Talk:Same-sex relationship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move

I think same-sex relationships is more broad than same-sex couple. It is problematic to determine when two people have gone from having a relationship to being in a couple. We should move this article to same-sex relationships.Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support That seems like better wording for it. A hat-note could be added to it to distinguish it from non-romantic relationships. User0529 (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Suggest Alternate Same-sex relationship. The article is not about a population, it is about an individual relationship. We do not use plural for article names. We use Marriage, not Marriages (which redirects to Marriage). 199.125.109.72 (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed that is consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Same-sex relationship per IP user above. DigitalC (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Removal of health info on MSM and WSW

This article is about same-sex relationships, and I think the health effects are an issue with same-sex relationships. This was erased awhile ago from WSW when I wasn't looking and I think it should be restored. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The argument given in the edit summary was that this was coattacking and is a subsection of a subsection. I think the health affects of same-sex relationships are an important part of same-sex relationships. It is a major discussion point when discussing politics of same-sex relationships. Helping the population of people in same-sex relationships become aware of the potential hazards is helpful information to the people involved, not an attack. If the concern is that it is a subsection of a subsection, we can have another section that discusses the health concerns of same-sex relationships in general, without having a separate section for MSM and WSW. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the WSW section, I deleted the parts that were already proved biased and unreliable and whatnot in the main article itself. Whoever wrote the WSW section added in this deleted content (and consensus was reached to delete it on main article) after the fact which is a little sneaky I think to purposely add content that was already deemed unreliable (and so on). Avalik (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's coatracking and faulty data being applied to imply. If you think the data is that solid and hasn't been otherwise disproven it should go to the various articles on each sexual activity. Because the issue is, for example, that anal sex has inherent health risks, regardless of who's anus it is. Ergo we have one article about anal sex and it has Anal sex#Health risks section for all anuses. -- Banjeboi 22:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Only a man's anus can receive a disease, pass it to his penis and then shot it out into someone else's anus. Women can't do that because they don't have a penis. there is an ability to switch positions in MSM that there aren't in other people who have anal sex. You say that it is "faulty data being applied to imply". What is the faulty data? All of the information is well sourced. What is the implication? On the MSM you said that it discriminates against sexual minorities. This doesn't apply to all sexual minorities. Not all sexual minorities are in a same-sex relationship just like not all straight people are in an opposite sex relationship. The job of this article is to talk about all aspects of same-sex relationships, and disease is one of them. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to like to use the edit summaries to make your arguments. This is the way that the article was written, and you can't just erase mass amounts of information with no consensus and then claim that you have consensus. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Those are issues for the anal sex article and possibly the WP:Med project to unravel. It would be more productive to prove that showing that some sex acts, which non-homosexual people also employ, only affect same-sex relationships. I'm not sure if that's even possible. In any case this article is Same-sex relationship not Rates of diseases for non-heterosexuals. Shoe-horning in various statements to conflate same-sex pairings with disease, and by extension death, seems like a moral POV that we should avoid per NPOV. And I'm disputing this content has any place in this article and as such you need to demonstrate consensus to re-insert it. -- Banjeboi 22:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The information that is included belongs on this page because it is specifically about same-sex relationships and does not apply to anyone else who participates in anal sex. If that is your argument, then everything in this article should be removed, because there is art about opposite sex relationship, opposite sex relationships in history, opposite sex relationships that are recognized by governments, opposite sex couples who are parents, religious perspectives on opposite-sex sexuality. Health affects are no more show-horning than any of the other sections. These sex acts, like switching roles between inserting and receiving ONLY affect same-sex couples. You need an argument to delete them. They are related, they are verified, they are reliable. What is your argument? Rates of diseases for non-heterosexuals has nothing to do with this because not all non-heterosexuals participate in same-sex relationships. We will leave the content how it was until we reach a consensus. You need a consensus before you remove it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"These sex acts, like switching roles between inserting and receiving ONLY affect same-sex couples." This is untrue. A female can wear a strap-on and thus be able to switch roles. As for "reliability" this was extensively covered in the archives of MSM, such as Talk:Men who have sex with men/Archive 7 and [[1]]. The general consensus seems to be that the data was incorrect, not reliable, paraphrased wrongly and so on. Avalik (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. You seem to missing the key point here. This is an article about same-sex relationships. Unless those studies prove that the men studied (i) are in a same-sex relationship and (ii) that because of that relationship they are more likely to carry and spread disease ... this information is engaging in original research which is strictly prohibited. You are conflating certain sexual activities of one gender as to apply to any two men in a same-sex relationship. Please show which studies specifically measured rates of disease between men in same-sex relationships vs men in opposite-sex relationships vs men who are sexually active in no relationship. Then we can entertain what to apply to this article. -- Banjeboi 22:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Two men having sex with each other is a type of relationship. I guess I don't understand what you are saying. Who am I trying to compare MSM with? Men in opposite sex relationships? Celibate men? The sources refer to men who have had a sexual relationship with another man and there increased risk for some of these diseases. It is to the point that the US won't even take the blood of a man who has ever had a same-sex relationship, even if it was a one-night stand. I don't have to show that they are being compared to men in other types of relationships. All I have to do is show that the sources talk about MSM. The sources say MSM are at higher risks for these diseases. All I or anyone else can do is show that it is a reliable source talking about MSM. If the source is reliable, relevant and about MSM, it belongs. It is reliable, well-sourced and relevant. You have no ground to take it out. It is well known that MSM Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't reliably sourced. This is why it was removed from the main article. To add it after consensus was reached (on main) to remove it is not a good thing to do. Avalik (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Two men having sex is indeed a relationship of some sort, however a trick may indeed be seen as something quite different than a marriage and all people regardless of sexuality and gender have both long-term and fling-like relationships. So what we have to look to is serving our readers' understanding of what this article purports to be about. We are here to serve them, not our own agendas of condemning or condoning the subject matter. So then we get to this list of diseases that MSM may pass to each other which seems wholly inappropriate here. We have articles on various sex acts where digression into health issues is expected and appropriate. Ergo, on this article we can simply highlight that there are health issues with all sex acts rather than wedge in the various diseases that some MSM may get. Otherwise we are conflating sex between men as inherently spreading disease when all sex does that regardless of the sex of those involved. That's the simple reality of sex. And the information is simply not needed on this article that is about relationships. Your studies may show that there is a difference between rates under certain circumstances but they do not show that because someone is is a relationship they are more likely to have diseases - just that because they have sex they might. And we already knew that and it's not needed here. -- Banjeboi 23:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

-- Banjeboi 23:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You try to act like all sex acts are created equally. Same-sex relationships have a higher probability of spreading diseases among men than opposite-sex relationships. You say that our job is to serve the reader. Rates of disease among young men who have same-sex relationships is sky-rocketing. Is that because same-sex relationships are more prone to disease than they used to be? No, it is because information about diseases is being censored from places like Wikipedia. I don't think that is serving our readers. We need to be honest about the potential hazards of same-sex relationships, and equip them with correct information so that they can make appropriate decisions about them. They need to know that same-sex relationships are MORE likely to spread disease than opposite-sex relationships, so to compensate, they need to be MORE careful than men who do not participate in same-sex relationships. Back when HIV was linked to same-sex relationships, men who participated in same-sex relationships took appropriate precautions not to get it. Now that it is linked to Africa, men in same-sex relationships aren't taking the appropriate steps, and many more are getting it. You talked about same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is a type of same-sex relationship which I personally believe will have a lower prevalence of disease than other types of same-sex relationships. In fact, one reason to support same-sex marriages is to encourage monogamy.[2] The argument is that MSM are more likely to have multiple partners because unlike opposite sex couples, there is not a government structure that encourage monogamy among MSM. Of course, that argument only makes sense if you acknowledge that men who pursue same-sex relationships typically have more partners than other men. Otherwise, there would be no need for a government sanctioned institution that encourages monogamy. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt that HIV rates are soaring because a small subsection on a Wikipedia article isn't using what you say is reliable information. "You try to act like all sex acts are created equally." ... yeah, depending on what you mean by that, they kind of are equal. A women participating in anal sex with a male ("receiving end") and a man who participates in anal sex with a male ("receiving end") are at the same risk rate. A man's anus isn't special and more disease-prone than a woman's anus as far as I'm aware.

"They need to know that same-sex relationships are MORE likely to spread disease than opposite-sex relationships" [citation needed]

"Now that it is linked to Africa, men in same-sex relationships aren't taking the appropriate steps, and many more are getting it." [citation needed]

"men who pursue same-sex relationships typically have more partners than other [heterosexual] men." [citation needed] .... and so on Avalik (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is inappropriate for Wikipedia

This article should be entirely rewritten or removed. You don't define same-sex relationship as perceptions of historical values and religious morals or defined it with scientifically facts, citations or statistics. This article should not be about perceptions or facts but about Same-Sex Relationship as it was in history, in religion belief and in scientifically reality.

The perception of what is a Same-Sex Relationship from the nominal social values of various periods in history doesn't define what is a Same-Sex Relationship in that time. It is only a painting of what the values of the period would conceder acceptable for the un-nominal in their time. Neither religious perception can define what is Same-Sex Relationship because it is based on an old dogmatic reading of their scriptures. These texts, even today, are not interpreted within a contemporary thinking. They only define of Same-Sex Relationship of an past interpretation of old scriptures.

Most scientific study of homosexual behaviors are not reliable. Most were not based with a scientific understanding for why homosexuality exists. If a scientist do not understand why homosexuality exist which has been since the beginning of times how can they come with a conclusion about their behaviors. It is studying the effects without knowing the actions. So most scientifically study forms a conclusion based on subjective judgments of homosexuality in their time, not on science. For statistic, it depends from who and where the statistics were made. In the large majority of the world, even in liberal places, it is still taboo for a person to talk about homosexual orientation so how thoughtful can these statistics be. They are not any base for scientific studies.

Same-sex relationship would be better defined in an article that takes a social-anthropology concept of the subject. I do understand that social-anthology is still a temporal interpretation of the past with our contemporary views, which is certainly not ideal. But at least it describes a subject within the perspective of history including its values, ethics, religions and sciences. That is quite better then using history, religion and science from the past as a fact for an article on a subject that is still obscure.

Instead of rewriting this article, it would be preferable to remove it. I believe it is of pour quality with no substance that is relevant. It is certainly offensive to Same-Sex Couples. Just an example to illustrate my point of view: how the HIV disease is mentioned. The HIV disease is described just as a historical fact. There is no mention about the impact on Same Sex Relationship, which would be more relevant for the subject. This should belong in an article about contagious disease not about relationship between two humans. You can read through this article and there are many more examples of irrelevant text, and then you can form your own opinion.

C D Marmen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.207.112 (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Same-sex couples as parents

This section reads like a defensive rant rather than a presentation of information. The statement that acceptable evidence shows no proof of children losing out through having same-sex parents could be made once. The ramblings that this should be sufficient to quelle doubts about same-sex parenting should be removed. I also think that it needs to be presented as a single issue against same-sex parenting rather than the only issue. Most of the concerns in the world about same-sex parenting are not about the parents' abilities but about whether or not children should be being brought up with same-sex parents. The article currently presents a minority concern as if it is the only concern and therefore appears to be biassed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.115.80 (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo Request

I want to request a photo to this page: File:Michelle Sweet, Lori Lust Porn Star Karaoke 2006-02-07 4.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.237.146 (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? Porn star doesn't equal same-sex relationship. CTJF83 14:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Reference no. 19 -- The webpage with URL http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social19.htm has moved to the new address http://rictornorton.co.uk/social19.htm Rictornorton (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Same-sex relationship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015163119/http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=43546%2F02&sessionid=4859311&skin=hudoc-en to http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=43546%2F02&sessionid=4859311&skin=hudoc-en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110411164338/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/04/arkansas-high-court-strikes-do.html to http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/04/arkansas-high-court-strikes-do.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100610164736/http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/AP_06_pre.PDF to http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/AP_06_pre.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928025729/http://www.apsa.org/About_APsaA/POSITION_STATEMENTS/GAY_AND_LESBIAN_PARENTING.aspx to http://www.apsa.org/About_APsaA/POSITION_STATEMENTS/GAY_AND_LESBIAN_PARENTING.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613072557/http://cwla.org/programs/culture/glbtqposition.htm to https://www.cwla.org/programs/culture/glbtqposition.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928051520/http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31 to http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713125016/http://www.aidsportal.org/News_Details.aspx?ID=5208 to http://www.aidsportal.org/News_Details.aspx?id=5208&nex=5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080618190907/http://www.unaids.org/en/PolicyAndPractice/KeyPopulations/MenSexMen/default.asp to http://www.unaids.org/en/PolicyAndPractice/KeyPopulations/MenSexMen/default.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910171338/http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/African_American_Transgenders_and_HIV.ppt to http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/African_American_Transgenders_and_HIV.ppt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724000654/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2004328748_bromance07.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2004328748_bromance07.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for adding Photo

This officially released photo shows two lesbian females (the official description of photo mentions that they are lesbians) belonging to US Navy kissing on meeting after a long time. It needs to be put in this article to show -firstly, how US Govt is becoming acceptable to idea of same-sex relationships, even in a rigid organization like military, and secondly, to show public display of affection done by same-sex people can be considered acceptable in Western societies. 106.219.95.180 (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Tidy up

I think this page needs to be restructured. “Romantic or sexual” is an odd heading, with unrelated topics about government recognition underneath it. That content should be under its own heading. Sxologist (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I have split romantic or sexual into "legal recognition" and "Same-sex parenting". I think these segments could be tidied up as there is some repetition later on the article about legality of SS relationships. Sxologist (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Same-sex relationship

Dear Crossroads I am sorry for causing some confusion, I decided to create the category Category:Homosociality to cover articles about same-sex relationships which are platonic to make things more clear. I also decided to boldly revert your changes to the article Same-sex relationship since I belive it is important to cover the topic of same-sex interactions not only from the point of view of modern LGBT and romantic or sexual angles, but from all types of relationships (familiar, mentorhip, friendship, etc). If you disagree I would ask what article you would prefer the the topic to be covered in, do you think we should have another article focused on all types of same-sex relationships/interactions instead?★Trekker (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I moved the above from my talk page. I don't see a need for Category:Homosociality. Same-sex platonic 'relationships' are overwhelmingly referred to as friendships, and sources cover them in that way. There is no gap in Wikipedia's coverage of friendships, same-sex or otherwise. Those are covered in and belong in other articles. You're just mixing up the terminology. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree completly.★Trekker (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Micro-categorising everything is not the best idea. Sxologist (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

★Trekker, like I stated here on your talk page, we have other articles for platonic relationships between two people of the same sex, including Friendship, Bromance, Womance, Male bonding and Female bonding. Crossroads is correct that same-sex relationship "is used in sources almost exclusively for referring to romantic and/or sexual relationships." Whether it's articles or categories, we should not be engaging in WP:Undue behavior. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

FYI, Flyer22 Frozen and Sxologist, I took Category:Homosociality to Categories for Discussion. *Treker, no need to ping you since Twinkle sent you a talk page message. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)