) discussing the debate itself. BTW, disregard the stuff about the 'naturalistic fallacy' unless we find a source pointing this out - it was my personal opinion of the debate and was not intended to be a proposed inclusion. The Behnam 04:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The animal section is also a highly relevant place to discuss current studies on model organisms and the genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation. I've added a paragraph discussing this in Drosophila. Tim Vickers 17:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

!!! Gay foster parents abused young boys !!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/5109518.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/23/ngay23.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/23/ixuknews.html

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/06/the-horrors-of-political-correctness/

Two men who sexually abused young boys placed in their foster care have been sent to prison.

You need to add this to the article ! The horrors of political correctness ! We need to stop it and let the true be free !

--Greetings ] 22:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear whether you're serious (the trouble you've gone to with the links says you are, the exclamation marks suggests you're not). If you are serious, it is very unlikely that there will be consensus to add this material to the article because among other reasons:

• While the BBC source at least is reliable, it does not make any claim regarding homosexuals or homosexuality in general. As this article is about homosexuality in general, the details of these sources do not appear relevant.
• Inclusion of news about a single gay couple would give undue weight to their story compared to those of every other relevant individual.
• Caution is required when including news reports on current events. This is not to say that current events should be ignored, but it sometimes important to let the dust settle. See both WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:DUST for more detail.

Hope this helps explain why this story doesn't belong in the article. If you disagree, feel free to discuss further and/or seek consensus for any changes. Euryalus 01:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the exception not the rule. There are many more heterosexuals who abuse their foster children. Sheesh. - Jeeny  01:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. WP:SYN again, as with the lengthy MoritzB discussion above. Euryalus 01:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me started on MoritzB, yuck. - Jeeny  02:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• It most definitely does not belong in the article as it is, since it's very POV driven, and about one case only. — Becksguy 03:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethical aspects of homosexuality

We should create this section and article to examine philosophical arguments for or against homosexuality. (NPOV: 50/50)

Cf. Ethical aspects of abortion MoritzB 03:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a really bad idea to me. There are no ethical issues, except for that tiny minority of extreme=ists of course, many of who try and support pedophilia by equating it with homosexuality. Just charming! SqueakBox 03:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There certainly are ethical issues. Plato condemned homosexuality. Thomas Aquinas condemned homosexuality. The views of these philosophers are relevant because they shaped Western attitudes towards homosexuality.

It is also relevant that Friedrich Engels condemned homosexuality and consequently thousands of homosexuals were imprisoned in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries.MoritzB 03:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Another trolling attempt by Moritz in order to play with people and his racial philosophies and extreme prejudice to make this project a joke. Ugh. I think a ban is in order. He is very disruptive to Misplaced Pages. Look at his contributions. A troll is a troll.- Jeeny  03:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, countless books have been written on the topic: http://browse.barnesandnoble.com/browse/nav.asp?visgrp=nonfiction&N=355113&Ne=182068+178075+355103+355113&z=y It is certainly notable. MoritzB 03:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

See Societal attitudes toward homosexuality. Arguments on both sides of specific gay rights issues are discussed on their respective articles. Fireplace 03:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Also abortion is a choice, homosexuality is not. - Jeeny  03:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added the above wikilink to the "See Also" section. Euryalus 03:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

However, there is the philosophical discussion is very shallow in that article and not even in its scope.MoritzB 03:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As always, if you feel an article needs improvement you should seek consensus for changes on its talk page. However, given a detailed article on your proposed topic already exists there is no need to create a new one. Euryalus 04:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• NPOV does not mean that each side gets the same weight, space, prominence, quality of text, depth of detail, number of references, or number of words in an article. Quoting the first paragraph of the the undue weight section in the policy on NPOV:

  NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.

  So there is no 50/50 NPOV split unless there actually is a 50/50 split in reliable sources, as per above. And that's not the case here. Lets refer to this as the WP:FLATEARTH concept. Read the whole policy on WP:NPOV. — Becksguy 05:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

True. The views of philosophers who pass a certain threshold of notability (Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Engels) are overwhelmingly anti-homosexual. Do you mean that the section should be 90% anti-homosexual because of the lack of pro-homosexual philosophers? MoritzB 05:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are using outdated sources and opinion, when this is the 21st century, where biology, science, and opinions have changed since and have been disproved. Now you're going back to Plato? Please stop going back in time to help your POV which you continue to push using outdated science, genetics, opinion and views. This is an encyclopedia, not ancient history revisited. - Jeeny  05:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It might surprise you but students of philosophy actually study Plato, Kant and other great philosophers. Their views are certainly notable enough on Misplaced Pages although the views of some modern philosophers might not be. MoritzB 06:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, of course it doesn't surprise me, as I have studied them all. Of course "they" are notable in their own right. Yet again, this is the 21st century. If you want, then add it to "Plato, Kant, and other great philosophers'" articles about their views. It does not make it so NOW, as things have changed, like....um, science, biology and genetics. As we have advanced in technology and knowledge since. BTW, I still enjoy reading Plato, Socrates, and other notable philosophers using my "critical thinking" abilities. Maybe you need to take course.- Jeeny  07:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• You are taking people out of context, MoritzB. True, Plato was apparently anti-homosexual, but he was an extremely small minority within a culture that overwhelmingly and famously celebrated homosexuality. And what about pre-19th century Japanese culture with the flourishing of Samurai warrior and Buddhist monastic homosexuality. Or the thousands of homosexuals that were burned at the state during the Inquisitions (which wasn't just about heresy). There are times, cultures, states, and persons that are anti-homosexual, and others that are the opposite. Using a different argument, Plato most likely subscribed to the general viewpoint of his culture in which women were property and not citizens. Assuming that's true, does that viewpoint support anti-feminism today in a notable, verifiable and neutral way? I don't think so. Bottom line: I agree with much of what Jeeny said above. And more importantly, about your repeated POV pushing. — Becksguy 08:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh, Athens had very strict laws against homosexual prostitution. Plato did not think that women were "property". However, Plato's views of homosexuality and women are definitely relevant in describing the evolution philosophical views.MoritzB 08:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• The US has very strict laws against heterosexual prostitution, so based my understanding of your logic, does that mean heterosexuality doesn't exist in the US? And Plato apparently had a couple of boyfriends. But you seem to be missing the point Jeeny and I are making. Plato's views on homosexuality are really only notable in an historical context, such as an article on the history of homosexuality, or on Classical Greece. In other words, that was then, this is now. You even essentially admitted to that when you referred to "...the evolution philosophical views." Which means history of... — Becksguy 10:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, also historical ethical views should be included to the article. As billions of people in the world still condemn homosexuality this position is still mainstream. 42% of Americans say that homosexuality should not be accepted and in the Third World the opposition to homosexuality is even stronger. There are a lot of contemporary philosophers who condemn homosexuality in the tradition of Plato et. al.

For example: http://www.cofc.edu/hettinger/Intro_to_Philosophy_Sp_06/Levin_Homosexuality_Abnormality_Civil_Rights.htm MoritzB 11:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

To present Plato as anti-homosexual is just plain wrong. He wrote the Symposium which is one long endorsement of homosexuality (suggesting that the Greek army should consist of paired homosexual partners) and his often misquoted phrase "against nature" in Laws (para physin in Greek - literally "outside nature") meant in context man-made and non-procreative rather than contravening some kind of natural law. The concept of natural law as we use it now only arose a whole millenium later. Male prostitution was prevalent in Athens, see the wikipedia article on ], and as in Rome, the social stigma attached to male prostitution had nothing to do with homosexuality itself, but rather the notion that free men should not submit to the work of slaves. As in Rome, there was no social stigma attached to using slaves whether male or female for sexual services. See e.g. Boswell (1980) on this. As for historical viewpoints of homosexuality, we already both have History of homosexuality and Societal attitudes towards homosexuality which are more than adequate for this purpose. The list of books provided are political rather than philosophical books with the word 'ethics' in the title. ~

1. Ray Blanchard, Howard E. Barbaree, Anthony F. Bogaert, Robert Dickey, Philip Klassen, Michael E. Kuban and Kenneth J. Zucker: Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 29, Number 5 (2000), pages 463 to 478.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles