Talk:Homosexuality

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sex.svg

This Sexuality related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Silverbrain.png
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Update genetics section?[edit]

Would anyone familiar with RW's formatting/style be interested in updating the section on Xq28 to reference the studies conducted/published over the period 2012-2014? Link here (though I wasn't able to find one in public domain, sorry about that): https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/genomewide-scan-demonstrates-significant-linkage-for-male-sexual-orientation/864518601436C95563EA670C5F380343

196.54.41.39 (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Homosexuality is a mental disorder 2[edit]

I know this because i am gay myself ;( — Unsigned, by: 74.200.200.42 / talk / contribs

I'm sorry to hear of your difficulties dealing with your sexuality 74.200, I, personally, am of the opinion that being gay is hardwired in, not a software problem at all. To labor under that misunderstanding though can be a great burden. (Especially around the holidays). Take good care. CЯacke®

Oh really https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201509/when-homosexuality-stopped-being-mental-disorder BAM.Doublethink (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Study concludes that one is not born being homosexual?[edit]

Hi, I came across a report from "The New Atlantis" on this subject, and I would like to discuss it to see how to deal with this information, thanks. (I must clarify that I am not against the LGBT group, I just want to see their opinions about it)

Link: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/preface-sexuality-and-gender — Unsigned, by: Slippy The Toad / talk / contribs

Slippy The Toad New Atlantis is an anti-LGBT journal, however, there are studies and data that contradict his conclusion. For example, about the suicide rate issue, there are too many tests that confirm it is because discrimination (with transexuality: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031/ LGB-focused, CDC article:https://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/youth.htm ). There are not studies, both psychological and biological with 100% of correlation.
Also, you put the ¿ in the title, so I suppose that you, like me, are a native Spanish speaker, here I left a twitter thread refuting the article with sources: https://mobile.twitter.com/balkraix/status/1049284546586402821

Oppression and Psychological harm[edit]

I have removed the sections "Oppression" and "Psychological harm", which are archived below.

The "Oppression" section talks essentially about arguments against same-sex marriage, so I think it would be more appropriate in the page Gay marriage, although those arguments are already there.

The "Psychological harm" section talks about drug abuse by homosexuals and when homosexuality was considered a mental illness. It has a potential but, as it is, is too confusing... it should be converted into a discussion about the past and current consideration of homosexuality in medicine, and probably the part on drug abuse by homosexuals should be drop.

McLaghing (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of "Love ♥❤️💗" section[edit]

(Before you call me homophobe: Check that I have previously worked to improved this page.)

I have removed the section Love ♥❤️💗, because:

  1. Now the page is more on "homosexuality", as it should be, than "homophobia", as it was, so the "washing of the taste of bigotry" does not make sense anymore.
  2. Although surely written with good intentions, I believe it is really silly thinking that homosexuals need "love" at the and of this page...
  3. Contents about homosexual rights and activism should be in the page Gay rights.

McLaghing (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no complaints. You're reasons are sound in my eyes at least. Comrade GC (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Group selection[edit]

Why is pseudoscience such as the gay uncle theory taken seriously in this article? No biologist would take the gay uncle theory seriously due to its being a group selectionist hypothesis. Recent epigenetic theories are not mentioned at all in this article! — Unsigned, by: 1.143.56.238 / talk

If you can cite peer-reviewed papers disputing the gay uncle theory, you're welcome to correct as appropriate. Also adding text with peer-reviewed citations for the epigenetic theories would be good. Bongolian (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)