Talk:Homosexuality/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 26 January 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

Lesbianism[edit]

I have read so much about "homosexuality" in the animal kingdom, but, this seems to me more about dominance than "sexuality." In fact, correct me if I'm wrong but there is little to no reports of Lesbianism in the animal kingdom. Why is that?— Unsigned, by: [[User:|User:]] / [[User talk:|talk]] / contribs

Is this new? I'm assuming not, but I am a noob who doesn't know how templates work. Let us see how this goes Dowdicus (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
hoorah Dowdicus (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Assuming so, rather, but shouldn't there be a bunch of numbers? Dowdicus (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Romantic attraction?[edit]

The article states that a "romantic attraction" (as opposed to a sexual attraction) amounts to homosexuality. Is that right? --Horace 18:33, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Unless someone just changed it (and I think it was this way?) it says "sexual and/or romantic attraction". So you can want to marry them or fuck them, either way, you're gay. No excuses, no refunds. humanbe in 18:50, 31 May 2007 (CDT)


Wow, looks like CP has locked the talk page for this topic, only opening it for brief windows so people can make suggestions. I knew these guys were insular and paranoid, but they're really going to town with it now. Note that the suggestion was then removed from the Main Page talk. --Kels 11:52, 5 July 2007 (CDT)


Regardless of what the public approves of, most people find gayness to be undesirable or creepy (I go with the second). — Unsigned, by: 68.197.172.92 / talk / contribs

Substitute the word "gayness" above with "Jews", "Asians", "African Americans", "breeders", etc. Sounds offensive, huh?

That was me being twitchy, sorry. Too much coffee. Smyth 16:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Homosexual Agenda[edit]

Any chance we can at least find a place to link to this image? --Kels 16:21, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Gawd, I hope not. It's almost unreadable, and I still can't make myself follow it. Maybe it's a genre one has to be "into" to get? But surely, the HA deserves some hard core mocking (as a talking point) here on RW. humanbe in 20:37, 11 July 2007 (CDT)
Most of that comic was funny but when i looked at the bottom i dident liek teh authors name so i hate teh comic just because of the name of teh wirtor. StupidIdiot 02:16, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Ed Poor[edit]

Honestly, I have no idea what he's quoting in the first point here, but in the second point, isn't he quoting himself? I remember him posting those exact same words before and getting laughed at for it. --Kels 20:05, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Homosexuality is wrong[edit]

Homosexuality is wrong. WHITE POWER 17:39, 6 November 2007 (EST)

You're wrong.-αmεσ (spy) 20:16, 6 November 2007 (EST)
Oh, being different is wrong..god hates gay ppl..... Your funnier than the Global Warming artical. 98.17.61.6 20:20, 6 November 2007 (EST)
Ur gay.
And you - get a username already, will ya?? Uchiha 20:22, 6 November 2007 (EST)
I agree, WHITE POWER must be gay. Elassint Throw things at me 20:29, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I want to hear this dude make a real argument.-αmεσ (spy) 20:29, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Gay marriage is wrong for numerous reasons.

  1. The Bible says so in Leviticus 18:22.
  2. Gay marriage is incapable of procreating and producing offspring to further the human population.
  3. Gay marriage breaks down the traditional family by offering 'alternative lifestyles'.
  4. It confuses our children about their sexuality and lifestyle choices. When young children are exposed to such choices when they are young, they become less likely to function as healthy adults.
  5. It allows the government greater clout into personal and family lives by expanding the sacred definition of marriage.
  6. Being gay is a mental disorder

WHITE POWER 20:43, 6 November 2007 (EST)


1. The Bible says so in Leviticus 18:22. So what. The Bible has no bearing on my life whatsoever.

2. Gay marriage is incapable of procreating and producing offspring to further the human population. So is my childless heterosexual marriage. Should we get divorced? Should we not be allowed to marry?.

3. Gay marriage breaks down the traditional family by offering 'alternative lifestyles'. The traditional family sucks. Lots of beaten and sexually abused kids come from traditional families. Traditional families used to include lotsa and lotsa wives, child brides and arranged marriages too. Things change.

4. It confuses our children about their sexuality and lifestyle choices. When young children are exposed to such choices when they are young, they become less likely to function as healthy adults. Children have always run the risk of developing into unhealthy adults. It's a big, scary, confusing and dangerous world out there. Get them used to it.

5. It allows the government greater clout into personal and family lives by expanding the sacred definition of marriage. Don't be stupid. It allows the government less clout in personal lives by letting them, you know, do what they want.

Why am I arguing with you, though - your user name is a clue that you're a moron. Back to work. PFoster 20:59, 6 November 2007 (EST)


Here's my list (compiled independently of PFoster's, although some points are similar):
1. It says so in other places besides Leviticus too. It also says that women have to wear hats when in church (1 Corinthians 11). Do the women you go to church with do that?
2. Many heterosexual marriages are incapable of procreation. I guess that should be outlawed also.
3. Please cite a scientific study showing that same-sex parents are any worse than opposite-sex parents in raising children.
4. Again, cite a scientific study showing that children with same-sex parents are worse off. Obviously your (presumably heterosexual) parents were great at instilling values such as "respect for others" in you.
5. Wouldn't permitting any two consenting adult individuals to marry reduce government interference in personal lives? Why does the government get to decide who can marry whom?
6. Mental disorder? Again, cite something please. Study within the last decade.--Bayesupdate 21:02, 6 November 2007 (EST)


1. The Bible says so in Leviticus 18:22.

Response: Right, let's get rid of them pork chops too.

2. Gay marriage is incapable of procreating and producing offspring to further the human population.

Response:6.2 billion people isn't near enough?

3. Gay marriage breaks down the traditional family by offering 'alternative lifestyles'.

Response: The "lifestyles" in question will be lived regardless of whatever state sanctions are (or are not), unless, we go back to the "good old days" we people were set ablaze to amuse, delight and read Leviticus by.

4. It confuses our children about their sexuality and lifestyle choices. When young children are exposed to such choices when they are young, they become less likely to function as healthy adults.

Response: So where do gay folk come from if not from "traditional families"? I am amused by your choice of verbiage, "lifestyle choices", when you're arguing that they haven't (really) got any choices, cause, you know Leviticus says so.

5. It allows the government greater clout into personal and family lives by expanding the sacred definition of marriage.

Response: "sacred definition of marriage"? Wha..huh? Yeah, how dare government define who people should marry!? Unless, of course you'd like to go back, back, back to the days before Loving vs Virginia (which, given your usenname I'm going to count on.

6. Being gay is a mental disorder.

Response: Being gay is uncommon good luck, this is offset by folk who claim it to be "sin" or "unnatural" or a "mental disorder".
I'll take being gay over being a bigot any day.
CЯacke® 21:37, 6 November 2007 (EST)


It is NOT natural or normal for two men to have sex with each other!!! Sexual Orientation is the same for all normal people- the opposite sex!!! For whatever reason, some people have a PREFERENCE for the same sex, and that IS a perversion and a disorder, that CAN be changed, no matter what the homosexual mafia says...It would not be easy, but it can be done, and it is worth it...All those people that are saying there is nothing wrong with being homosexual are NOT helping the homosexual community...They think they are, but in reality, it is just the opposite....And I know that the pro gay crowd that teaches "tolerance" the loudest will show their true colors, and be very "tolerant" of this letter (LOL) and they will "not" call me a a bigot, or say any other hateful things, as is the normal for you pro homosexual crud............You only have "tolerance" for other people that are pro homosexual... Go ahead, blast me with all the hate that you want to, because I love and care for you all to tell you the truth, that homosexuality IS a MENTAL DISORDER!!— Unsigned, by: WHITE POWER / talk / contribs

No, it has been proven that animals have gay tendencies, so it is compeltly nartuel. Elassint Throw things at me 21:31, 6 November 2007 (EST)
If you're going to argue "our" side please spele correctly. Thanks. CЯacke®
Please, I'm dying to know. How can homosexuality be changed? NorsemanWassail! 21:32, 6 November 2007 (EST)

we can develop a cure for gayness. or we can send gay ppl to a mental hosiptal (or at least have them take meds for there disorder)— Unsigned, by: WHITE POWER / talk / contribs

Or we could put a bullet in your head and have one less problem to worry about. Sounds good to me. DickTurpis 21:45, 6 November 2007 (EST)

We have a cure for ignorance too, it's called "learning". CЯacke®

It is NOT natural or normal for two men to have sex with each other!!! Then why do so many of them do it, across histories and cultures? Why do so many people feel overwhelming attraction for their own sex and not for the opposite sex?

homosexuality IS a MENTAL DISORDER!! Big claim. Prove it. PFoster 21:42, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Men have a hot dog. Women have a hot dog bun. They where created for each other. — Unsigned, by: WHITE POWER / talk / contribs

Ah, WP, you don't know a guy named "Hank" by any chance, do ya? CЯacke®
Is that YEC i hear? And think about this: Maybe at one time straights were only used for breeding and gays ruled the planet. Elassint Throw things at me 21:47, 6 November 2007 (EST)
Thanks, Mr. Power, for your coherent and logical responses. You do realize that the only person name calling and raving about being persecuted is...uh...let's see...YOU. Homosexual mafia? What do they do, extort sequin manufacturers and run a racket on ABBA recordings?--Bayesupdate 21:45, 6 November 2007 (EST)
Ixnay on the BAABay deal, we've almost cornered the market. CЯacke®

I thought those crazy environmentalist were the craziest people ever. I was wrong. You are clearly the dumbest person i have ever met,and you have no brain to call your own. 98.17.61.6 21:49, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I'm starting to feel sorry for you, WHITE POWER. Why can't you just admit it and get on with your life? Elassint Throw things at me 21:51, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Medication only treats mental disorders, not cure (generally; I'm no medical genius here). Also, mental health hospitals would be admitting so many homosexuals for "treatment" that they'd all be overcrowded, which isn't good. NorsemanWassail! 21:54, 6 November 2007 (EST)

True Norseman, true, but think how nice those mental hospitals would look! CЯacke®
Thats an unfair gay stereotype. Elassint Throw things at me 22:01, 6 November 2007 (EST)

This guys pathetic, he is probably some sort of Retard/Neo-Nazi. 98.17.61.6 21:57, 6 November 2007 (EST)


You know what. Homosexuality is the tool of the devil! WHITE POWER 23:11, 6 November 2007 (EST)

OK, you are just stupid. 98.17.61.6 23:11, 6 November 2007 (EST)
no your jsut stupid — Unsigned, by: WHITE POWER / talk / contribs
Okay, half the words there spelled wrong. Yes, this guy is a parody. Is that you, TK? DickTurpis 23:17, 6 November 2007 (EST)

God hates homos! - Hate to break it to you. There's no such a thing as God. And if there was, I'm sure he'd have more important things on his mind. PFoster 23:25, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Wow.... just wow...... Mental... wow..... I think my IQ just dropped about a hundred points. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 23:23, 6 November 2007 (EST)

i hate to break it to you but you will most likly end up in hell unless you repent — Unsigned, by: WHITE POWER / talk / contribs

If everyone who is supposedly going to end up in hell ends up in hell, it's gonna be one hell(pun intended) of a party. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 23:30, 6 November 2007 (EST)

You, WHITE POWER sound like the perfect guy to join me in hell. And your username is GREAT! — Unsigned, by: satan / talk / contribs

What about us grils?[edit]

Sorry to have to (+) but I've been ec'd about 4 times in a row - very popular subject.

I notice that you say it's wrong (according to 2000 y. o. myth) for two men to do naughties together, what about two women? Or does that turn you on? Susanpurr 21:51, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Everybody loves lesbians, that's why! NorsemanWassail! 21:54, 6 November 2007 (EST)
Yeah, I thought we had already settled the whole "lesbian hotness" issue...girl on girl is ok, boy on boy is yucky.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 22:38, 6 November 2007 (EST)
Notice our little white power hasn't commented for a while. Susanpurr 22:51, 6 November 2007 (EST)
I think he caught a second wind before starting again. NorsemanWassail! 23:26, 6 November 2007 (EST)
It's a skewl night. CЯacke®

What i think[edit]

I believe Homosexuality should be mandatory. A Liberal 15:17, 11 November 2007 (EST)


Well, i think someone put a message in the user creation logs that you bettter take a look at; FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! 209.17.190.78 13:38, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Oh yes, the three new usernames spelling out "god" "hates" and "homosexuality". Of course, in creation order they read "homosexuality" "hates" "god". I fail to see why it should be for my good that this was done. Totnesmartin 13:43, 13 November 2007 (EST)
If read in creation order they read "homosexuality" "hates" "god". That is true because homosexuality is related to satan. 209.17.190.78
What grade are you in? CЯacke®
11th. I'm a B+ student. 209.17.190.78
Satan - but there isn't a Satan. the only evidence for Satan is from the bible - which is mythology rather than fact. Totnesmartin 14:00, 13 November 2007 (EST)
Satan is also a symbol; most Satanists are atheists. Assume a!=a 19:41, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Homosexuality is a mental disorder[edit]

A mental disorder is when the brain malfunctions. Human is not perfect so they "Break" and that is what a mental disorder is. Homosexuality is a malfunction of the humans natural sexual attraction, hence it is a mental disorder. 209.17.190.78 14:09, 13 November 2007 (EST)

And you are, of course, a certified mental health professional who is qualified to speak with authority on the subject? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:13, 13 November 2007 (EST)
No, homosexuality is a breaking free from genetic determinism! I approve of homosexuality. More gay Christians please, Mr Spong! '*Jesus*' 15:05, 15 November 2007 (EST)
@ AKjeldsen: Of course they are! That's why they didn't include their name, and offered absolutely no support except their own conjecture! Duh! DysPerDisTalk to me 00:59, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Homosexuality in the bible.[edit]

We presently have: On the religious side, conservatives generally fall back on various Old Testament translations of the Bible to justify their view of (male) homosexuality as an abomination, while, of course, ignoring any other rules laid down in those sections of the Bible. There are certainly some new testament texts which seem to regard homosexuality in a bad light. I say this, not as a criticism of homosexuality, but to point out that the NT is not quite as liberal as the article seems to suggest.--Bobbing up 06:27, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Well, one could put forward a case for it on the basis of Jesus and Paul laying down 'compassion' as the basis, summation, and supercession of the law. --82.44.64.173
One could also put forward a case in, for existence, Romans 1:26 - 27 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Which also seems to take a sideways swipe at lesbians before coming down on male gays. So I'm not seeing all the tolerance soem would like.--Bobbing up 07:53, 27 December 2007 (EST)
The Romans passage makes clear that homosexuality was the penalty (penilty?) for "worshiping the creation rather than the Creator". IOW, the actual "sin" was idolatry and "we know they committed the sin of idolatry since they're gay, which doesn't "happen" to natural (normal) people, but ONLY idolaters."

CЯacke® 08:10, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Oh come on. This passage obviously says that whoever wrote it thought that homosexuality as a bod (bad?) thing.--Bobbing up 08:30, 27 December 2007 (EST)
In context, it shows up as a Bad Thing visited on people who had already given up on god, by god. It's sort of like saying the "sin" of being sent to hell, is the only way it can' be for those who reject the gospel. Notice how Romans 2 turns it around, "some of YOU were like that!" IOW, Once folk repented of the idolatry the lust for other men fell by the way, since under the New Covenant God doesn't hold so much of a grudge.CЯacke®
OK - but it's obviously presented as a bad thing.--Bobbing up 08:59, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Bah; one could go either way (no pun intended). You can either extrapolate out a policy from what is repeatedly stated as the basis of Christianity by the big guy himself, or you can go with what is specifically said, which seems like, as you say, a 'sideswipe'. Remember that Jesus trumps Paul in the NT, and he seemed quite moderate and mild with regard to all of the stuff deemed 'sexual misconduct' in the OT (eg adulteress story). --82.44.64.173
Ok, but it - and other passages - are in the NT. It's a specific passage which speaks explicitly against homosexuality. The authors of the bible were following the OT tradition which also clearly spoke against homosexuality. Are there any passages which explicitly refer to homosexuality and say it's OK? --Bobbing up 08:30, 27 December 2007 (EST)
In toto, the Bible doesn't have good things to say about most of human existence. But yes, the Bible doesn't really like gay people and would rather that they weren't gay and kind of says "if anyone can do something about it it's probably God". But, in my experience, God doesn't either exist or care about whom I love, rather she is more concerned that I love. CЯacke®
I should state again that I have nothing against gays. I'm only objecting to the fact that our article suggests that anti-gay rhetoric is limited to the Old Testament.--Bobbing up 08:56, 27 December 2007 (EST)

<==Comparatively, the NT is a kinder, gentler brick. It does not call for those so "afflicted" to be killed outright although being gay excludes one from the Kingdom Room in Heaven. Again, not so much for being homosexual except as evidence for idolatry. CЯacke®

OK, what it says is that god made them homosexual as a punishment for idolatry. First off, there is the fact that we're looking at divine punishment here - something which people seem to forget is in the NT; secondly if homosexuality is being used as punishment, then it's pretty clear that the author thought there was something bad about it. I accept that God didn't kill as many people in the NT as in the old - but hey, it's a shorter book.--Bobbing up 09:19, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Right, we're getting closer to an understanding that we're never going to agree. >:) The reputed author of much of the NT was paul, who didn't have a real lot of good to say about anything and he wrote a lot.
The difference between the OT and the NT was that the NT needed for people to believe that god had done this mighty work of reconciling herself with human beings, the OT demanded respect but didn't explicitly say people had to "believe". The belief part in the OT was a given, you were going to believe in something, be it Aserah, Azazel, Baal, YHWH etc. How that belief was demonstrated, (to Whom did you dedicate your sacrfices to?), was the (outward) way others, (including sometimes the almighty), knew where you stood.
In the NT, you showed you belief basically, in NOT doing sacrifices, Cf the book of Hebrews. Since God through Christ had done this great reconciliation nothing was left but to give thanks and meet with other like minded people. Religion was, as it is today, big business and this idea of NOT making sacrifices was crimping the style of many godsellers, see Acts 19. One of the ways one made sacrifice was to have homosexual sex with a temple priest. Said priests were probably gay to begin with, though they also probably had wives and children to satisfy the cultural mores of the day. That the "jobs" were neoptistically allocated probably helped insure the gay sons got the choicest couches. To Paul, all homosex was sacrifice to pagan deities, hence all homosexuals were pagans thus they were excluded from "the kingdom". CЯacke® 09:46, 27 December 2007 (EST)

I think that rather than debating for and against the meaning of individual passages, while not un-interesting, the most important thing to consider here is that there are in fact so few references to homosexuality in the New Testament. There are two probable references in the Epistles, and maybe four passages in the Gospels which might deal with the subject but are pretty questionable. This lack of references in a text which otherwise has a lot to say about a variety of things, would at least seem to suggest that this is not something that the authors considered very important in the greater scheme of things. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 09:48, 27 December 2007 (EST)

I guess there are two possibilities: 1) they really didn't care - (though the passage above suggests that at least Paul did.) or 2) given the O.T. Jewish culture which they came from they thought that no further comment was necessary.--Bobbing up 10:41, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Re: 2, that's possible. Arguments from silence are usually somewhat problematic. However, as the NT can be seen as essentially one big commentary on the OT, it is quite remarkable that is has so little to say about this subject. The best explantion I can see is that it was not something that mattered much for the early Christians, and perhaps not for the Hebrews of the 1st century CE, either.
As an aside, it's not entirely correct to speak of an "O.T Jewish culture" - there are significant differences between e.g. the culture that you have at the time of the early Torah sources around the 9th century BCE and the one after the Babylonian exile, which produced most of the Prophets and the Writings; and Judea of the first century CE was quite distinct from either, not least after having been through occupations by the Hellenes and the Romans. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:03, 27 December 2007 (EST)

I am gay and I would like to tell you guys something[edit]

Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Again, I would like to remind you that I am gay myself.

Its even harder for me because I also have OCD. --SitboDelac 15:01, 8 January 2008 (EST)

You probably need to be talking to some competent professionals about these things - I'm not sure that there's anything that posting on our silly wiki will do for you. Peace and good luck. PFoster 15:05, 8 January 2008 (EST)
I would say that, from a biological standpoint, it's not normal. There wouldn't be too many complex lifeforms if homosexuality were the rule. That being written, I am a big believer in the phrase: "Life will find a way." --Edgerunner76 15:06, 8 January 2008 (EST)
I know you claim to be gay yourself, and thus feel you speak from experience. However, the DSM (which catalogues damn near EVERYTHING as a mental disorder) does not consider homosexuality as a disorder. I'll take the words of professionals over a confused layperson. Researcher 15:07, 8 January 2008 (EST)
I agree with Edge that if most animals were homosexual then reproduction would have a problem. On the other hand nature is not, in fact, short of homosexual activity. I'm a little bit wary of saying "normal" or "abnormal" as that implies somewhat of a value judgment which I don't feel I'm not qualified to make. I think it just is.--Bobbing up 15:16, 8 January 2008 (EST)
There is some evidence that taking some members of a species out of the gene pool to rededicate them to helping others can contribute overall to a species health. The idea is that a random collection of genes/triggers go off in a (fairly small in some species, extremely large in some insect species) species and then that person stops having sex with the opposite sex, stops attempting to create offspring, etc. Researcher 15:25, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Also keep in mind that "most living things" don't even reproduce sexually... And what about the combination of my genes and environment that made me decide never to have children? humanUser talk:Human 18:02, 8 January 2008 (EST)

A little clarification: my use of the word normal and my article thereof are meant as parody. The article is actually taken from Star Trek: Generations and an exchange between Dr. Soran and Geordi LaForge. I did also mention complex lifeforms. Of course, homosexuality sort of becomes a divide by zero situation when taking about things that don't reproduce sexually. --Edgerunner76 21:00, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I hate to agree with Elassint, but...[edit]

He's right. The correct word is "homophobes," not "conservatives." Not all conservatives are homophobic- some of them like teh hot man-on-man action, even. and not all liberals are not homophobic. I'll revert, please discuss.PFoster 21:18, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Finally, you are a little less like conservapedia! But why I am still hated? -- Elassint Hi! ^_^ 21:27, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
'Cause you can be a shit-disturber sometimes. But you're right on this and I'll fight for it if need be.PFoster 21:28, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Don't forget to change the following sentence, which refers to "conservative" intrusions in Americans bedrooms. Like it or not, they's the players on that part of the issue. & I stand corrected on the edit warping, sorry, Elassint. humanUser talk:Human 21:51, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Marriage[edit]

Would something about gay marriage be appropriate on this page as a sub headling? It's going to be quite the issue in CA this November. Course, polls show they "yes" are loosing, buwahahahaha!--WaitingforGodot 14:49, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, we have same-sex marriage to link to... ħumanUser talk:Human 04:08, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Gay or a gay?[edit]

I have some doubts about the following passage:

An odd thing seems to have happened with the American version of "gay", it is almost never used as a singular noun, "He is a gay," but rather almost always (as a singular) as an adjective "He is gay." It is seen many times and places as a plural (collective) "The gays are up in arms!" "They're all gay in that part of town."

Leaving aside the bad punctuation, it isn't really clear what its message is about use of "gay & "a gay". Gay (in all its meanings) has always been primarily an adjective. Use as a noun ("gays" or "a gay") is a variant in recent decades, which may be used more in some quarters than others, and this isn't necessarily odd. Neither is singular noun use ("he is a gay") particularly more desirable than adjectival use ("he is gay"). Whether it is derogatory depends a bit on context. But consider the anology of the word black (in racial terms). To say that somebody is "a black" is not usually considered preferable to saying that they are "black". (The analogy doesn't really work with "African American" since American has always been used as both adjective & noun without negative connotations being attached to either use). I think that the "oddity" this passage is trying to illustrate is a questionable one. Saying that somebody is "a gay", "a black", "a Jew", etc. instead of the appropriate adjective may sometimes (not always) be a way of verbally associating them with a fixed stereotype rather than considering them as an individual. Plural use of these words ("gays", "blacks", "Jews") may sometimes be doing this, but is often just shorter than saying "gay people", "black people", "Jewish people", etc. Weaseloid 07:38, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

It is one of those things that always sound a little funny to me to say "a gay". I remember watching Little Britain and finding the statement "but I'm a gay" slightly unusual. It might be correct to say "a gay", but as everyone say "is gay". \approx\pi 07:45, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
I edited some of that at one point, and i think what was trying to be made clear is that the term "a gay" is most frequently used by those who dislike gays. "he's a gay" "it's run by the gays", and it become very derogative. --Waiting for Godot 11:52, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
I've actually just deleted that bit from the article. I agree that "a gay" is often more derogative than "gay", which is what I was trying to explain above. I didn't think this was conveyed very well in the text, which suggested that it is odd that Americans don't say "a gay". Weaseloid 11:57, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
(Incimadentally, the argument doesn't really extend to lesbian since "she is a lesbian" is still much more common & correct-sounding than "she is lesbian". But I think that's more to do with the construction of -ian words - e.g. "he is a Christian" rather than "he is Christian" or "the creature was a Martian" rather than "it was martian".) Weaseloid 12:02, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

check out my new article[edit]

Attitudes towards homosexuality. Can you guys help out and expand? --Dark Paladin X 01:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia's homosexuality article[edit]

Is any of the stuff on Conservapedia's homosexuality article true? Is it true that

  • homosexual men are more promiscuous than anyone else?
  • homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior?
  • homosexual murders are relatively common and these murders may involve male victims murdered by other males or may involve female victims who are in some type of lesbian relationship and they are murdered by another female?
  • homosexuals are more likely to carry HIV, MRSA, anal cancer, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Lymphogranuloma Venereum, other parasites, Hepatitis, and Shigellosis?
  • homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse), even in the Netherlands, where homosexuals have the right to "marry"?
  • homosexuals are more likely to use illegal drugs?
  • a homosexuality advocacy group, Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, attempted to convince public school students to engage in homosexual acts and showed them how to do these things?

--NoPetrol 07:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You could try and find out if you like.  K e n D o l l ' s  links would be a start, however you should check to see if they are reliable first. - π 07:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a tangled web. One of Ken's links - the one on promiscuity - references The Agape Press which, in turn, references The Advocate but with out being more specific than "an article in The Advocate" and a date (August 15th) . Now, I'd trust The Advocate to be a reasonable source on this but a search of The Advocate returns 37 articles none of which appear to be the one referenced - and there's certainly not one from the 15th August 2006 (The Agape article is Sept 2006)- but maybe I didn't look hard enough.
Having said that I know that traditionally single gay men have a refreshingly open and accepting attitude to sex which is to be lauded - but that's just hearsay. Silver Sloth 11:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well if all the stuff about STDs is true then it shouldn't be lauded. --NoPetrol 23:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
By that logic, as you can get STD from heterosexual sex it shouldn't be lauded. Actual we should look at outlawing that too and just let the human race go extinct. - π 23:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
If this is a legitimate question, here is a very serious answer. The facts, today, are that many gay men (men more then women) are more likely to have suicidal thoughts, are more likely to engage in risky behaviors, and are more likely to have illness due to those choice. But the reason has nothing to do with being gay or their morality. The reason is actually society's problem. When you are told that what you are is sinful; when you are teased in school; kicked out of the army even though you have a purple heart; disowned by your famaily - all because you are gay, you are likely to try and find less than healthy ways to deal with those feelings. Further, gays can't marry (well, they can now, in 5 states, bravo!) so they don't have teh kind of social support that comes from the "sacred hand of marriage".--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov» 00:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Some quick generalization. In our culture, men are more likely to pursue sex and to say "yes" to propositions. It may even be genetic, but that doesn't matter, I'm sure you are all familiar with the general way "courtship" works. So for heterosexuals, there is "cultural pressure" against promiscuity. Once gay men can find/identify each other without getting beat up, finding sex is much easier, since their prospective partners are also men, and less resistant to the joys of casual sex. OK, so that's the underlying point. Then take into account that anal sex is less of a barrier to infection, and you have the potential for a public health problem. Also also take into account prevalent drug use in nightclub cultures, especially if they are a bit "underground", and you have another health factor. Throw in the 80s and Reagan ignoring AIDS and you have a perfect storm of a public health disaster. The pro-condom activism from the 90s on has helped reduce the spread of disease, and of course the scourge of HIV reduced the appeal of flagrant sexing around. So Ken is sort of correct in his "data", but he's putting all the blame on homosexuality (ignoring that half of hses are women, about whom most of the above arguments do not apply), and none on things like what WfG mentioned, or the stigmas encountered in "homosexuality and public health management". ħumanUser talk:Human 00:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Can o'worms time[edit]

Should we have an article on gay stereotypes, and the extent to which they are pseudoscience or just people feeling they need to conform to gay cultural norms once they "come out"? Gay men are often stereotyped as gravitating toward things like dancing and hairdressing, lacking in mechanical inclination, obsessed with color coordinated clothing and personal appearance, and walking and talking in an effiminate way. Or if they are masculine, it is an artificial, forced hypermasculinity (i.e. the leather and gay bear scenes) rather than something that comes naturally. Lesbians are stereotyped as butch, tomboyish, often overweight. My own thinking on this is there are plenty of real examples of the above, yet there is no real reason why this should be the case nor that homosexuality necessarily has any other behavioral implications apart from sexual and romantic attraction. The stereotypes persist, and are perpetuated, in everything from "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to the term "straight-acting", which implies not fitting the gay stereotypes is just an "act". There is also a belief that there is some sort of innate difference in speech mannerisms, that I consider a bunch of woo but it is widely believed. Secret Squirrel 13:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

In some ways it has as much to do with not conforming as it does with conforming. Many heterosexual men & women are still concerned with appearing manly or feminine respectively, whereas many homosexuals are less concerned with these gender roles. I think the gay stereotypes all originated from people who were happy to be eccentric & flamboyant & not just conform to everyone else's expectations; & then somewhere along the way these idiosynchracies have become their own set of norms &/or stereotypes. I think "straight-acting" means "straight-behaving" rather than "acting" as in pretence, but it's still a fairly irksome phrase in that it implies that behaving in the ways that most members of society behave is inherently a "straight" way of behaving. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, yeah, you could look at it from the other angle and view straight people as conforming to a societal norm and suppressing more eccentric, flamboyent behavior, but this sort of gets back to my point. In a heterosexist society, straight people don't have any need to "come out" as straight, so they should already feel free to act naturally. Yet is there any inherent reason why gay and lesbian people (or for that matter, bisexuals, fetishists, and others) should have a natural way of acting that is specific to their sexual orientation? Is this pseudoscience, is there some innate (genetic or other) reason for it related to the reason for their sexual orientation, is it being acculturated to those one hangs around with, or some combination? Secret Squirrel 14:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Do we need something on "people feeling they need to conform to gay cultural norms once they "come out"? " Or maybe we need something on people needing to understand and categorise particular behaviours on the part of others as "gay" in order to help them keep everybody in their appropriate pre-conceived categories? Amin7b5 15:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Straight people don't need to "come out" as straight, but many obviously feel (consciously or unconsciously) that they need to assert their sexuality & their masculinity or femininity. For example, men from a conformist & traditionally homophobic working-class background tend to have a fixed set of ideals about how men should behave & regard deviance from these as a sign of weakness, effeminacy & possibly homosexuality. Afraid to be perceived as gay or unmanly, they conform to these macho behaviours. Going back a few decades, this was even more the case. Most gay people are less burdened with these kinds of expectations, as are some straight people who are less concerned with gender stereotypes. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Genetics[edit]

A Google search for "Homosexuality+genetics" revealed these 2 sources and as the BBC has a good reputation the short BBC webpage is a good enough reference. Perhaps someone else will want to spend a long time reading the long University article and edit our article. Proxima Centauri 12:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there[edit]

I am gay myself, but i found an article I feel myself quite unsure about.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/09081407.html

So I thought, how scientific and true this article is? Any help from rationalwiki?

--Earthland 13:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that you are not secure in your self-identification as homosexual?--BobNot Jim 14:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
@Earthland. Given the certainty and erudition with which you argued in the Abortion debate I find it strange that you are unsure about this. However all the article says is that there are fringe groups, possibly with a hidden agenda, who disagree with the general consensus that homosexual tendencies are inborn and that attempts to change them are harmful. On the internet you can find evidence for whatever you want to find. Bob Soles 14:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, from the outset it's conflating gender and sexuality issues. And while gender-reassignment tends to work quite well, leaving people happier and better off, reparative therapy usually fails and leaves people much worse off (more often than not, it doesn't particularly "cure" gayness, it just tells people to "stop doing gay things", so to speak). Plus, MRI and post-mortem studies of transexual brains do show that they have brains that are the opposite to their birth sex, so it makes sense to give them a female body to go with the female brain in the case of MTF. While with a homosexual brain (I'm not 100% if they've confirmed this as a difference with brain scans, but there is something) you can't quite alter their brain to give them the heterosexual brain that they want (or perhaps imagine it the other way around "doctor, I'm perfectly straight, not even Johnny DeppFor some reason it's always him can turn me. But I'd like to start fancying guys, what can you do for me?"). Scarlet A.pngpostate 15:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I put that the hypothetical shrink is being very reasonable, since it is much simpler to take a scalpel to one's private parts than to take a scalpel to one's genes to alter the factors controlling sexual orientation.
It should also set off warning-bells that the article digresses at length about morals and about how the APA is "insane" rather than simply arguing for the efficacy of reparative therapy. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 16:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
@Bob, I feel myself unsure about how should I reaact to articles like this. Obviously I know who I am myself.
Of course this information comes from a biased and unbalanced source, but this is not enough to reject their arguments, in my opinion. I still think some of the studies they refer could be taken very seriously, though all in all it doesn't matter very much.
About "homosexual brains" - Annals of Essentialism: sexual orientation and rhetorical asymmetry (sorry, but I don't fancy the idea that my brain is girlish).--Earthland 17:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Earthland writes: "@Bob, I feel myself unsure about how should I reaact to articles like this." Then I wish you well in coming to terms with your sexuality.--BobNot Jim 18:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Small Edits, Love[edit]

I just made a bunch of small edits: an addition, some corrections, some verbose (anti)-pedantry. Nothing really worth noting on the talk page here. I just wanted to say that I absolutely adore the final section of this article. I think every article should end with a ==Love== section. :) --Mqduck (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed—you've been doing good work. Keep it up, Mqduck! Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you liked our "love" section. We love you, too. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Factual errors in this article[edit]

1. 'A homosexual individual, in all other regards save for sexual orientation, is the same as a heterosexual, who prefers the opposite sex, or a bisexual, who is attracted to people of either sex. There is no evidence that homosexuals are otherwise different from heterosexuals, aside from sexual and romantic preference.'

I understand the point that this is trying to make (that homosexuals are simply ordinary people, like heterosexuals), but it's not really correct. All scientific evidence pointing toward a biological basis for sexual orientation is, in fact, evidence that homosexuals differ from heterosexuals in respects other than their sexual and romantic preference. There couldn't be any biological basis to sexual orientation if such differences didn't exist, and I don't think anyone with even a general familiarity with the subject would be fooled by what this article claims.

2. 'To call a gay or lesbian person "homosexual" will immediately mark you as having the cultural literacy of a retiree in Florida; only people from previous generations still awkwardly, uncomfortably say, "he's a homer-secks-shual."'

That's cute, but also wrong. I'm a homosexual, I'm perfectly happy to be called homosexual. It's a perfectly valid scientific term, just as valid as "gay" in its own way.

Now, as I'm new here, can anyone explain to me whether there is even the slightest chance of fixing these inaccuracies, or whether I should just give up now? Prince of Glantri (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  • If you see inaccuracies, you can correct them yourself. That's the whole point of a wiki. - LucidFox (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
1) is a good point, but not really applicable to the context that that sentence is talking about. The biological basis, I think, is an entirely separate entity indeed and I think trying to shoehorn it in there would muddy it too much. It's also very interesting but a complicated double-edged sword, on account that proving a biological basis does destroy the "it's a choice" mantra, but at the same time hints at a potential "cure". It's worth elaborating on, but in its proper context. 2) That's more opinion than factual error. Several people I know don't like the word and prefer "gay". And it's getting at the fact that "homosexual" (pronouncedly slow, as all big words are, "Ho. Mo. Secks.. U... all") has a lot of connotations of some drawling hillbilly. People may, or may not, agree with that assessment. ADK...I'll absorb your caterer! 09:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
While we are talking about opinion, I am not keen on the term 'Homosexual' - it is far too clinical a discription and a little bit dehumanising. It makes it sound like a medical condition. That said I am not entirely comfortable with 'Gay' (dispite my user name) as a self discriptor. It is far too restrictive a term, but handy to prevent having to explain my exact sexual predilections whenever the subject comes up. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
To me, the "label" depends on what context you are talking. Homosexual is very much the appropriate legal term, scientific term, and medical term. It also makes one easy go to for "gays and lesbians". "gay" far and away is a term reserved for males, though not always. and there's this whole meta language within the community itself I do not grok, being very much on the outside of any conversation about being "gay". I think for the context chosen, "homosexual" is fair. But here's the thing, Wikis, especially ones that do not hold to being of a neutral bias, can TEACH. If you think you can help us straights about "what to call you", Go for it! Cause hell, I know I worked with Native People all the time, and I code shift as to what i "call" them, depending on situation and learning that took a very frank indian who sat me aside and said "you're pissing off everyone with all that new age flustering". As for the "all science proves that"... I don't think this is the case. I think science has some interesting cases showing all kinds of things about being gay, none of them so compelling as to make the world say "we have proof gays are X, and not Y". Until we know what makes a person gay (and personally I suspect it's a huge range of things), and what doesn't, I don't think we can say "scientifically they are the same" or different. Maybe the best thing for that paragraph is to say "socially" or "in all ways that matter" or some such.Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 14:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
@EAG: Gay is pretty all compassing and acceptable to most people. Just be warned it might offend 'Men who have sex with men'. Don't worry too much about that though, they are generally pricks. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Serious question: then why "lesiban, gay, bixesual, and transgender", and not just "gay, bisexual, and transgender?"Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 18:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Heh heh. "Lesiban." Sounds like a delicious variation of marzipan. SJ Debaser 19:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Because one has to be politically-correct with such labels, and certain people with very big mouths hate gender-neutral words that also see use as gender-specific ones. That acronym itself has quite a history: it took several rounds of inclusiveness before an acronym was even needed, "GLB." Then the transsexuals wanted in, so it became "GLBT," but I guess that was just too male-supremacist or whatever. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
LGBTQIA is far better. ADK...I'll ablate your fetus! 19:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
ok, i can get the lesbian gay bi trans queer intersexed -- but what's teh a? asexual?Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 19:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
From what I can gather, there's two Qs; queer and questioning. The I is intersex. The two As are for "asexual" and "allies", i.e., people who aren't allowed in the club but aren't homophobes. Sigh. ADK...I'll ruminate your diode! 19:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Does 'allies' include Fag hags? Surely they need an intial. And if you are including queer as seperate to Gay and Lesbian then you're gonna need something for bears and twinks. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Too much alphabet soup. I say it be re-named "Non-Heteronormative People (and Friends)." "And Friends" could also be "...but supportive." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think adding "queer" was an attempt to include non-normative relationship attitudes, D/s, polyamoury and so on. Not sure on that, though. There are some even better ones on the discussion pages of wp:LGBT. ADK...I'll exemplify your fruit! 11:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This helped me a lot in my argument about homosexuality. It backfired afterwards though. *sighs* — Unsigned, by: 203.81.69.77 / talk / contribs

Being gay is determined before birth[edit]

Forget those environmental factors. A fairly conclusive, but unfortunately under reported study, suggests that sexuality is pretty much determined before birth.

The simple: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm The explanation: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html The article: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/06/13/0801566105.abstract

If you don't have a subscription to New Scientist, download the article because you won't be able to access it more than a few times before a message tells you to subscribe. The long and short of all these links is that sexuality is determined before birth, excluding environment as a factor. That leaves two things: Genetics and/or prenatal environment, i.e. hormones/development whilst in the womb. Given identical twins are not always both gay, but that families have been identified more likely to have gay members, I'm going to make an educated guess that sexuality is a combination of genetic and prenatal factors. Hard to know, almost no one is 100% straight or 100% gay. Either way, the study effectively ends the argument that it's a choice or that it isn't natural.

I usually compare homosexuality to left-handedness. Only 10% of the population are left-handed and it's something that mysteriously emerges with no apparent logic. Homosexuality is much the same. Are left handed people mentally disordered because they smudge the ink as they write? I don't think so. — Unsigned, by: 72.53.80.254 / talk / contribs

Er, no. From the paper: "Whether they may relate to processes laid down during the fetal or postnatal development is an open question." Media picks up one-off brain scan, shouts "hard-wired!" (Hint: You can't do that.) Toss in some stereotypes about gay men being like women and lesbians being like men and we're ready to go to press! Get back to me after you've read Jordan-Young's Brain Storm. Apologies for any excess snark, but it's too early for bad science journalism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The PNAS abstract is considerably more nuanced in what it's saying. Scarlet A.pngmoral 09:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

72.53.80.254 (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)OP Response from OP: Apology not accepted. Anyone can cut a single line out of a paper and throw a URL to a book, as you have done. Congratulations on not actually reading the resources I provided. Why don't you "get back to me" after you provided me some URL's to scientific papers, quotes with references, and direct evidence that isn't embedded in a 400 page long book of what is probably mostly irrelevancy and opinion. Please allow me to help you put the quote into its proper context: "The observations cannot be easily attributed to perception or behavior. Whether they may relate to processes laid down during the fetal or postnatal development is an open question." All that's saying is that sexual perception and behaviour may not necessarily always follow the attributes they used to categorize the participants' sexualities. Of course, a gay man can choose to have sex with a women if he prefers disappointing results.

Lastly, let's get a few quotes from some actual scientists: New Scientist: To get round this, Savic and her colleague, Per Lindström, chose to measure brain parameters likely to have been fixed at birth. "That was the whole point of the study, to show parameters that differ, but which couldn't be altered by learning or cognitive processes," says Savic.

religioustolerance.org: Sandra Witelson, a neuroscientist at McMaster University in Hamilton, ON said: "There are now about three or four studies on gays that point to a different organization in the brain. And what I think this means ... is that these are differences that can't be explained by any environmental or learning factors."

Shove that in your pipe and smoke it!

No true Scotsman[edit]

In the section "psychological harm," the sentence "Today, virtually no reputable psychologist nor psychiatrist would counsel that gayness by itself is the cause of mental illness" originally linked "no reputable psychologist" to "no true Scotsman," but this is not an example of that fallacy. The fallacy would be in place if someone made the argument "any psychologist who says that gayness is a form of mental illness is disreputable," but that's not what we're saying. Rather, we're saying that there simply are no psychologists saying this (James Dobson and his ilk not being counted as psychologists, not because they criticize homosexuality but simply because they aren't psychologists). I therefore removed the link. Wehpudicabok (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Blood donors[edit]

Removed this good-faith addition, pending discussion:

Also, at least in Finland, sex between men prevents blood donation for 12 months because of the increased risk of HIV infection, because every gay relationship ends up with AIDS. For women, there are no restrictions.<ref>http://www.redcross.fi/node/1556/what-finnish-red-cross</ref>

Every time I get tapped for a pint of my precious bodily fluid, I get asked if I've traded money or drugs for sex lately, whether I've had sex with a man lately, whether I've traveled to a high-risk area lately, and a few other such questions. (For a long time, I used my exposure to antimalarial drugs as an excuse to avoid needle sticks, but that doesn't make sense any more.) I don't see a problem with the Red Cross wishing to harvest blood from a subset of the population with as close to zero exposure as possible. I don't know what goes into their risk assessment, and if there is credible evidence that there is an element of O noes, not from teh icky gheyzz!!! in it, we could stand to know that. Discuss? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

At least where I live, they don't ask women if they've had sex with a man lately, nor do they ask men about their sexual history with women, which to implies that they see a gay man who has only had sex with the same guy for the last thirty years as more of a risk than any straight person with God-knows-what kind of history behind them. I, sadly cannot give blood because I was in the UK during a mad cow outbreak, so they won't have me. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I will have to pay better attention to the wording, next time I go get the cookies, juice, and free back rub. My recollection is that they ask relevant specific things about history and behavior, in the kind of non-judgemental language one might expect from a carefully designed health screening. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it is entirely appropriate to ask questions to gay potential blood doners. There is large number of folk in gay community indulging in very risky sex with multiple partners. Add to that the PNP crowd, and HIV is an ever present risk. I realise straight folk can indulge in this kind of behaviour but I very much doubt it as indemic or as socially acceptable as it is in the gay scene. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
PNP? Also, you may have a point about the questions they ask, but rules turning down a guy who has been in a monogamous relationship with another man for years or decades but not turning down a guy who brings home a different woman from the bar every Friday night speaks to some sort of institutional opinion about homosexuality. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
PNP: party and play. The combining of drugs and sex, allowing for 12+ hour sessions with multiple partners, orgy style. Very risky, particularly in saunas. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/15/gay-blood-donors-ban_n_3932001.html in the fall of 2013, there was quite a discussion at the FDA about the fact that their policies were biggoted and did not rely on science. Sadly, for all the FDA said "yeah, we should look at this", i've never seen anything come from them suggesting real change in policy.One tin soldier (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
[Coupla edit conflicts] Even after googling it, I'd say poppers and priapism, such fun at parties. In the US, the blood supply is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration who still have a "policy of a lifetime deferral for men who have sex with other men."
There may be questions regarding number of recent sex partners, gender unspecified. I'll get right on that, next time a blood drive comes to town. I'm pretty sure that recently being a sex worker's client may also get you a "thanks for showing up, but no." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
poppers don't count for PNP. Usually methadrone or tina AMassiveGay (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Methadone? Tina? To quote my favorite comic strip characters of all time: "Whatever happened to grass?" "Beats me, you can't even get arrested fo it anymore."
methdadrone not methadone. this kinda gives the idea. Slamming doesn't seem that common. Its been suggested to me a few times but I am yet to witness it. One of the few lines that I draw. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Wingnut theories[edit]

This article describes the idea that "Growing up with a dominant same-gender parent and a weak/absent opposite-gender parent" causes homosexuality as a "wingnut" theory. What is that view based upon? Is it the purpose of this site to mindlessly follow politically correct dogma on every issue? Prince of Glantri (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Are We Interpreting The Bible Wrong (Again)?[edit]

Naturally, this has to do with that whole Leviticus 18:22 thing. It clearly says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination", right? That should be the end of the story, right? Wrong. One of the apologetic's favourite arguments, "you're taking it out of context"; we can gleefully use against them. First of all, you have to understand the historical context of this verse. Back around these times, a eunuch was a man that is either testicle-less through natural means, or arteficial means, or a gay man. In said times, eunuchs (read: gay men, among other things) where not considered men anymore than women were considered men, but a third gender. We have interpreted it as a blanket condemnation of homosexual acts, and used it to justify banning members of the same sex doing the do. But really, all this verse forbids is straight, non-homosexual men engaging in sexual acts with other straight, non-homosexual men. Which in all honesty doesn't happen that often. Feedback, anyone? Converted From Conservatism (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Find some historian(s)/evidence that support(s) this view, and we can include it as an interpretation of this passage. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You lost me at "a eunuch was a gay man." What evidence do you have to support the idea that gay men were considered eunuchs? Also, you need to be really careful about transporting a category like "gay" across time/space/culture. It's a pretty safe bet to say that men have had sex with other men for a very, very, very long time. But that does not mean that "gay," or "homosexual" as we understand them as social categories have existed for anywhere near as long. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
[1], [2] Don't know if this is what one would consider credible evidence, but take it as you will. Converted From Conservatism (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I've seen GayChristian101 before. They don't seem to back up their assertions with citations to reputable historians, which is a bit worrying. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I can see that, seeing as how all they really are is a "shh, everything is okay, you're not going to hell" party for LGBT Christians. I went out and found another source, but it's hella long, and honestly, I'm not too sure about the credibility of it, either. But anyway, check it out if you will. [3]. Converted From Conservatism (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
This is all pretty speculative & looks a lot like people trying to rationalise the scripture in a way that aligns with their own beliefs. Certainly there's nothing solid enough here to support your breezy assertions about "the historical context of this verse". ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You seem to assume that the present Western concept of 'homosexuality' was present in the cultural consciousness of that time. Sure, maybe eunuchs counted as a third sex that could have sex with the people acknowledged as 'proper' men (and with other eunuchs too?). But probably far from all people who identify as "gay men" in our current day and age would be classified into this third sex category of eunuchs in those ancient times. Most still have their testicles and plenty of gay relationships don't have a clear masculine/dominant-feminine/submissive structure. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If we are going to claim things without evidence, the word "beginning" really means "anus", where this explanation was pulled from, so the whole universe was crapped into existence as evidenced by the very first line of the bible, "in the beginning". Do you have some sort of archaelogical study that would demonstrate that a semitic culture would interpret the words in that manner? CorruptUser (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

So if I understand the argument, the claim is that the bible does not prohibit gay men from having sex with each other - rather it prohibits strait men from having sex with gay men.
Without going into whether such a prohibition makes much sense - I'm wondering how the holy bible would regard bisexuals in such a case and how you would police such an edict.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A question[edit]

From the article:

Contrary to the paranoid worries of many such bigots, most gay or bisexual men do not want to touch their men. At all. Ever.

I may have missed something but this sentence seems to be a bit unclear. Why shouldn't a couple - gay, lesbian or otherwise - want to touch each other? Sorry to be so dumb, but the wording is a bit confusing. Cheerio Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I take it "their men" is supposed to mean "their male friends and acquaintances"? Blacke (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
It is badly worded. I think what it's addressing is paranoid homophobes who think homosexuals are predatory perverts who can't keep their hands to themselves when in fact gay people have no interest in coming on to them ( i.e. straight bigoted morons with lots of hang-ups). Not that they (gay people) don't want to touch each other. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

About gay tourism[edit]

Perhaps the footnote was misplaced, but the intent was clear - gays are positive to those who accept them and vice versa. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Homophile[edit]

I never hear the term "homophile" in modern times. In fact, looking up "homophilia is wrong" gives me significantly less results than "homosexuality is wrong". You'd think that anti-gay people would use the term that implies being gay is a paraphilia, instead of the term "homosexuality", which contains that word "sexuality" in it. —(((CheeseburgerFace))) Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 03:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting observation. I'll take it as a sign of the steadily lessening grip of homophobia on the modern zeitgeist. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Homosexuality is not a sin[edit]

The Bible says nothing against homosexuality. It states that sodomy is a sin. And the reason it says that is more likely to relate to non-procreative sex than homosexuality. And, oh, looks like a lot of homophobes perform voluntary non-procreative sex, so, BOOM, HYPOCRISY! -Bigljbigl (talk/stalk) 10:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Homofascism[edit]

Does this page really need a section on the term "Homofascism"? I think that, if really necessary, that should be on the page homophobia, and instead of a section it should be a note... I temporary moved it here

BEGIN OF HOMOFASCIM:

Homofascism[edit]

Homofascism is a neologism used by some on the far right in the United States to refer to LGBT rights advocacy. A portmanteau of "homosexuality" and "fascism", homofascism has been defined as "the use of homosexuality to bludgeon and batter the religious rights of Christians and others."(ref)http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/fed-up-christiansbrout-to-defeathomofascism/(/ref) It is an example of loaded language, and is used as a straw man by those opposed to LGBT rights.

It may also refer to actual fascists who are supposedly homosexual, such as those described by Scott Lively in The Pink Swastika.

Actual homosexual fascists[edit]

END OF HOMOFASCIM

McLaghing (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, given the nature of the term in question as well as its origins, moving the section and sub-sections to the Homophobia article would be appropriate. GrammarCommie (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

A lot of problems[edit]

In my opinion, this page has a lot of problems. I can try to fix some of them, but first I prefer to list them here, to make clear want I am going to do.

Problems with the current page:

  • It mixes all things (science, hatred, religion, politics...) together instead of discussing them one by one. For example, a section called "Genetic" can not conclude with the opinion of the Catholic Church. Of course, the Catholic Church must be mentioned on the page, but that should be put in a section called something like "Religious views of homosexuality".
  • The science is very little. There are many scientific theories and studies about homosexuality (epigenetic, hormones, evolutionary theories...) that should be mentioned. Also, statistics about the frequency of homosexuality should be reported.
  • All the parts about the oppression of homosexuals have a view limited only to U.S. Christians fundamentalism conservatives. Homosexuals have been persecuted/are persecute by a lot of different groups, religions, and ideologies (just to say Islam, Communism, Nazism...), not just by Christian conservatives. This is a typical bias of RationalWiki.
  • Many parts would be more appropriate for the page Homophobia.

McLaghing (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)