Answering a question - sort of
August, by the way, what do you think of Conservapedia homosexuality article in terms of the factual evidence it presents?
It may present factual evidence. But it is practically unreadable: One can only hope that Aschlafly will take this as an example for his upcoming course in Persuasive Writing and helps to improve it. Every time I try to read it, I stumble upon so many atrocities that I have to stop. But it has its magic - for me as a foreigner it highlights the many traps in which I often find myself caught!
|Homosexuality is the condition of "sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex."||no problem with this sentence|
Theories on how people become homosexual
|these factors will be addressed shortly - will also be covered - this will also be studied: Three times we are told that something is explained in the future. One time would be enough. And besides a repetition of actions, we see the same words popping up in such a short section: also, matter, factor, effect, individual and naturally homosexuality.|
Biblical statements concerning homosexuality and secularism/homosexuality
Generally I don't criticize others for their writing: As I'm not a native speaker this could be seen as presumptuous (you like it when someone uses this word self-mockingly, don't you?) But here, so many flaws are obvious to me that I've to ask myself what I've missed because of my lack of knowledge!
I'm sure that I committed many of the atrocities of which I accuse you in my comments (even in this one) - but I'm not writing the flagship-articles in this encyclopedia. And my errors can be corrected easily: obviously the articles to which I contribute aren't locked.
I hope that my comments help you to improve your article.
AugustO 15:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)
- Regarding the flaws in this article and regular users not being able to edit it, that's the trouble with attempting to construct any reference or resource based off of a pre-formed ideology; a certain level of (rather blatantly undemocratic) censorship must be practiced in order to keep the project in line with its ideological goals.
- Certainly anybody with any significant experience dealing with gay friends/family members/co-workers/classmates/neighbors/employees can cite several fundamental flaws with this article and many of the other articles on conservapedia that relate to homosexuality. By rejecting mainstream psychological, biological, sociological, and anthropological consensus as resulting from the "liberal bias in academia" (which, trust me, does not actually exist), these articles must rely on fringe sources and exaggerated stereotypes.
- For instance, while gay and bisexual men do, on average, have a slightly higher number of lifetime sexual partners than straight men, the numbers are not nearly as high as many of the sources cited on Conservapedia claim them to be. For instance, in the United States the mean number of lifetime sexual partners for heterosexual males is pretty consistently estimated to be around 7 (this number does not change much across demographics--even evangelical Christian males average 7 partners in their lifetimes). Among MSM (the academic term for gay and bisexual men) in the United States, the average lifetime number of sexual partners ranges between 9 and 12 (depending on the conditions of the study). There are outliers in both groups, straight men reporting more than 100 lifetime sexual partners and MSM reporting similar statistics, but the relative incidence of this is roughly congruent between both groups. Assuming ~50 years of sexual activity for the average male over his lifetime (another, fairly consistent statistic), even at the high end, this means that MSM have one additional sexual partner per decade when compared to straight men. In light of the facts, the assertion that gay men are "dangerously promiscuous" is patently ridiculous.
- Finally, these articles all overlook the occurrence and cultural significance of MSM in history and non-Western cultures. I say MSM here because "homosexuality" is a rather recent Western cultural concept. In India, for instance, the "hijra" are a population that have existed for at least two thousand years. Hijra are biologically male, although some prefer to identify themselves as female (and, for them, the western term "transgender" may be the closest equivalent), but they constitute a "third sex" that conventionally takes the passive role in physical relations with nominally straight males. Additionally, the Hijra have an essential ceremonial function in many Hindu traditions (especially in northern India and in Bangladesh), and have historically been accepted as respected members of their communities. By Western standards, straight males who form physical relationships with hijra would be viewed as bisexual or homosexual. Another similar, and often cited, example is the "berdache" in the Zuni culture (many other Native American tribes have an equivalent)--these are men who occupy a social role that is a mix between the traditional male and female roles. Such people were often historically allowed to marry men occupying the traditional male role, and were often (but not always) accepted as important members of their communities. As another example, in early Christian societies (although it was predominantly a Byzantine phenomenon), ἀδελφοποίησις (literally, "brother making") has been interpreted as a form of consecrated same-sex union (this interpretation is, admittedly, somewhat controversial, but the academic consensus is that many of these unions were indeed romantic in nature).
- I know that this is a rather long argument for a talk page, so I am going to end it here. My general points are that homosexuality is a ubiquitous phenomenon in human societies and that many gay stereotypes that are thrown around in conservative political discourse are not firmly grounded in fact. In my opinion, the conservative movement is better served by focusing on political values, such as individual liberty and economic sustainability, than attacking the individual liberties (or very existence of) a small minority of people. I am aware that this an unpopular notion among social conservatives, but there are many more significant issues facing the American people at this time (e.g. unemployment) than Tim and Larry up the street deciding to start a family. --RudrickBoucher 19:09, 13 January 2012 (EST)
Oops, my bad. I didn't mean to revert the talk page. Anybody know how to put it back?--JHunter 23:22, 22 April 2013 (EDT)