Talk:Homosexuality/Archive3

Summary

This article seems seems to have a lot of content on it, perhaps someone could write up a summary? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zugamifk (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2007

• Are you a registered user/editor? That's what editors do. Proceed, let's see what you've got! --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 14:37, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

This article is so hostile to homosexuality (and I'm NOT going to engage in fruitless arguments about the meaning of this or that word)as to come very close to justifying violence against homosexuals. Please adopt a more neutral tone.Alloco1 12:22, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Why do you think it's hostile? Are you heterophobic, per chance? Karajou 12:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Heterophobic? Afraid of straight people? Huh?--Porthos 15:05, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Bible Passages

As the Bible says 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female' does that mean it is ok if you are both stood up ?

Since this page is apparently protected against improvements, I'll have to leave my suggestion as a comment. Shouldn't the references to various Biblical passages link to the pages on the appropriate books of the Bible?

I can do that right now. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 18:20, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, shouldn't this page reflect the alternative viewpoints of how the Bible should be interpreted regarding homosexuality? For instance, some detail based around this quote for instance: “No credible case against homosexuality or homosexuals can be made from the Bible unless one chooses to read scripture in a way that simply sustains the existing prejudice against homosexuality and homosexuals. The combination of ignorance and prejudice under the guise of morality makes the religious community and its abuse of scripture in this regard, itself morally culpable.” - Rev. Peter Gomes, Harvard Divinity School, "The Good Book"

Also I feel it is important to at least refer to the relationship between David and Jonathan. Shouldn't these be included:

1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. 3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. 1 Samuel 18: 1-4

and:

25 How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. 26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. 2 Samuel 1:26

Irrespective of one's interpretation of the Bible's position on homosexuality (and Jesus seemed to have remained rather silent on the matter) the story of the love between David and Jonathan remains something that needs to be integrated into that position.

The above passages are not a statement of homosexuality, no matter what the unsigned writer thinks they may be. There are such people as "best friends", where a physical relationship is just not included, and the unsigned writer simply ignored that concept. Karajou 17:00, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

What makes you so sure it isn't? I believe the word love is translated from a word which meant love specifically in a romantic, and traditionally male-female sense. Also, are you suggesting that homesexuality is okay, so long as it doesn't involve sodomy?

Josephx 10:55, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

No, I am not suggesting homosexuality is ok under any circumstances. But from your previous statement, you're suggesting that David and Jonathan had some sort of homosexual relationship. Karajou 12:05, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Not to be a wiseguy...but say two people of the same gender live together (and, for all intents and purposes, "love" each other) but don't have sex. Without the sex, how is it homosexuality?--Porthos 13:24, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Equally not to be a wiseguy, would you say you did not have a sexuality until you had sex?

And Karajou, yes I am saying that. That is my interpretation of the passages that I have quoted. In fact I would go further to suggest that if you took the "knitted souls" passage, removed the names and genders from it and allowed a large number of people to read it and discuss the nature of the relationship that it describes, I doubt many would think this was describing two best friends.Josephx 07:25, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, Joe, but all you're doing here is trying to pitch a case of Biblical support for homosexuality, and pitching such support here. You're trying to make a claim that two close friends mentioned in the Bible were gay. The burden of proof is on you, and as you said, it's your own interpretation. Karajou 07:44, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

All we have is interpretation. David uses the same word (ahabah) to describe Jonathan's love as he used to describe the love of his wives. That might not be enough for you, Karajou, but it is enough for a lot of Christians, gay and otherwise. Josephx 09:23, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

No, all YOU have is your interpretation, and all I'm getting is the notion that you just might be heterophobic here. Karajou 09:26, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Heterophobic? Hetero meaning different and phobic meaning fearful of? Such joking aside, I am not interested in creating or fuelling anti-heterosexual sentement, just raising valid doubts that the bible's opinion on homosexuality is as black and white as you suggest. Josephx 09:57, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Then you need to stick with valid facts on the subject. Just because you want to make a claim as to Dave and Jon being in bed together does not make it true. The same Old Testament that has David and Jonathan in it also declares homosexuality to be an abomination. That is very black and white; no gray at all. Karajou 10:15, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Then that is where our opinions divide, because I feel the fact that both appear in the Old Testament demonstrates that greyness. You seem to be rejecting the possibility that David and Jonathan were lovers on the grounds of something written elsewhere in the Bible. In fact the story of David and Jonathan makes more sense if they were lovers under a law that forbade that love. Josephx 11:17, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

My opinion on the matter is sound; it's you who's rejecting the fact that David and Jonathan were nothing more than best friends. You're giving classic liberalism here, picking and choosing which facts you like, which facts you reject, and trying to force that opinion on the rest of society. As your kind says to us many times, so I say to you: Do not push your religious beliefs here. Karajou 09:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

• Josephx, my own interpretation of the relevant passages also leads me to think David liked roasted Goat. What do you think? --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 09:38, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I welcome that interpretation and look forward to reading about it on the relevant page. Josephx

Heterophobic interpretations of the Bible have been attempted, without success, to smear Jesus and the Apostles. Not only is there no evidence for it, but all evidence is against these liberal interpretations.--Aschlafly 09:41, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafy, I'm not sure of what you are suggesting here. Even if I were (as I suspect you are implying) trying to suggest that Jesus and the apostles were themselves homosexual, that wouldn't be a smear coming from me. As it is I am claiming that a valid interpretation of the story of David and Jonathan is that it speaks of a long, committed, deeply-felt same-sex relationship that was not condemned by God. Josephx

• And Andy said your views smack of being a Heterophobic. Why do you hate Heterosexuals, Josephx, if you do? And what about my Goat interpretation? Is it any less or more valid?--şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 10:12, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I have stated that I am not heterophobic; it will sadden me if you do not take that on good faith. I say again, that I look forward to reading about your goat interpretation should you wish to post it. Josephx

Leviticus

Doesn't Leviticus ban shellfish eating as well as endorse slave-buying? It sounds like a savage book. --Afi 17:40, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

I find your liberal argumentation exceedingly weak. Conservative 18:53, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Except I'm neither a liberal, nor am I arguing (I'm a socialist). I'm just disgusted at the things I'm hearing about this book. I should read it sometime. I tell you, it's a good thing we don't tolerate this sort of nonsense in modern, decent, post-Enlightenment civilisation. --Afi 14:13, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Don't forget that you can purchase slaves from neighboring nations (Lev 25:44), though in America today, this seems to apply only to illegal immigrants from Mexico, not Canada. Oh, and we can't leave out wearing a multi-textiled garment (Lev. 19:19), or having the hair trimmed around your temples (Lev. 19:27). --ηοξιμαχονγ^θαλκ 14:19, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Afi, I suggest that you haven'nt done your homework. I suggest reading the work of the Johns Hopkins medical researcher Dr. David Macht in regards to kosher vs. non-kosher foods and levels of toxicity. While non-kosher food may be good to eat from a nutritional point of view it might not be absolutely optimal. I would also suggest that the Torah was very medically advanced for its time. I suggest reading about how truly advanced the Torah was for its time. In regards to slavery issue I would suggest reading this material: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html 14:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Hoji, how much do you know about ANE culture in regards to the "garment issue"? Are you engaging in cultural imperialism in regards to the Bible? I would also suggest reading the material posted to Afi above. Conservative 14:30, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

(reset indent)I would suggest that most people merely quote-mine Leviticus anyway, without reading it in its entireity or even understanding why it says what it says. Multi-textiled garment? Actually, it says שׁעטנז (sha‛aṭnêz), a word unfortunately lost to history. Clarke rightly points out: "this may as well refer to a garment made up of a sort of patchwork differently colored and arranged for pride and for show. A folly of this kind prevailed anciently in this very land, and I shall give a proof of it, taken from a sermon against luxury in dress, composed in the fourteenth century..." File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 14:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Leviticus was a set of moral laws appropriate to its time, mixed in with ceremonial laws. The ceremonial laws can be ignored now, as Christ's sacrifice rendered them obsolete - no more animal sacrifices needed. Leviticus is no longer a required legal code, so its moral laws are now more moral guidelines - when leviticus says "All homosexuals must be executed," thats using the literal interpretation and ignoring the new testament. With the NT taken into account, the meaning becomes "You dont need to execute homosexuals anymore, but God disapproves of them very, very strongly." In the same way, all the "Slavery is required within these limits" becomes "God has no objection to slavery if there are some safeguards, but you dont have to allow it." - BornAgainBrit

Why can't I edit this?

The point of a Wiki is that anyone can edit any page. If you lock a page, you destroy the purpose of a wiki.

All I wanted to do was put some perspective on the riotous and violent acts done by homosexuals documented on this page before someone viewing this through such a narrow slit developed a stereotype about homosexuals.

You see, according to http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html, there were 1107 incidents of anti-homosexual hate crime in the U.S. in 2004, while there were 33 incidents of anti-heterosexual hate crime. Despite this vast difference (nearly 34:1, by the way), the only incidents I see mentioned here are anti-heterosexual crimes. Clearly this bias is an oversight, so I thought I'd point it out before someone accused your fine website of leaning towards one side of an argument.

Thank you and have a good day.

Rotsa ruck... Aziraphale 14:01, 19 July 2007 (EDT) <-and Scrappy, too...

Only a tiny percentage of pages are locked on this site, and in each case the locking was due to unrelenting vandalism or biased edits. Even for the few that are locked, there is quick response to suggestions made on the corresponding talk page, and changes are often incorporated.

In this case, you provide an interesting claim and link. Thank you. However, statistics are only meaningful if they are fully explained. About 1107 incidents of anti-homosexual hate crime ... out of how many crimes overall? Nobody reports an incidence of a disease, for example, without placing it in its context. If I said 1100 died from something, then immediately someone would demand to know the overall context.

Also, what were the "crimes"? Are these violent or non-violent crimes? Are the crimes a by-product of a bigger crime, such as underage drunkenness or drug abuse? I trust you would agree that we shouldn't post meaningless or misleading statistics in an encyclopedia.--Aschlafly 14:44, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Right, well maybe once this site gets a little bigger the law of averages will work correctly like on other wikis.

The context I was going for was the contrast between the 34:1 anti-homosexual to anti-heterosexual hate crime incidence and the 0:5 ratio presented here. I'm not even saying you need to print that stat. All I'm looking for is a touch of documentation of anti-homosexual hate crimes.

As defined by the FBI, these crimes encompass murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and destruction/damage/vandalism. (same link. scroll down.)

Hope that helps.

I don't follow your first point. Wikipedia has far more political censorship on sensitive entries than we do. Try editing Wikipedia's evolution entry, for example, to reflect how most Americans feel about that topic. Such edits will be removed within seconds, and the editor blocked if he persists.

Anti-heterosexual crime is generally not considered to be a "hate crime", so the 34:1 statistic is meaningless. When homosexuals stormed St. Patrick's Cathedral to defile the Eucharist, you can bet that was not listed as a "hate crime".

I'm look for context on the 1107 figure. Out of a million crimes, perhaps? Without that context, that figure is meaningless. I'll see if the 1107 is broken down by category. Are you suggesting that burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, etc., are included in the hate crimes??? That seems absurd, frankly. I mean, who would steal a car as an expression of sexual hatred??? It calls into question the integrity of the statistics.--Aschlafly 15:30, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Here is something interesting in regards to FBI reporting: Pastor finds FBI unresponsive to homosexual activists' threats: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17075 Conservative 15:36, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

I happen to agree with Wikipedia's take on evolution. How do "most Americans" feel? Nevertheless, your point is well illustrated. I digress.

I would appreciate some documentation of homosexuals actually defiling the Eucharist, but the reliability of that fact isn't my main point. First off, that would be vandalism and therefore listed. Also, you're illustrating what I'm trying to fight on here. Of course there are crazy homosexuals who do horrible things. There are also crazy conservatives (34 for every one crazy homosexual, statistically ;) ) who abduct homosexuals, tie them to fences, and pistol-whip them to death. But when you base your judgement of an entire population on the crazies, then you have a problem. And don't try to tell me that that isn't happening on this page. I didn't notice one positive thing about our brothers and sisters in Christ anywhere. (unsigned TheGentleman)

I don't understand what problem you have with the statement that, in 2004, there were 1107 hate crimes commited against homosexuals. It's a straight number.

Who said that "crazy conservatives" committed those crimes? You should research Islam. Bohdan 16:33, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Besides the three individuals who tied Matthew Sheppard to a fence and beat him to death, name every single individual who tied a homosexual to a fence and killed him. You said there were "crazy conservatives (34 for every one crazy homosexual, statistically ;) ) who abduct homosexuals, tie them to fences, and pistol-whip them to death.", now you're going to provide their names, dates of these incidents and newspaper references. I want all 34 names. Karajou 16:36, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

I've looked further on the linked provided above by TheGentleman and it appears that the following is true about the data:

• the classification of a hate crime can be based on little more than the fact that a victim of a crime was a homosexual, or that a pro-homosexual group requested designation of a crime as a hate crime
• no conviction or proof in court is required
• only a small percentage of these alleged hate crimes are violent
• some of the alleged hate crimes, such as auto theft, are patently absurd
• crimes motivated by homosexuality, such as the attack on St. Patrick's Cathedral, would not be listed

We can insert a section explaining the data and how misleading it is.--Aschlafly 17:41, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

The problem I had with TheGentleman's statistics posting is that we, and a lot of other sites and news agencies, routinely get such data posted, and more often than not the data is flawed, inflated, or an outright lie. So if someone is going to say "more banks were robbed by conservatives than liberals" or "more Democrats support the killing of cats than Republicans" I'm probably going to want to see just where the individual making such claims is getting them from. The killing of Matt Sheppard was something that should never have happened, but to go on and state that more such killings took place, each involving a fence and a pistol-whipping as TheGentleman said, just begs the question as to where he's getting his info from. All he's doing in this case is not making murder look bad as it should, but making conservatives look bad. Karajou 18:01, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

We had the same discussion on the Talk:Homophobia page; while the FBI keeps stats on the sexual orientation of victims, it only classifies perpetrator by race. Hence, it is impossible to quantify gay-on-gay violence, or gay-on-gay domestic abuse. So a statistical flaw (built into the law , incidentally) leads to an invalid conclusion, that all anit-gay violence is perpetrated by heterosexuals. RobS 18:06, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

The hate crimes link is now included in the entry with full explanation.--Aschlafly 19:14, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Indeed it is probably safer to a member of a protected class like gays than a member of the random population. The murder rate typically has hovered at 1 per 10,000 per year, whereas there has not been a murder of a homosexual because he is gay in more than 4 years, per FBI stats. [1] RobS 20:20, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok. I'm going to try to be clear about this. I don't care if the data isn't exact. My only point was that there are more violent actions by heterosexuals against homosexuals than vice versa. Are you going to contest that statement, too? The same goes for the pistol-whipping thing. It's an example. That's it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheGentleman (talk)

And I am going to be clear on this: I am contesting that statement as well, due to the fact that you "don't care if the data isn't exact". The only examples you have made are those of unsupported, uncited, and possibly bogus statements as if they were facts, but then again, as you said, you "don't care if the data isn't exact". That means you're just pushing an agenda here, and an unwelcome one at that. Karajou 11:58, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

Gays are exactly in the situation Feminists were in during the mid to late 70s regarding the issue of domestic abuse. Women's rights activists charged the domestic abuse was rampant, the laws were written in such away that did not give women protection. Feminists charged that the whole system, from the police to the courts to the legislature were against them. Laws were rewritten such that police were required to make an arrest if there appeared evidence of an assualt, despite the fact that the police had not witnessed it nor could testify who assualted who.

You draw a conclusion above, "My only point was that there are more violent actions by heterosexuals against homosexuals than vice versa," which is unsupported by the data. The data is flawed, because it does not identify whether homosexuals are victims of heterosexuals or homosexuals. And the Law in fact, mandates the FBI to compile stats on victims, but not the sexual orientation of offenders. This is simply matching odd socks or mixing apples and oranges to get a conclusion. And then that conclusion is misinterpreted and misapplied for political purposes.

So, we actually have identified an area of the Law that discriminates against gays, a Law which purportedly was written to protect them.

This really needs further investigation, because I do have a hunch some non-governmental agency somewhere has some stats on gay domestic abuse. And if this society is faced with the prospect legalizing gay marriage, and clogging the courts with gay marriages which probably will last on average less than two years, this society needs to understand the prevalence of violence in gay relationships, which the law as of now, is not required to keep statistics on. And this was exactly the complaint of many feminists about rape & domestic abuse from the mid 60s to the mid 70s--that rapes and domestic abuse were underreported to law enforcement because the police, courts, and legislature would do nothing about it. And the police, courts, and legislatures didn't see a problem because it didn't show in the statistics. RobS 23:26, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly could you footnote this statement

You wrote: "But most of those offenses occurred against property rather than individuals, often the result of drugs or alcohol. Only a tiny percentage even involved aggravated assault or worse, and those classifications are not based on any proof at trial." Could you please footnote this statment?

Conservative 19:18, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

That's the FBI site again. I'd add it again.--Aschlafly 19:19, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Here are the FBI's [2] Hate crime statistics by bias motivation. Aggravated assault and Simple assault account for about 500 of the 1100+ crimes, with zero homicides and one rape recorded. The rest are mostly property crimes, with Destruction/Vandalism (of which would include graffitti) being the most common at 275. And here are the Offender stats. [3] Note, statisics of the offenders sexual orientation are not kept.

Under the FBI's method, there is no way to measure how many Aggravated assault and Simple assault cases were gay dates gone bad. Every indication is that homosexual relationships, including lesbian, are much more prone to violence than heterosexual relationships. Yet the government it so appears, by law, is not mandated to keep statistics, and in fact, uses a flawed methodology intended to create flawed conclusions. RobS 20:36, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, RobS has a good point. Note that the statistics claim there was a rape of a homosexual victim motivated by anti-homosexual animus. Was that gay-on-gay violence??? Seems absurd otherwise. In the racial context, it is recognized by the courts of racial prejudice by the same members of a minority.

In response to TheGentleman's unsigned comment above (please sign your comments using the signature button above the edit space), nothing in the statistics indicates that heterosexuals are more violent towards homosexuals than vice-versa. Crimes by homosexuals are rarely, if ever, classified as hate crimes, and as RobS points out gay-on-gay violence occurs often (didn't Andy Warhol die from this?) and yet would not be reported in this table.--Aschlafly 22:26, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Let me show another flaw in the FBI statistics: the last reported gay hate crime murder in the US occurred in 2004. The FBI keeps stats on "Anti-Male homosexual" and "Anti-Female homosexual", yet this murder is not recorded as either. [4] Even the proponents of gay rights fumbled the ball here it seems, they must be Anti-Transgender bigots, the statisitcs reveal. RobS 23:58, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Gay-on-Gay Violence a Hate Crime?

"Andrew Cunanan July 1997: a serial killer who is gay ignites a firestorm of twisted media reports and assassinates out designer Gianni Versace before killing himself - Gods & Monsters," by Lisa Neff

"I will never forget that summer," says Cathy Renna, news media director for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. Renna is referring to 1997, when Andrew Cunanan murdered five men, including fashion designer Gianni Versace on July 15. ... Before killing Versace, Cunanan killed acquaintance Jeffrey Trail and ex-lover David Madson in Minnesota, then stabbed and tortured wealthy Chicago businessman Lee Miglin. ... "That he was on the loose and targeting gay men prompted a lot of concern," Renna says.[5]

So the question is this: were those murders hate crimes? Is gay-on-gay violence a hate crime?--Aschlafly 22:42, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

That's a very interesting and thought-provoking question. My initial reaction is to say that it would be a hate crime *if* it can be demonstrated that he killed these people for no reason other than their sexual orientation.--Porthos 22:58, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

No, the definition of hate crime is if sexual orientation is *any* reason, not the *only* reason. What would be your answer in that case? No? But if Cunanan's murders weren't hate crimes, then virtually nothing is.--Aschlafly 23:13, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

As we demonstrated on the Homophobia page, most homophobes are gays disgusted with themselves for being attracted to members of the same sex. The clinical term used today is "internalized homophobia." It would not be surprising at all that a clinical homophobe might react violently to other gays he might be attracted to, or who are attempting to persuade him to engage in something he personally is struggling with. RobS 00:10, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Is that how they define it? Hm. I feel like if you're going to have a hate crime law at all (be it for race, sexuality, religion, whatever) the crime should be motivated entirely (or very nearly entirely) by the dislike for the characteristic in question. Like, for example, if "Bob" has a mild distaste for black people and decides to rob someone, and his victim happens to be black, that's not enough (in my mind at least) to qualify as a hate crime. But if Bob goes out *specifically* looking for black people to rob, with the intent of sending a message to other black people ("You are not welcome here"), THEN I think it qualifies as a hate crime.--Porthos 00:21, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Let's suppose you have a gay person who is tired and disgusted with himself for living the gay lifetstyle (statistics support this hypothesis, gays have the highest rates of alchoholism and suicide of any group, and shortest life expectancy--46 years). This person seeks psychiatric help and is diagnosed as a classic homophobe. The therapy in fact does not help, because the state of the theraputic community today is to convince him to accept himself and live with it. But the patient resents (1) himself for having homosexual impulses, (2) the theraputic community for being of no help, and most importantly (3) other gays, past and present, for whom he blames for his miserable life.

Homophobe is not a diagnosis, Rob. Murray 19:22, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Now one day our disconcerted friend, while drinking away his sorrows is approached by another gay for sex. Our classic gay-homophobe turns in utter hatred and contempt on the other gay seducer, and violently assualts him precisely because (a) the other gay seducer was gay, and(b) hatred of the seducer because he was gay and everything he represents.

I would suspect this is a common occurrance in modern America. RobS 00:32, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

That was a very eloquent and well-laid out summary, Rob. I am curious where you got the 46 year life expectancy statistic, though. --ηοξιμαχονγ^θαλκ 00:51, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

"...men aged 20 years could expect to live another 48 years of life. Under the 9% scenario, gay and bisexual men at age 20 can expect to live another 46 years and have a total life span of 66 years in this major urban centre. Approximately 42% of gay and bisexual men under this mortality regime would die before age 65 with the maximal mortality occurring between the ages of 30 and 44 years." Hogg, Strathdee, Craib, O'Shaughnessy, Montaner and Schechter, Modelling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1997, pgs. 659 - 660. RobS 11:40, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Porthos, I agree with the logic of what you say, that a hate crime should be defined as motivated exclusively by a specific intent to hurt a protected group. But realize that the political purpose of hate crime legislation has nothing to do with deterring crime. It has everything to do with taking a step towards creating a privileged class and establishing affirmative action for them in jobs and school. Gays are not an underprivileged class, but they want to censor criticism of their lifestyle and to receive benefits of affirmation action. That's why they push for hate crimes legislation. It's not to reduce crime.--Aschlafly 01:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

What's amazing about this chart [6] is the definitions given. "Homosexual murder" presumably would be murder of a person who has sex with members of the same sex. The FBI reports 1 such homicide in 2004. Then in classifying it as "anti-male" or an "anti-female" homicide, it goes unquantified. Therefore we must conclude it was a murder of either a hermaphodite by birth, or a so-called "transgender" in the midst of various sex-change operations. So the question is, how does the law define homosexuality? because it evidentally is different from a person who has sex with members of the same sex.

This same question would apply to so-called "same-sex marriage" issues. How would the law provide for "same sex marriage" if a "same sex marriage" could be performed between persons of differring sexes? RobS 11:40, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Footnote 2

The link to footnote 2 may be broken, or it may have been moved from the Washington Times cite; there are references to the cite elsewhere on Google, or I might be able to get in from LexusNexus. Incidentally, one of the authors referred to, Mattison, who according to WP "performed influential research in both clinical and social aspects of sexology, as well as drug use" is dead at the age of 57. [7] RobS 12:11, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

lymphocyte attacked by AIDS virus picture

That simply is not true. AIDS is the condition of lymphocyte deficiency caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. The caption should be changed to state this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gg81 (talk)

Got the pic and caption from a biology reference source. See: http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&q=Aids+virus&btnG=Search+Images Conservative 20:41, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I just changed it (before I saw Conservative's message). HIV is the "AIDS virus" in that it is the virus which causes AIDS, but referring to is as the Human Immunodeficiency Virus is more accurate. Philip J. Rayment 20:49, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality and Animals

Why are bonobos and dolphins removed? ATang 14:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Read the Anthony Pardo material. Conservative 14:39, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

You'd have to clarify - I have no clue what you meant. ATang 14:45, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Reread the section. It will be clear. Conservative 14:55, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, his quotation was right there - I was looking for Anthony (not Antonio). It seems to me that the bonobos and dolphin reference was a continuation of the paragraph regarding National Geographics, reinforcing the idea that a viewpoint opposite of that of Antonio Pardo exists. I don't see why National Geographics wasn't removed then - if its sole purpose is to show a contrasting view, then bonobos and dolphins should stay (why cut off half a point?). ATang 23:09, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Humans "have sex", animals "mate". Also, male animals trying to establish dominance positions will sometimes mount another male, but there is no evidence that this is (1) an attempt to mate, let alone (2) an indication of homosexuality.

In fact, the term homosexuality applies only to human beings. It is an aberration, a chosen behavior which is a sin. There is no evidence that homosexuals are "born that way"; no one is born a thief or a murderer.

If you feel the urge to do something wrong, it is your responsibility to resist that urge. The joke about "I can resist anything but temptation" is just a joke. Good and evil is a serious business. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:26, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Hm... How did the argument about homosexuality in animals become good vs evil? I wasn't contesting why humans do it, or whether it's right or wrong.

The references given for bonobos and dolphins does not say anything about dominance as a reason for "homosexual" behaviour (is that why it was removed?), so it should stand as an "anomaly" in the context of that section, showing that homosexual behaviour does indeed exist for reasons other than establishing dominance.

I don't believe that an animal must "attempt to mate" in order to have sex. Perhaps that's a purely human concept - I don't know. But I don't believe you must have the intention to mate in order for the act to be called "homosexual". Sexual act alone should be enough. You gave a valid point about dominance - but bonobo males conduct homosexual acts as well (as bonobos are matriarchal in nature, your explanation of dominance could apply to females, but ranking is less important to males).

(On a side note - I don't exactly agree with your point about thieves or murderers. Why can't people be born with an increased tendency for misdeeds / violence? This natural predisposition, combined with improper (or immoral) up-bringing, would result in the production of criminals. That's how I try to explain the fact that there are people living through hardships in a harsh, criminal environment with bad parenting, and still turn out to be enormously successful. Of course parenting is a large part, but I don't doubt that nature still has some say in the nature vs nurture battle.)ATang 17:50, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

The fact that same-sex mating does not exist among animals is somewhat contested. Is there any way we could mention that somewhere? It is estimated that 1500 animal species practice homosexuality (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718)

Domestic violence

• A recent study by the Canadian government says

"violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples"

2004 General Social Survey, Statisitcs Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005.

• The U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs Domestic Abuse Fact Sheet states,

"11% of women in homosexual relationships and 23% of men in homosexual relationships report being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by an intimate partner"

National Center for PTSD Fact Sheet

• The Office of Prevention of Domestic Violence, State of New York cites a report which states

"17% - 46% of lesbians & gay men report abuse by a current or former partner"

Elliott, P., Shattering illusions: Same-sex domestic violence. In Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic Partnerships, ed. C.M. Renzetti & C.H. Miley, pg 1-8, Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press: 1996.

• The American Bar Association reports

"The prevalence of domestic violence among Gay and Lesbian couples is approximately 25 - 33%."

Barnes, It's Just a Quarrel', American Bar Association Journal, February 1998, p. 25.

• A Study published in The Journal of Family Violence reported,

"Emotional abuse was reported by 83% "

A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample, The Journal of Family Violence, Publisher Springer Netherlands, Volume 15, Number 3, September, 2000, Pages 281-293. ISSN 0885-7482

• The Journal of the Family Research Institute using data from the U.S. Justice Dept.'s Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Center for Disease Control concluded

"married men who are not separated are at least 25 times less apt to be domestically attacked than a homosexual male in an 'on-going relationship.' Even if we include all married and separated husbands, the risk of domestic violence in a male-male homosexual relationship is still at least 18 times greater."

Gay Domestic Violence Finally Measured, Journal of the Family Research Institute, Vol. 16 No. 8, Dec 2001.

RobS 15:34, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Bias

To me, this article has a heavy bias against homosexuals-- almost all the sections of it seem to point to why homosexuality is "bad" or "dangerous". The article really needs cleanup...

In what way is it biased against homosexuals? (There is no bias in saying, for example, that drunk driving is harmful to one's health!)

Are laboring under the assumption that homosexuality is benign? If so, please make your case here first, or better yet in Debate:Is homosexuality okay? --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:41, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Some bad aspects of homosexuality

• "Men and women with a history of homosexual contact had a higher prevalence of nearly all psychiatric disorders measured in the study."
• Many homosexual activists blame so-called "homophobia" for these disorders, but actually they are "the result of a lifestyle marked by rampant promiscuity and an inability to make commitments, combined with unresolved sadness, profound insecurity, anger and mistrust from childhood and adolescence."

The above should be in the article. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:45, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Even though it's a steaming pile of falsehoods? Murray 16:44, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Pedophilia

Shouldn't there be something in this article about the fact that homosexual males are more likely to be child abusers? This page documents the data showing that homosexuals are disproportionately represented as child abusers, and I think we should document this issue as another reason why homosexuals are dangerous. If you would like, I can work on an addition to the article for review. SSchultz 16:28, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

SSchultz, please research this issue further and get back to us. Someone else is looking into this issue. Here is another source in regards to your research: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431 Please keep in mind what the aformentioned link says about the FBI. That will have to be addressed. I hope this helps. Conservative 16:40, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Do you mean gay men are more likely (than whom?) to abuse children, or do you mean they are more likely (than whom?) to be paedophiles? There is a significant difference. Also, when talking about child abuse, it's important to specify exactly what acts are involved. G7mzh 15:16, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

homosexuality Promiscuity - further research

Does anyone want to examine the studies on promiscuity given here: http://www.unitedfamilies.org/documents/UFIfamilyIGSOfullpage_000.pdf

Conservative 16:50, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

It might be better to do an independent review of the research, don't you think? Murray 16:52, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Murray, I am not opposed to looking at a variety of sources in order to cite the best studies. Conservative 17:29, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality and sexually transmitted diseases

If anyone wishes to start some research on Homosexuality and sexually transmitted diseases using this source it would be appreciated: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=6546356&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

Conservative 21:36, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

APA....

"In May of 2000, the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality.[8]"

Are we not ignoring, the later change in their position, and at risk of being called out on this as cherry picking citations to make a point? --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 19:26, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Please give a citation regarding a later change in their position and is the change in position based on replication (scientific method). I am skeptical of a evidentially based change in their position based on the previous failures of replication in the scientific community.Conservative 16:16, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

The APA is hardly a scientific organization. They "voted" to remove homosexuality from the list of diseases. This would be like a bunch of physics geeks voting gravity off the list of forces. Besides, the word "homosexual" should not exist. Scientifically, sex refers to reproduction. Two men or two woman can't reproduce, therefore they are non-sexual. They can practice sodomy, but it's not sex.

Homophobia does not exist. It was created by a homosexual APA member. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Godzilla1138 (talk)

Your reasoning seems to suggest that oral sex, outercourse, etc. are not sex, which you define strictly as heterosexual intercourse. Also, homosexuality can refer to the attraction to members of the same sex as much as it can refer to sodomy and related acts. --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ^θαλκ 12:00, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Metropolitan Community Church

I suppose there's no point in including a mention of the MCC, is there, probably in the "Christian teachings" section? Didn't think so, so I won't.

Might warrent a separate article, though. G7mzh 12:30, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Statistics for Homosexuality article

Total number of revisions - 952

Revisions made by User:Conservative - 739 (78%)

Jallen ^talk 19:01, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Catholic and other Christian teachings

Ed Poor put this material in: Bill Bennett wrote: *According to the Church, homosexual acts are contrary to natural law (nature in this usage being identified with the created order) and "under no circumstances can ... be approved." But the Church recognizes that many men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies "do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial." ... Christian teaching on homosexuality derives from the biblical belief that human beings ought to live in accord with God's design. (The Broken Hearth, Page 192)

I guess the problem I have with this post is it only gives the Catholic view in 2001. I do not pretend to be a Catholic theologian but I think the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) have come out with some new pronouncements since 2001 on homosexuality which I am guess was a response to the pediphilia scandals. There are no Protestant views given. In my next post I will give the protestant views. Lastly, I don't think we should give the various views of churches in the beginning sections but give some of the more "hard hitting" information first so people can make a more informed choice in regards to various churches teachings on the subject. Conservative 21:46, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Here is what Protestant ministers believe about homosexuality: "In fact, 82% of all ministers agreed with the statement “homosexuality is a choice people make,” while 18% disagreed with it. Homosexuality was viewed as a choice by 94% of political conservatives, 79% of moderates, and 28% of liberals. Eighty-eight percent of evangelical ministers saw it as a choice, compared to 54% of mainline ministers.[9] Most Americans believe homosexuality is a choice: http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/070317/oldpoll.shtml Conservative 21:49, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

I think we need to have better information regarding the above especially the RCC view before we create the section proposed by Ed Poor. Conservative 21:51, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree with everything you just said.

In addition, we must expose the problem of "what the word means". Most opponents of homosexuality use homosexuality to mean sexual behavior between people of the same sex. Defenders are well aware of this usage, and they deliberately seek to create confusion by speaking of homosexuality chiefly in terms of "identity", "preference" or "orientation". Same as with pedophilia (described as a near-saintly "love of children" rather than as adult-child sex.

We need to clarify that our usage, anyway, is always about the behavior - not the propensity, the inclination, the "inherent longing" or any such crap as that.

Why is this important? Because the relentless talking point of homosexual advocates is that "homosexuality is not a choice", by which they mean that (1) people are born "gay" (or become gay in early childhood) and (2) being "gay" is an "orientation" which cannot be changed, even by a motivated adult volunteer.

These matter needs much, much more clarification. Homosexuals are masters of deceit and propaganda. --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:21, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Also, since the Orthodox are a big branch of Christianity I think we need to do research on their view of homosexuality. Conservative 22:39, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

• This article needs a major re-write. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 06:33, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

I also think that Catholic and other Christian teachings should not be the title of the new section. It seems to imply that the Catholic position is the most important view. Also, since the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is one organization and it is fairly hierarchal so it seems to me it would be better to cite them directly and not cite Bill Bennett. Also, the Bill Bennett quote is rather vague. If Bennett is right and the RCC says homosexuality is not a choice and is merely "a trial" what does that exactly mean? Homosexuality is purely developmental according to the RCC? Homosexuality is purely biological according to the RCC? Conservative 16:12, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

By the way, Google now ranks the article #10 after I removed the Bennett material. It moved up. Perhaps many conservatives didn't merely giving Bennett's apparent view that homosexuality is not a choice. I know I was not exactly fond of merely citing Bennett. Conservative 16:15, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

• Andy has already rejected the POV that rankings indicate anything, and are more like television ratings. Please stop using minipulated search engine rankings, okay? They have noting to do with scholarly pursuit. Bennett's material was relevant, but I agree with you, Conservative, it should have been backed by something more RCC official. I will provide that when adding the Bennett quote back later. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 16:19, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

TK, just to clarify I do not think we should cater to popularity. I merely believe that perhaps Bennett may not be adequately conveying the current RCC view and Bennet certainly was not reflecting what many conservative Protestants believe regarding the issue of homosexuality and it being choice. And while I don't believe in catering to popularity I do believe that there is no reason to exclude views that are very conservative and are backed by evidence and sound reasoning. I think we may have temporarily alienated some readers unecessarily since I believe the position that homosexuality is a choice that someone chooses to engage in is certainly defendable as long as we are not talking instances of rape or molestation.Conservative 17:17, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Prose usage

Content aside, this article seems to more like an angry letter. It needs a rewrite, and I'm not right-wing enough, and too British, to do it. But I reckon you should, as the name of the site ends with "pedia". --Revilo314 11:30, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

You offered no challenges regarding the content. You then decide to claim that it "seems" like an angry letter yet you do not give a single example of vitriolic language. Could it be that you are merely a liberal who disliked the article? In short, I think you could have offered a more substantial post on the talk page. Conservative 15:18, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Seperation of Relevance

One thing that stood out to me as a little out of place was the section on Sodom in relation to homosexuality. While there is a level of biblical relevance it would seem more appropriate to me to put that section in with the bible references with a sublink to an article regarding Sodom. Also, regardless, the statment "The Bible also states: ...the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven, and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. Genesis 19:24-25 " also seems a bit out of place in the text and should probably be placed later in direct comparison to the words of Dr. Wood. Basically I don't think they should be under different headers in any case. Upon my first read when I came across that quote it seemed completely irrelevant to the topic until further reading.

Upon further reading I also noticed that the last section, which was highly religious in its argument should probably be moved up near the biblical reference section though not under the same header.

Other religions' take on homosexuality

Christianity and Judaism, I think, aren't the only religions with traditional teachings out there against homosexuality. Just pointing that out. Rickyrab 23:56, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Glaad

"The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has been engaged in a campaign to increase the number of papers that print same-sex union or "marriage" announcements. It was launched in August 2002 when 70 American newspapers ran such announcements. Today, the figure is 219. They include the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times."[10] Conservative 21:46, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Religious Persecution

congratulations on your incredible bias. whatever happened to live and let live and your allegedly "forgiving god".

Someone who merely cries bias without any proceeding information does not have an argument. I suggest reading C.S. Lewis's essay on "bulverism".[11] Next, you forgot to cite this from the homosexuality article: "Matthew Henry wrote regarding homosexuals and other sinners repenting of their sins and becoming Christians the following: ‎"How glorious a change does grace make". Conservative 23:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Blocked

If you unblock this, I'll fix the many spelling and gramatical errors I found. Maestro 12:36, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Bias

This article is very hostile. It needs less biblical passages and more facts. Elassint 15:07, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

• Are you at all understanding that this is a Conservative and Christian friendly encyclopedia, Elassint? We know that the Bible is factual! You are invited to make substantial and positive edits here, at the fastest growing educational site on the Internet! --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 18:00, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

do you guys hate gay people?

Is it just me or you guys hate people according to this article. Ok, I admit, I'm a liberal, go ahead a ban me. I dare ya.--Dpaladinx 16:44, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

No. We just hate trolling behavior, not the troll. God bless and keep you, live long, and prosper. Rob Smith 16:47, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

in that whole article there is no mention of the republican party

Wow talk about creative writing! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Worldatheist (talk)

Untrue. We mention the Log Cabin Republicans HERE Conservative 14:20, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Gay Rights’ Icon Frank Kameny Spoke at NAMBLA Meeting in 1981

Gay Rights’ Icon Frank Kameny Spoke at NAMBLA Meeting in 1981. see: http://americansfortruth.com/2007/05/page/2/

Conservative 18:25, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Principles Of Weighing Historical Evidence & This Issue...

• I believe a main weakness of the debating between the many sides of this, is that neither side has appealed to the discipline of historiography (principles of weighing historical evidence). Now there is a Pulitzer prize winning historican by the name of David Hackett Fischer and he is a very logical and astute historian and I think he is a conservative as well (he cited Scripture in one of his works and we all know that conservatives are generally more logical :-)
• Perhaps those principles could be applied to this article as well? Would Conservative apply the same reasoning here, and allow it to be unlocked so the very editors he is agreeing with over at Dawkins could edit, with the same sound reasoning and scholarship he praises there? --şŷŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 21:38, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

TK, What historical issues are you disputing in the article and could you please explain why you are disputing them? I really think the bickering for the sake of bickering should end. Conservative 21:41, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

• I am merely applying your own "reasonableness" here, Conservative. If you trust and agree with the judgment of several editors on the Dawkins page, who disagree with Andy, you should want them to use their same advanced logic capabilities everywhere, no? In short, could you please explain publicly why their judgment and editing abilities have value there, but not here. That seems simple enough, and hardly bickering, inasmuch as I am agreeing with your premise, as posted elsewhere. Sorry if I somehow hit a sore spot, I didn't mean to. I apologize. --şŷŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 22:11, 23 October 2007 (EDT)