Talk:Zoroastrianism and sexual orientation

message: I don’t believe that acceptance or rejection of homosexuality has much to do with being “socially progressive”. Apart from the theological point of view, I am humbly aware of many academics who object to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds.
I understand that homosexuality at this point in time is a controversial topic and people tend to have different opinions on the subject but this article must be kept neutral and unbiased. Thanks. --124.197.43.114 (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

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 14:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can probably find different referances to support the article, but then should we just delete religioustolernace.org completely, or leave it in as an external link, or what? Eirra 23:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religioustolerance.org

message: The "Homosexuality and Zoroastrian Culture" section needs POV work, I think.  The first sentence ("perhaps the reason...") reads like speculative rationalization of Zoroastrian opposition to homosexuality, and seems to ignore the scriptural prohibition cited earlier in the article.  The third sentence states that "Zoroastrian communities today are much too small to consider homosexuality (or celibacy) to be grounds for exclusion from the traditions of the faith," which is an opinion that opposition to homosexuality is counter-productive and unreasonable. PubliusFL 11:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed you are right, it doesn't read like an encyclopædia. However; as many religious scholars will tell you (whether it be Mary Boyce, Sir James G. Frazer, Joseph Campbell, Reza Aslan, Hew McLeod, Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty, etc.), religions aren't created in a vacuum. They, and their scriptures reflect the times and the issues of those times that the society faced, just as much as they contained revealed or inspired material. And what was more of a major concern than birth rate to nomads and pastoral peoples? As far as the Vendidad goes, well Zoroastrians don't all follow it to the letter of the law any more than Leviticus is by lay Jews or Christians. Indeed, I've read the whole thing, and it gets into minutiæ after a short while, with all its little prohibitions on every little thing. Still, the conservative strain will consider it authoritative as part of the Avesta, just as some Christians believe the whole Bible to be literal and inerrant (the liberals are more concerned with focusing on the Gathas much as the Gospels are). As for the last comment on the communities being too small to turn anyone away: it all depends on whether they are liberal or conservative - and the conservative are more prominent. I would not agree with that statement as the communities can be harsh enough on mixed children and apostates, let alone gay people. Freddie Mercury; unfortunately, was the exception, not the rule. If the Vendidad seems bad, look into what the Denkard has to say - essentially equating homosexuality with doing the work of Ahriman. Of course, in the strict, logical and dualistic world of Zoroastrianism, anything which does not produce - whether a Catholic priest, Buddhist monk, Shaker, or gay person - are 'daevic'; not producing anything for the benifit/fecundity of the world. In short, homosexuality was seen as counterproductive and unreasonable to the tribal society, therefore it was an unforgivable sin (in life). (Please excuse my rambling I forgot where I was going with my points, just trying to help out a little) Khirad 06:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I did some editing. It seems to be it reads a little better now. What does everyone else think? Eirra 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:LGBT in Islam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 12:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Zoroastrianism and sexual orientation. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20051123215843/http://www.iranica.com:80/articles/v12f4/v12f4026a.html to http://www.iranica.com/articles/v12f4/v12f4026a.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendidad#Value_of_the_Vendidad_among_Zoroastrians)
At least part of the subsection above needs to replicated in the article of Zoroastrianism and sexual orientation. Many Zoroastrians reject the Vendidad. 
Warm Regards,
184.22.208.174 (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vendidad