Talk:Leviticus 18

message: This is a useful article, which I've now linked from Christian views on homosexuality and placed in a category (a more specific one may be more appropriate, but it's a start). Rd232 16:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You've changed the subject rather smoothly. If you ever want to return to the points I was making, let me know. Uncle Ed 23:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not sure what your point is. That someone by insertion or supression is pushing a POV is always possible. This article was listed as a 'POV fork' and is far from being clean. Perhaps if you could be a little more specific? --Doc (?) 23:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 19:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote for Deletion

message: The colours on the incest chart are difficult to see/compare on some monitors. Can we switch to as simple written chart?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.127.157 (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Chart colours

message: This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religioustolerance.org

message: Can we find better terms to describe these different viewpoints? The words currently being used are too emotive in context and can be misleading as not all politically conservative people are theologically conservative, and not all politically liberal people are theologically liberal. There is no mention in this article as to exactly what "liberal" and "conservative" are referring to. It is just roughly assumed, and that is bad, since there is a tendency for these words to be used in a laudatory or derogatory context.
The same with words like "modern" and "traditional". There are many on both sides of the issue who would say that theirs is really the "traditional" view in spite of what is the presently and commonly established viewpoint.69.87.160.8 20:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Liberal" vs. "Conservative" & "Traditional" vs. "Modern", The Use of Emotive Words

message: This article focuses almost entirely on only one verse, when there's a lot to be said about the marriage prohibitions, both from anthropological and historical points of view... AnonMoos (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: heavily imbalanced

message: I should explain why I added this to :Category:Homophobia.  This does not imply that the chapter is necessarily homophobic, especially as its meaning is debated.  However, Leviticus 18 is one of the most heavily invoked biblical referenced to justify religiously-motivated homophobia.  A great deal of discussion has gone into the criteria of categorizing an article as homophobic, and a FAQ is being drafted based on the conclusions of the European Union as well as the Yogyakarta Principles. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homophobia 

message: I'm surprised the page doesn't deal at all with the issue of the actual Hebrew text, which certainly does not actually say Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. What it does say is:-
And with a male, thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination.
An important distinction, since now it is no longer clear exactly what the verse means. Among several possible meanings, for example, is a prohibition on two men sharing a woman sexually at the same time. This would make sense, since it would be impossible to determine (without modern medicine) which of the two had fathered any subsequent issue. Indeed, as far as medical opinion was then advanced, it could have been argued that the child had been fathered by both men; which would make it an interesting legal case in matters of inheritance, to say the least.
Nuttyskin (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This opinion shouldn't be put in the article unless reliable sources can be found to support it. A recent editor added this opinion in on the basis of a self-published web page, but that's not good enough for Wikipedia. See WP:RELIABLE.Alephb (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textual criticism 

message: I think the "Structure" section of the article should go. It doesn't actually provide any discussion of how the article is structured. All it does is rip off, partly word for word, the section headings that show up in a particular obscure translation of the Bible. And section headings in a Bible don't necessarily describe the actual structure of the text itself. For example, the section headings would give the impression that verses 1-20 are about incest. But they aren't -- verses 1-5 are sort of prefatory material, and then 6-20 are about incest. We should replace the section with a brief and neutrally written summary of the chapter's contents, which can be folded into the "Text" section. Add a little bit about when and by whom the chapter was written, and the article starts to look a little better organized. Alephb (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leviticus 18. 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20021207052423/http://www.anova.org/sev/ to http://www.anova.org/sev/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Could it not be transliterated??? 174.115.100.93 (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew text 

message: Are homosexual acts literally the thing being condemned here? There are alternate ways of interpreting this using the original language of the text and using comparative scriptures. For instance, it could be that the text is specifically referring to homosexual incest, rather than homosexuality itself. Or perhaps it's a condemnation of 2 or more different men having sexual relations with one woman. Why is there so much consensus among so many Jewish and Christian denominations that the Bible in general universally condemns homosexual acts simply for these acts being homosexual in their nature? I don't want to be someone who engages in wishful thinking about the Bible and LGBTQ issues. I just want to know the truth, even if the truth is difficult to digest. 2601:98A:400:8910:10DC:EF49:2082:82CA (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theological question