Talk:Christianity and homosexuality/Archive 1

message: Right now this article is really crowded, because this is such a complex and hotly contested issue. Maybe it would be better if we made this an overview page that linked to other pages with more specific content. Something like:
1 Overview
:Very brief acknowledgement of issues relating Christianity and homosexuality (ie. whether it is sin, what the Bible says, whether gays should receive communion, whether gays can be ordained, whether gays deserve non-discrimination legislation, etc.)
2 Is Homosexuality a Sin?
:Paragraph summary
:2.1 Biblical Justification
::Brief summary with link to Homosexuality and the Bible
:2.2 Denominational Views
::Paragraph summary with links to Catholic views of homosexuality, Baptist views of homosexuality, etc. where appropriate or maybe even just Christian denominational views of homosexuality
3 Historical Treatment of Gays
:Paragraph
:3.1 Persecution
::Paragraph summary, possible link
:3.2 Acceptance (ie. Boswell)
::Brief Summary, link
:3.3 Reformational Ministry
::Paragraph Summary with link
4 Non-discrimination laws
Paragraph Summary
:4.1 Argument for
::Brief
:4.2 Argument against
::Brief
5 Something else
etc, etc, etc...
It might be good to agree on a structure first and then rework this article, keeping in mind that topics which warrant lengthier discussion can branch into new articles. What do people think? -- Queerudite 03:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me! --Angr 08:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Decrowding

message: I am rewriting the section on the Seventh-Day Adventist position.  The quote given, "obvious perversions of God's original plan" from  standing alone gives it bad POV context—where the original page puts it in the same bucket with everything from premarital sex to bestiality, the quote standing alone makes it look like a specific injunction.  (In any case, that statement is dated 1982, and the newer statement dated 1999 is considerably less brutal in wording if not in intent.)   —Muke Tever 21:01, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adventist section 

message: This website argues that the Hebrew words for homosexuals and their activities have been mistranslated. The original Hebrew Bible condemns certain homosexual behaviour, eg. 
"qadesh" means a male prostitute who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple . This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. it is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or "homosexual." (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple prostitute. It is frequently mistranslated simply as "whore" or "prostitute." A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple. 
"to'ebah" means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but often simply translated as "abomination." Eating food which contains both meat and dairy products is "to'ebah" A Jew eating with an Egyptian was "to'ebah." A Jew wearing a polyester-cotton garment would be "to'ebah".
Therefore condemnation of specific practices such as prostitution have been mistranslated to include all homosexual practices.
The New International Version (NIV) currently translates Leviticus 18:22 as: 
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
The New Living Translation (NLT) widens the translation to also include lesbians: 
"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin. 
Imagine what would happen if the translators decided to be accurate to the original Hebrew and render this verse as: 
"Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed; it is ritually unclean. (my emphasis)
This shows that homosexual behaviour in certain contexts (on a woman's bed) was considered sinful, this does not include all homosexual behaviour. And though this specific homosexual behaviour was considered sinful this was only considered  "ritually unclean" which puts it on the same level as coming into contact with a dead body which also made someone ritually unclean. It was forbidden to mix certain things together (eg. two crops in one field etc) therefore it is likely that the main point of this verse is that it is ritually unclean for a man to have sex with another man in his wife's bed as this made either the woman unclean from the act or the men unclean from using the woman's bed for somthing other than what it should be used for.
Therefore sinful practices such as rape and prostitution were condemned, not the homosexual acts themselves. Where homosexual acts were forbidden, this was only for "ritual cleanliness" not somthing morally or ethically wrong (and these rules on ritual cleanliness only apply to Judaism and not Christianity). --Cap 20:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation Problems 

message: There is a problem in using the term Traditionalist when referring to the opinion of Christians when what is meant is Fundamentalist. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches are 2000 years old and claim to be keepers of Christian tradition. Yet neither church considers Homosexuality a choice. Therefore I have changed the term traditionalist in the various passages to fundamentalist. Phiddipus 16:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction between Fundamentalist and Traditionalist 

message: It's rather unfair for Southern Baptists to be the only group of Baptists represented on this page.  Many Baptist churches, especially those belonging to the American Baptist Churches, are very welcoming towards homosexuals in general (I don't know to what extent gays oe lesbians in sexual relationships are accepted as ministers though).
But this brings up another point:  we can't really divide the churches into "pro-gay", "gay-neutral", and "anti-gay", because there is more than issue here.  Off the top of my head I can think of at least three different general issues with various subissues:  (1) Are gays and lesbians welcomed as members of the congregation, (a) only if they are celibate, (b) even if they are noncelibate, (c) not at all; (2) Are gays and lesbians allowed to become ministers/priests, (a) only if they are celibate, (b) even if they are noncelibate, (c) not at all; (3) Is the church willing to perform any kind of commitment ceremony for same-sex couples, (a) only if it's called a "blessing of the union" or a "commitment ceremony", (b) yes and will call it a wedding, (c) not at all.
The Anglican church I attend, for example, is "pro-gay" on question (1) [the answer is (b)], but "gay-neutral" on questions (2) and (3) [the answer being (a) to both].
:I wrote this posting a few weeks ago and forgot to sign it.  Sorry!  --Angr 20:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baptists; multiple questions 

message: I see my suggestion about contextualizing Christian resistance to the gay revival as part of a greater pattern of narrow textual interpretation did not last long.  But that seems like a basic step that has to be taken in order to present the current debate in perspective. If this contextualization does not belong here, then where? Haiduc 12:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pattern of authoritarian interpretation of the faith

message: The passage in question was:
::At the same time, those Christians such as Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, who lay a heavy weight on Christian tradition, will point out that until the 20th century, the Christian tradition, in all denominations, prohibited homosexual activity. In fact, it universally prohibited all orgasmic acts outside the context of non-contracepted heterosexual intercourse. Those, thus, who take the Christian tradition as normative on moral issues, will insist that homosexual acts are wrong in the same way as artificial contraception, masturbation, oral sex, etc. Even if the acts were not condemned in Scripture, this would not imply that they are morally acceptable--necrophilia, for instance, is not mentioned in Scripture, but is universally condemned by Christians. And in any case, the Christian tradition interpreted the biblical texts as prohibiting homosexual activity, so that those Christians who, much like Orthodox Jews, take tradition as normative for exegesis, will not be able to re-interpret the texts as some scholars would.
This passage is wrong for the following reasons
*1. The Eastern Orthodox POV concerning sin in general is never a blanket statement, the church never universally condemns anything.
*2. Orthodox can use Contraception
*3. It would be ridiculous to condemn Masturbation, the church recognizes it as mearly part of growing up, it is not evil. It does require that the individual learn to control themselves.
*4. The church has never condemned any sexual act between married couples, nor does it consider the sex act to be for procreation only, but rather as a bonding force between two people who love one another.
*5. The Orthodox Church is not bibliocentric, things condemned in the old testament do not apply to Christians, nor is it a prerequisite that something has to be in scriptures to be true.
Phiddipus 01:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholic and Orthodox inclusive errors 

message: I thought the sections on the interpretation, pro and anti, of the versus was very intersting.  However, it would have been easier to follow if each quoted section was followed by both views, rather than one section for each view.  In other words something like this:
* Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 
Anti-acceptance
**  God condemns sexual relations between men
Pro-acceptance
**  A literal translation of the work might be rendered as "And, with a man, you shall not sleep the beddings of a woman; it is toebeh." Toebeh is an idolatry sin, not a sexual sin (which would be zimmah). The passage refers to some orgiastic practice in pagan Temples, not homosexuality.
--GeorgeOrr 00:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This passage itself has a lot of surrounding evidence open to examination, and will need to be elaborated. I agree, though; rebuttals should be put inline somehow with their original data. One problem barring me from doing that is that, whenever I've done it and previewed it, the repetition of Pro-acceptance / Anti-acceptance just looks ugly. I'm thinking that we should give a reasoned rebuttal point that's two bullets in. Maybe it'll work out; maybe it won't. --Chris Drostie 14:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Presentation of interpretations

message: There is now an article on Leviticus 18, at, oddly enough, Leviticus 18. Feel free to contribute and stuff.
--Chris Drostie 21:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leviticus 18 

message: The last paragraph in the section on the issue of choice seems to have little relevance to the issue at hand.  As opposed to describing any kind of christian view of the subject, as would be the point of the page, it seems to give a completely secular rebuttle to christian claims.  I think that this would be valid and appropriate on a more general page on the subject of homosexuality, but I'm not sure what validity it has in an article discussing the christian viewpoint.
If it's argued that this is the viewpoint of some christian group, could the christian group please be identified as such?  Otherwise it looks irrelevant to me, and is just a debate rebuttle.  Rubuttles are good, but this article seems to have the purpose of explaining a specific point of view for reference, and isn't the place for debating the validity of that point of view. Fieari 23:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if that's the official policy of any Christian denomination, but it's certainly the view of many gay-friendly Christians. I imagine if you asked any minister of the Metropolitan Community Church or any liberal minister of the United Church of Christ or United Church of Canada or any liberal Anglican/Episcopal priest what they thought of the view that gays and lesbians are called to celibacy, in most cases you'd get an answer similar to the last paragraph of the choice section. --Angr 06:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance?  Section on Choice 

message: This article has gotten more and more persuasive in its presentation over the last few weeks. I am not quite sure how to fix it but I added the POV check template because of this. In particular the edits from an anon last night were primarily persuasive in nature rather than encyclopedic - but there is some good information in them so I did not revert. Trödel|talk 13:24, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see that some discussion is ongoing - I apologize for not being able to participate - I fully intended to but some urgent work related matters have come up and I have to take a short (hopefully ending by this weekend - wikiholiday) - I removed the POV check since I don't think it is fair for me to insert it and not be around to answer questions about the details of why I think it has drifted into a persuasive pro-con essay. See you in a bit Trödel|talk 22:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any suggestions of bringing this article into line?  Anything would be greatly appreciated.  I look forward to working together to bring about adequate resolution and overall better article.  And I added two of the images last night.  I had forgotten to sign in.  How are they persuasive?  I went to great lengths researching both of them in multiple books to verify everything that I added. Apollomelos 23:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: On the forgery: "Jesus said to the woman: "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." Through these words, he recognized her adultery as a sin.  This passage is apparently a forgery that was not written by the author(s) of the gospel of John. It was written by an anonymous individual and later inserted after chapter 7 by an anonymous editor. The New International Version of the Bible has a footnote at this point stating: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53 - 8:11." Other manuscripts place it at the end of the Gospel of John. Still others insert it after Luke 21:38. The Jesus Seminar calls it a "floating" or "orphan" story.  The Fellows of the Seminar agreed that while "the words did not originate in their present form with Jesus, they nevertheless assigned the words and story to a special category of things they wish Jesus had said and done." The passage is apparently a traditional Christian story that found its way into various later manuscripts but was not part of the original writings by the author(s) of the Gospel of John."  Apollomelos 06:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: And all the other additions are based on textbooks, history books, and ancient sources.  I can cite all of them down to the page number.  Apollomelos 06:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "What is "racha"?  For a long time no one knew what "racha" (later altered to "raca") meant. The word occurred nowhere else in the Bible or other ancient literature, which no doubt is why King James's panel of translators left the word untranslated.  The Revised Standard Version, often a good translation, doesn't even try but translates the whole clause as "Whoever insults his brother he must answer for it in court"--providing no sense of what the insult might be. A coy footnote says that "raca" is "an obscure term of abuse."  Clearly "racha" was unfavorable, some sort of insult. The most prominent guess was that the word was related to the Hebrew word "reqa" meaning "empty," "empty-headed" or "brainless." That would make the insult parallel with "Thou fool" in the last clause of Matthew 5:22.  But in "The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality" published in 1990, in an article on the word "Racha," gay historian Joseph Wallfield, who wrote under the pen name Warren Johansson, revived a 1922 proposal by German philologist Friedrich Schulthess that "racha" should be equated with the Hebrew "rakh" meaning "soft" or "weak", a "weakling" or "effeminate person."  That would make "racha" equivalent to the Greek word "malakos," referring to a receptive partner ("passive" or "effeminate," according to the concepts of the time) in homosexual behavior, a term found in the Epistles attributed to Paul.  Johansson pointed out that the 1922 proposal received substantial support a dozen later in 1934 when an ancient Egyptian papyrus was published written in Greek in 257 B.C. containing the word "rachas" with a parallel text indicating that the word meant "kinaidos" or "faggot."" .  And John Boswell of Yale and Louis Crompton of Univeristy of Nebraska through Harvard University Press among others.  67.41.179.191 11:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: And if you can provide evidence that this British Library image is fraudulent I would like to see it.  I am not using web sites any more after the image ordeal with the two martyrs.  All of my sources now are textbooks and books.  Apollomelos 05:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: The counter rebuttals are of low quality and are not NPOV-distributed. Mostly, they reiterate the original arguments without adding anything new. For example, one of the bulletpoints translates "arsenokoitai" as "male who has coitus with a male," which is strictly wrong: the preceding bulletpoint is much more accurate in translating it "bedsmen." The English word coitus is derived from a Latin concoction meaning "going together" (see the OED). It is unrelated to the Greek word "koitay", which does not mean "coitus," but rather "a couch; by extension, cohabitation; by implication, the male sperm:--bed, chambering, X conceive" . 
I think that we should delete the counter-rebuttals, and leave the rebuttals as-is. Failing that, I think we could move all of that section to Christian scriptural debates on homosexuality. In any case, I'd like to see more sources cited.
128.84.178.80 04:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter-rebuttals? 

message: I just noticed that this article has been renamed from "Christian views of homosexuality" to "Homosecuality and Christianity," probably some time ago. However, it seems to still confine itself to the various Christian views of homosexuality. Should it not also cover the various homosexual views of Christianity? I think it might lead to a more well rounded article, and better cover some of what's going on this set of related debates. Wesley 16:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably an exercise in futility since there is no definite statement that can be made on the subject. Every paragraph would start "Some gay people think..."   The various views of GLBT folks on Christianity roughly match those of society at large; the only skewing is likely be a slightly higher percentage of reactionary dislike of religion generally or for specific highly intolerant denominations who are viewed as attacking gay people. While you can discuss the various Christian denominations that have an official institutional viewpoint or position that can documented, from the other direction you have millions of individual GLBT people who each have a differing opinion of Christianity based on hundreds of factors not just their sexuality. Autiger 18:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implications of new title 

message: It seems to me that we should have a discussion of the history of resistance to church-imposed proscriptions of same-sex love. The pseudo-Byronian "Don Leon" comes to mind, as well as de Sade's comment that it is barbarian to kill another because their tastes differ from yours, as well (perhaps) as some underground Renaissance texts in favor of pederasty ("Alcibiade, fanciulllo a scuola", but I'll have to look at it again to make sure). If others have suggestions maybe we could gather them here before posting. Haiduc 11:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing "History" section 

message: I will give this a few days to get sorted out.  However, with an article as controversial as this one, I believe that all non-obvious statements should be sourced to a reputable body of work.  If the reverts continue I will simply remove any non-sourced work until such a time that it is referenced in a MLA style manner.  This will help remove misleading language and opinion from the article.  Also, I think the structure should be clearer with a Traditional vs. Opposing setup.  I am not even going to factor arguments on the talk page as a source.  It must be clearly stated on the main page where the information is coming from.  See you all in a few days. Cobalty 17:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: No discussion since 15 May, article protected far too long. Unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: Introduction:
Previous version - 
*Although the historically prevalent view among Christians was to regard homosexual intercourse as sinful, it is likewise true that they did not have the concept of a homosexual orientation per se. The belief in most previous societies was that all people could engage in either form of sex as they so chose, a view which some believe may be indicated by modern studies implying a "sexual continuum" rather than a bipolar situation in which people are either entirely heterosexual or entirely homosexual. Some Christians regard same-sex relationships as moral since the Bible does not specifically mention the issue of homosexual orientation. Those who believe homosexuality is sinful believe the passages condemning homosexual intercourse are relevant to all persons since everyone is called upon to abide by God's commandments and reject whatever sinful inclinations the flesh may produce.
Fallacies:
*"most previous societies was that all people could engage" - No. Many socities always recognized those born sterile and such.
*""sexual continuum" rather than a bipolar situation in which people are either entirely heterosexual or entirely homosexual" - No. This is a reference to the Kinsey Report that suggests most people are bisexual and that, indeed, minorities are exclusive.
*"Some Christians regard same-sex relationships as moral" - Needs to cite someone.
New (corrected) version - 
*Although the historically prevalent view among Christians was to regard homosexual intercourse as sinful, it is likewise true that they did not have the concept of a natural homosexual orientation. The belief in most previous societies was that most people were attracted to both genders, a view that has been confirmed by modern science, indicated by studies implying a "sexual continuum" with the majority of homo sapiens being bisexual to varying degrees and minorities being exclusively homosexual and heterosexual. Christians such as the Anglican Communion's leader, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, regard same-sex relationships as moral since the Bible does not mention a homosexual orientation, arguing that the denunciations, often under the presumption of it being unnatural are applicable to heterosexuals. Those who believe homosexuality is sinful believe the passages condemning same-sex intercourse are relevant to all, often equating all homosexuality as unnatural or intrinsically disordered, has argued by the Roman Catholic Church's leader, Pope Benedict XVI.
Biblical terminology:
Previous version - 
*The term most often associated with homosexuals in the bible is “arsenokoitai” (greek: "αρσενοκοίτες", literally "they who have coitus with men" ). However, as mentioned above in the section "Opposed to homosexual acts", conservatives argue that Paul chose this word deliberately as based on the Greek version of the Levitical prohibition of male-to-male sex. St. John the faster, Patriarch of Constantinople (John IV, 582-595) makes the statement: "some men even commit the sin of arsenokoitai with their wives", which adds even more ambiguity to its supposed meaning, but would seem to indicate men indulging in sexual practices with their wives that would imitate male coital contact, possibly anal or oral sex. The elements that are present are both abduction and forced sexual encounter, so it may be rape that is most likely being condemned, although this theory completely ignores the significant literal meaning of arsenokoitai, which is quite literally and specifically "they who have coitus with men." (Gr. arsen = man, koitai = those who engage in coitus). Much of this argument goes to extremes, however, to seek justification for homosexual behavior in the Bible based on very nuanced reading of the text, and to an extent, reading between the lines of what the text actually says. If the text is to be read in its plain meaning, the alternative meanings given here are tenuous at best.
Fallacies:
*term most often associated with homosexuals in the bible This presents it has matter of fact when there is contention and debate. Needs to be changed to alledged.
*they who have coitus with men This is incorrect, it is male-bed. See a Greek dictionary.
*deliberately as based on the Greek version of the Levitical prohibition of male-to-male sex Needs to drop the prohibition part because once again it presents it has fact. Many Christians disagree. Should simply state comparable to Leviticus 18 without wading into that argument since it is already covered elsewhere.
*but would seem to indicate men indulging in sexual practices with their wives that would imitate male coital contact, possibly anal or oral sex This is an opinion of an editor, does not belong, esp. since others believe it indicates rape, at the least it is POV. 
*this theory completely ignores the significant literal meaning of arsenokoitai, which is quite literally and specifically "they who have coitus with men." Wrong definition see above.
*Much of this argument goes to extremes, however, to seek justification for homosexual behavior in the Bible based on very nuanced reading of the text, and to an extent, reading between the lines of what the text actually says. If the text is to be read in its plain meaning, the alternative meanings given here are tenuous at best. This is blatant opinion of an editor. Does not belong and never will.
New (corrected) version -
*The term most often  alledged to be associated with homosexuals in the Bible...literally "male-bed"...However, as mentioned above in the section "Opposed to same-sex behavior", conservatives argue that Paul chose this word deliberately to be comparable to the Greek version of Leviticus 18.
Anglican:
Previos version - 
*The Anglican Communion is presently divided. In North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and southern Africa, most Anglican bishops view homosexuality as moral. Sentiment among laypeople tends to be more conservative. In the majority of Africa and the West Indies, homosexuality is considered sinful.
Fallacies:
*Sentiment among laypeople tends to be more conservative. Oh? Says who? Did I miss the poll?
New (corrected) version -
*The Anglican Communion is presently divided. In North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and southern Africa, most Anglican bishops view homosexuality as moral. In the majority of Africa and the West Indies, homosexuality is considered sinful.
From what I can infer from the above discussion histories is this editor is particularly nasty, confrontational and blatantly POV. I suggest strict scrutiny for all of the contributions.Goomchakra 19:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of 205.188.117.72 06/19/2005 

message: Couple of changes that, baring any objections, I'd like to implement:
1)I'd like to replace the rambling rant under the "homosexuality and choice" section with a brief overview of how opinions on whether homosexuality is choice affect tolerance of homosexuality. We can link to other articles for the nitty gritty details on the debate over genetics vs. choice.
2)I'd like to replace the (mostly one sided)"issues of interpretation", "resistance to human rights and science", and "controversy over biblical terminology" sections with: one section chronicling, in detail, the traditional Christian view of homosexuality, another with dissenting Christian arguments in favour of homosexuality, and maybe a third chronicling fringe gay-bashing Christian viewpoints.
3)I'd like to move some of the nitty gritty in the overview section into the sections outlined above.
This sound okay to everyone?
Wandering oojah 00:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess 

message: "scientific findings that it is natural for a minority of humans" Is there a source for the claim of "scientific findings" that homosexuality is "natural." Also, we would have to define natural. As far as I know, the causes of homosexuality are not really known yet. The nature/nurture debate is still going, yes? MPS 16:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: scientific findings

message: There seem to be definite questions over whether or not that image really is of the torture of a homosexual man. Is the picture accurate? If not, then its use without clarification violates WP:NPOV. Is Herrera Puga reliable? If not, then he certainly shouldn't be quoted in the caption of the picture, and in any case, he should not be quoted unless what he says is in the context of the torture of homosexual men. The image and caption were discussed on the talk page of Spanish Inquisition in March this year (first section, heading "Image of homosexual man" etc.). AnnH (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have so far seen nothing to indicate that the man in the picture was accused of sodomy. At this point it is of value to illustrate the methods of the Inquisition. It is currently being used for this purpose in a recognized text on the history of homosexuality and its persecution in Spain. I have no opinion on Puga. Haiduc 12:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if there's no indication that the man was accused of sodomy, what is that picture doing in the article? In particular, what is it doing at the top of the article, where one would expect to see only images of special relevance. If we're not sure that the picture is of a homosexual man, and we particularly want the picture to go in regardless, and there's a section lower down dealing with the persecution of homosexual people during the Spanish Inquisition, and we're sure that homosexual people were tortured in the way depicted there (even if the picture isn't actually of a homosexual man), then perhaps we could include it beside a section about how homosexual people were tortured (if they were). But I do question the positioning of it at the very top of an article which it may have no relevance to. AnnH (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no opinion on position, but since it is clear that 1. the Inquisition did this work in Spain 2. sodomites were victims, this man's sin is seems irrelevant. The picture would be identical regardless. The only question is do we illustrate or not. I would prefer a picture identified with sodomy and the Inquisition, but until one turns up this could take its place. Haiduc 12:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Haiduc, the thing is that this article isn't about the Spanish Inquisition in general - its treatment of Homosexuals (based on your first reply, it is conceivable that the SpIn did puruse sodomy in the latter years of its existence, when it had developed into a more general secret police - in the beginning it was strictly about heresy), this treatment is certainly part of the general history of Christianity and homosexuality but it is only a part of it. There's also a problem with all such pictures since none are accurate. They are rather works of art and portraying the black legend. Not that the SpIn wasn't horrendous in many ways, but a lot of stuff was added in this literature (hence my change to the caption). Tc, Str1977 20:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, it seems to be here more for shock effect, as if any were needed. Let's can it and replace it with a specific one intended to show sodomites. I'll look for something appropriate. Haiduc 22:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I have done a little research on this picture (which has now been removed anyway) and have posted my results . —Laurence Boyce 18:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial picture