Talk:Homosexuality and religion/Archive 2

message: Cut from article:
:Some other religions, such as Buddhism, embrace non-heterosexuality as a valid human trait and do not believe homosexuality to be inherently sinful.
The Buddhist_views_of_homosexuality article doesn't call homosexality "a valid human trait" OR "inherently sinful". --Uncle Ed 13:17, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhism

message: Ed, thanks for the heads up. I changed "many other religions" to "other religions". Also, I think the opening sentence should include that one, if not the primary, reason "sexual relations between people who are not of the opposite sex are forbidden and regarded as sinful" is that they are non-reproductive (waste o' sperm). Also "recent decades" should be changed to something along the lines of "in the last decades of the 20th century" or whatever would be accurate. Hyacinth 21:39, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening sentence

message: :Some interpret the Bible as saying that even coitus interruptus was severely punished by God, since the semen was dropped on the ground and did not reach its true destination.
Can anyone identify what sect(s) have this interpretation, so it can be included? -- Beland 03:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some cite evidence of religious dogma when comparing attitudes towards same-sex love in cultures not impacted by the effect of these conservative religious creeds.  Whether we look back in history at cultures such as the ancient Greeks or the pre-modern Japanese, or we look at present-day Native cultures, such as many North-American tribes, we see societies which understand and integrate the human ability to love and desire someone of one’s own sex.
I'm afraid that this paragraph is suffering from a bit from Noble Savage syndrome.  One of the paintings I just moved out of the Homophobia article was from antiquity, and it was essentially marked as being homophobic.  I don't think I would be comfortable stating as fact that that anti-homosexual opinion simply did not exist outside of the influence of Abrahamic religion.  To be balanced, we need to research some counterexamples of anti-homosexual feeling outside this sphere of influence, if only to document that its extent was minor or sporadic (if that's the case), and shed some light on what the origins of such might be.
The Wikipedia articles that should have more detailed information about this sort of thing, don't.  For example, Homosexuality in Japan shows how homosexuality has existed for a long time, but it doesn't really document that it was universally accepted.  And pretty much nothing, not even motherhood and apple pie are universally accepted; I would expect to see some friction or opposition, even if marginal in nature.
Homosexuality in China seems to indicate that traditional Chinese culture and Chinese Buddhism have a vague or sometimes definite anti-homosexuality slant.
The material on homosex Ancient Greece and Rome is skimpy, or at least that which is accessible from History of sexuality.  "Native cultures" is a huge category, full of diverse attitudes; I think it's unwarranted to make any generalizations about this class of cultures one way or another. 
I'm adding a request for a major research effort to the tasklist for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_Sexuality. 
-- Beland 03:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problematic material from [[Homophobia]]

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:LGBT notice board for a discussion about merging and renaming some LGBT articles, including this one. -- Beland 03:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Significant amounts of material have been merged into this article, so now it needs cleanup. -- Beland 06:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger discussion 

message: This article is chartered to cover sexual orientation in general.  There is scant mention of bisexuality, though acceptance of it often parallels that of homosexuality.   But perhaps there's something to be said about it.  There is probably also something to be said about the behaviors that are sanctioned by religions that do accept same-sex relations.  There's everything from "it's OK if you're gay, as long as you are celibate" to "no sex until after marriage-equivalent for everyone, including homosexuals" to "if it makes you happy, anything goes, as long as it harms none". -- Beland 06:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion possibilities

message: This article is about homosexuality (not sexual orientation in general). Rather than follow Beland's suggestion above to expand the article, I propose the much easier solution of renaming the article Religion and homosexuality. It seems a little deceptive as is, serving the parent for a whole range of "XX RELIGION and homosexuality" articles. ntennis 04:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At first I thought you were joking, but after looking at the article, you're quite right that that title would be much more fitting. It might be possible to expand the article (a lot) to not be so unbalanced, but renaming it that would be much easier. –Tifego(t) 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename "Religion and homosexuality"? 

message: The main section overflowing in opinion in is Attacks based on stereotypes linking homosexuality to other behaviors. It consistently treats the linking of pedophilia/CSA to homosexuality as a misconception and "attack" on homosexuality, even though many organizations still contend there are links. Indeed, most pedophiles are, for whatever reason, homosexual when it comes to children (i.e. interested primarily in boys), though strangely many appreciate the 'femininity' of boys. On the other hand, most sexual offenses against children are heterosexual of natural -- against  girls -- because heterosexuals have an unusual tendancy to regress and molest even if not they are not pedophilic in orientation, something not usually present in homosexuals. 24.224.153.40 02:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. Which exact section are you thinking is not neutral, in tagging it "POV"? All of it, or specific sections? And can you give some examples, or what you think needs to be done to fix it? FT2 (Talk) 22:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Attacks based on stereotypes linking homosexuality to other behaviors" section is biased

message: I quite like the way 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Reformist_Torah_approach_with_Hebrew_translations
can explain how the whole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic history could hind on  the translatation of a word. As a opinion shouldn't it be included here?
If so how do I best link into that subsection?
Jago25 98 13:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no, it should not. -- tasc talkdeeds 13:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformist Torah approach with Hebrew translations 

message: I simply think that this article is too confused and badly-ordered to adequately deal with the topic.  The introductory section seems ill-written, and shall attempt some kind of re-write.  I think the individual religion pages are a great bonus, definately the way forwards.  Is there a way that this page can be turned into more of a list of other pages, pointing to each of these?
--Graham Martin 02:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done all the time, all you have to do is make sure  that no material is lost, and to leave a short abstract for each link. Haiduc 02:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: *"Sometimes male homosexuality is more strongly disapproved of than lesbianism by a religious community, though there is rarely any doctrinal basis for this differential treatment.  Some people allege that some or all religious condemnation of homosexuality is a rationalization for a preexisting negative social attitude, or conversely, that religious condemnation of homosexuality induces popular antipathy."
The above was removed because it "introduces a POV which isn't balanced against any opposing view, nor is it sourced." I moved it here because I was wondering, which part? Notice the paragraph says two things. Hyacinth 08:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if someone doesn't like this part, one could request a citation. -- tasc talkdeeds 09:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't feel that the above paragraph adds anything, and I don't mind it's removal. Does the first sentence mean to impy that religious bodies generally disapprove of male homosexuality more than female homosexuality? If so, it should say so and back it up with some research, because it's not self evident. If this really only happens "sometimes", then I think the sentence should be deleted from the lead section. The second claim seems kind of empty to me too: who are these people making this allegation? And what are they getting at? That religious homophobia is not actually handed down by God in the scriptures? Or "conversely", that religious homophobia contributes to homophobia in the wider community? Because I'd say this second point is indisputable, but I fail to see how this is the converse of the first point. Anyone want to argue for retaining this paragraph? ntennis 11:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the faults of these exact words they do address important issues, the comparison between anti-gay and anti-lesbian sentiment and the interaction between homophobia and religion, that do deserve discussion in the article. Hyacinth 21:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The above removed statement seems somewhat incorrect. From what I've read there is in fact much doctrinal basis for the differential treatment, most of the so called 'condemnations' of homosexuality that are supposedly found in various religious books often appear to only refer to male-male intercourse and not female-female. Nil Einne 01:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. In fact, most religious texts are written by and for men. I'll remove again it for now. If Hyacinth has a suggestion for re-wording, it can easily be put back in the article. Nil Einne, please feel free to edit the article directly. It needs a lot of work! ntennis 00:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: Unfortunately, LMS, your view about homosexuality in Greece is not neutral but a Catholic view. It's a Catholic argument to try to deny the acceptance of homosexuality in other cultures, including in the Greek one - even when the facts go to another way. In truth, homosexual behaviours in Greece were not "tolerated to some degree". They were truly accepted, since they were in a particular model (that is, with top-older man x bottom-younger boy, and since the men did family in the adult age). This is possible to see in greek ancient documents and about Greece, poems, texts from greek historians and many sources. About the teaching about homosexuality in Christianism - no, it's not unanimous at all. Today, there is a pro-gay theology with basis in Bible which one has impacted specially Protestant/Non-Catholic groups, like the Anglican Church. If this theology is correct or not, it's a question to individual faith and theological disputes. What's important to this topic is that it exists. And Christian teaching about homosexuality is not unanimous. Yes, the article IS true. Joaomarinho 08:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way one can find a "pro-gay basis" in the Bible is by resorting to postmodern deconstruction where words don't mean what they say. Having read pro-homosexual works quite extensively, I can say pro-homosexual scholars frequently go out on a limb, resorting to basing their arguments in what a certain word meant in Classical Greek.
The problem there is NT biblical Koine Greek and 4th cent. B.C. Attic Greek are two different dialects written by two separate cultures.
Any cursory reading of the Jewish pseudepigrapha and the writings of Philo, the ancient Jewish historian, will show that homosexuality was universally condemned in Jewish culture, and the context was irrelevant to them. You can believe what you like and rely upon intellectually dishonest scholars, but their views are not representative of the historic Christian worldview.]
User:Pravknight--68.45.161.241 19:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not neutral 

message: It should be noted that to equate the Gay and Lesbian movement for "equality" is generally offensive to African-Americans.  This will remain so until there is actual proof that Homosexuality is actually determined through genetics, rather than lifestyle choice.  Public perception is still split on that issue.
:Please sign your comments to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.
:To say that the equation is generally offensive to African Americans is putting things a bit more strongly than is really accurate.  It is offensive to some African Americans, especially Protestant African Americans, but to many others it is not, and many African Americans support gay rights movements, and yet more are gay themselves, and work with those movements.  That said, some of those African Americans (and others) within gay rights movements are frustrated by the white, middle class, American focus of the movements, but that's not a frustration with the equation of gay rights and civil rights, but with actually ignoring that equation.  The picture you're painting here is far too simplistic.  -Smahoney 19:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you cite some sources to back up those sweeping assertions? Thanks. Hbackman 04:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the majority of Americans are presemuably white middle class, it isn't really surprising that the majority of self identifying homosexuals are white middle class. So really 71's statement was disingenous. More relevant is whether there a greater percentage of self-identifying homosexuals are white middle class then we would expect from their percentage of the US population and the relevant percentage of black homosexuals as we would expect from their percentage of the US population Nil Einne 01:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parallels of Gay / Lesbian Struggle for Freedom to the American Civil Rights Movement 

message: :Specifically, some translations of the Old Testament have been used to argue that gay men should be punished with death, and AIDS has been portrayed by some such as Fred Phelps as a punishment by God against gay men and lesbians. However, as of 2005 according to the United Nations more heterosexuals are contracting AIDS compared to lesbians and gay men on a global scale.
This HIV/STDs argument is so common but I'm surprised how uncommon it is for people to point out the obvious flaw in it. Lesbians AFAIK are in fact at much lower relative risk of contracting HIV and other STDs then heterosexual women. The logical conclusion based on the reasoning used by people such as Fred Phelps, is that women should all become homosexual and refrain from heterosexual intercourse. I'm sure there must be someone else that suggested this, surely it merits inclusions? 01:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gays and lesbians and STDs 

message: This article is so confused! It looks like it's been a batteground between those "for" and those "against" homosexuality. I'd rather see a dispassionate account of the intersection between various religions and homosexualities. I've already started to rework the article, so I'm just putting a note here to let other editors know of my intentions. I want to keep the article on topic, so I'd like to remove or rework content like "Attacks based on stereotypes linking homosexuality to other behaviors" — where's the link to religion there? Much of the content here actually belongs on other articles.
I've also been starting to redress the imbalance of content toward Christianity and the USA, which of course is widespread on wikipedia, but particularly so on this topic, being such a political hot potato over the last few decades. That's all for now. :) I hope others who want to collaborate in a friendly way would like to join in tightening and cleaning up this article to the point where we can remove the tags. ntennis 10:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhauling this article 

message: Please see my comment on reorganization of the "Welcoming Congregation" topic (replying there). Thanks! --Haruo 06:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Welcoming Congregation" restructuring 

message: I reverted this once already, and don't want to engage in a revert war:
Edit by Inthebeginning.
It is irrelevant in the present article. It contains several logical errors. It certainly does not feel NPOV. Even if factually correct, it is out of place, illogical, and irrelevant. 
If nobody else does, I will revert again eventually.
 Sean Lotz  talk  00:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anybody else want to revert irrelevant addition? 

message: Hi everybody!  I'm one of the cabalists that just took the case for mediation.  I am glad to see that so far this dispute has been rather civil (compared to most revert wars) and I hope we can proceed with that in mind.  I'm still only scratching the surface here, but from what I can gather, there is a contested pararaph that Inthebeginning has added and continues to revert to.  I have read the paragraph, although I have not checked out the sources yet, and it seems to follow the rules in that it properly cites material.  I suppose the real question here is the relevance of that paragraph pertaining to the article, and whether or not the points raised in that paragraph qualify as original research or analysis.  User:Tony Fox raised some interesting points concerning that, but, in the interests of remaining impartial, I don't want to take sides here.  So instead, I would like to hear from the involved parties.  Inthebeginning, are you sure that this article is the right place for your paragraph?  Certainly, that paragraph is relevant elsewhere and belongs under the 'criticisms' section of the 'homosexual marraige' article or perhaps in an article all its own, if you can prove that a credible researcher or notable person has drawn the same conclusions.  And Queezbo, if you can't accept the paragraph as being relevant, are you sure you wouldn't rather construct a solid philosophical argument instead of simply reverting his edits?  for example, the idea that homosexual marraige would inevitably lead to the destruction of society could be counterbalanced by other factors, such as technological advances (e.g. Brave New World) or a concept of societal responsibility which transcends sexual preference (sexually reproducing anyway regardless of orientation).  Or, you could argue that the world faces a terrible overpopulation problem as it is, so homosexual marraige is a logical solution to a major problem.  These are some rather ridiculous options, I know, but perhaps you should meet each other on your respective terms, rather than reverting constantly.  I wish Wikipedia was a place where people could agree to disagree, but sadly this is not the case.  Our goal here is to create a good article that does not include bias or irrelevant information.  Please contact me and let me know what you think.  Also, we should move the discussion of this particular dispute to this page to avoid cluttering the article's talk page. Antimatter 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A mediator arrives 

message: We have in eastern europe (Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, ...) the lowest Fertility rates in whole Europe. And this part of Europe has until now no recognition of homosexual couples. But we have in northern/western/southwest Europe the legal recognition of homosexual couples.GLGerman 09:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fertility rates below replacement 

message: The paragraph CC80 reverted out refers to current aceptance of homosexuals by some modern Christians. I admit the paragraph is not particularly elegantly written, and the material is touched upon in the section "Abrahamic religions," but it is factual and necessary for understanding the current situation (as it is, not as some might wish it to be), and it needs to be mentioned in the Christianity section itself.  Sean Lotz  talk  09:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I reverted CC80's revert 

message: This article has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal.  This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person.
A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned.  This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts.  Please be alert for suspicious activity.  Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. DurovaCharge! 17:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community ban of the [[Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Joan_of_Arc_vandal|Joan of Arc vandal]] 

message: I think I must correct you people in this article's mention of neo-pagan religions. As a person coming from the germanic traditions (Ásatrú) I think I can speak with some authority on the subject. Homosexuality, in my tradition, is regarded with extreme and utter shame and umanliness. I therefore particularly strongly react against this sentence in the article: "Neo-Pagan religions are almost unanimous in their acceptance of same-sex relationships as equal to heterosexual ones." Not true! Most neo-pagan religions (who follow historical traditions) explicitly condemn or stigmatise homosexual behaviour. However, I acknowledge the fact that Wiccans may accept homosexuality, but Wicca should never be mixed with other neo-pagan religions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.67.252 (talk • contribs) 
:Hello, Anonymous. Thanks for your comments, which are quite pertinent. May I suggest that you be bold and edit the section. I would not want to be the one to do the editing, since I know so little about the subject, and therefore would not want my name attached to the edit in the article's history. But if you know something about it, go ahead and fix it. But if you don't, I probably will eventually. Oh, and may I suggest you sign up for an account? It seems you have done a number of edits anonymously (related subjects, so I assume they are all you). Having an account makes it easier for all of us here to enter into conversation about what we are doing. And it is so much nicer knowing that there is a real person at the other end. 
 Sean Lotz  talk  21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neo-pagans do NOT accept homosexuality 

message: I'm not at all happy, in principle, with the removal of this section. I'm not going to revert, because the section as it stood was not very good. But in the larger picture of the subject, some sort of discussion of atheism would be appropriate. Atheism is a religious belief (yeah, it is), and if there is any sort of regular (even if not absolute and always) difference between atheist and theist approaches to homosexuality, there should be a mention for completeness. But I'm not sure how to approach it, and I didn't like what was there before, so I just toss it out for discussion. Please discuss.  Sean Lotz  talk  21:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Atheists" section 

message: This page is heavily biased, and accepts certain opinions as set in stone. If it were up to me, I would have the neutrality of this page in dispute. It is not a fact that the translations necessarily favor liberal interperatation. 
 Adam
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.225.8.41 (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias