Talk:History of Christianity and homosexuality

message: When making additions to this article always cite your source, any additions from this point on made without any citation will be deleted. Apollomelos 10:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If any statements are made without appropriate source-citation, please do not summarily delete them. Rather, bring them here and list them under a rubric like "The following statements need to have their sources cited before they can be included in the article". That way people can work on finding the sources for the statements. --Angr 11:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi user anon 152.163.100.71, I apologize for the deletions.  I did not wish to cause an edit war.  The reason I deleted it was because user:angr objected to it:
*"'m having real difficulty accepting these labels. Especially since the latest revision, which includes "Conservative assumptions" and "Liberal assumptions" (both of which are rather POV, IMO) paralleling "Conservative Christian views" and "Liberal Christian views". A reader is likely to conclude that the conservative assumptions lead to the conservative views, and the liberal assumptions lead to the liberal views, and I don't think that's the case." -Angr
Boswell is hardly "research by google" or AP European History Textbooks.  I do not plan on deleting anything from the conservative or liberal views.  I am only stating we should ensure to include refs. from this point on since I noticed the many gaps yesterday.  And one more thing I have noticed.  We should be careful in both sides to describe their view the "correct" one.  In our language we should make sure to include "claims" and others. Apollomelos 09:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: What I objected to was not the presence of the paragraphs on "Conservative assumptions" and "Liberal assumptions", but rather the implication that the "Conservative assumptions" lead to the "Conservative Christian views" and that the "Liberal assumptions" lead to the "Liberal Christian views". But I do think the paras on conservative and liberal assumptions need to be NPOV'ed if they get restored because they sound rather liberal-biased. And I say that as a liberal. --Angr 10:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: (P.S. To anonymous user 152.163.100.71 -- you really might consider signing up for a name, since your IP number varies a bit from time to time and it makes others feel like they're dealing with a "real person" instead of just a number. Of course it's your choice, I'm not saying you have to -- just think about it, 'kay? ;-) --Angr 10:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite Your Sources

message: Removed several POV statements like:
* "both sides would presumably agree that there is no doubt..."
* "as such quotes use commonplace words which are not in dispute"
* "many would contend, however, that such disputes over a few words, and other such speculative theories on all such subjects, cannot overrule the clear statements in many revealed sources which state the matter in unambiguous, simple words whose meanings are not in dispute"
:The author is clearly proscribing infallibility to her/his own interpretation/translation. The reality is the statements to which the above refer have been disputed by a number of authors, most notably John Boswell in his lengthy Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century.
* "if it had, then such a provision would have been recorded"
:Another example of an opinion stated as fact. Opinions should be restricted by some indication of the person or persons who believe them.
I suggest the author of these statements contribute their interpretations with the same qualification that she/he provides to the opposing viewpoint. This page could definately use the elaboration. -- Queerudite 02:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POVness

message: I'm having real difficulty accepting these labels. Especially since the latest revision, which includes "Conservative assumptions" and "Liberal assumptions" (both of which are rather POV, IMO) paralleling "Conservative Christian views" and "Liberal Christian views". A reader is likely to conclude that the conservative assumptions lead to the conservative views, and the liberal assumptions lead to the liberal views, and I don't think that's the case. Here beginneth my rant: Speaking for myself as a liberal gay Christian, I hold the liberal assumptions more or less as listed, but I nevertheless agree with the "Conservative Christian views" on the issue of what early Christians had to say about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's simply a fact that both the Bible and early Christian thinkers condemned homosexuality, because they didn't understand it. I think they were mistaken to condemn it, but I don't deny they did condemn it. I don't think the relevant passages of the Bible, or Augustine, or Hildegard, or the others, have been mistranslated or misinterpreted. I do think the authors of those passages didn't understand that committed, loving relationships between members of the same sex were possible. The very idea would have been mind-boggling to them. As far as they were concerned, homosex meant sex for fun with a member of the same sex, for experimentation or because no member of the opposite sex was around. I don't believe Ruth married Naomi, or that Jonathan married David, or that Serge married Bacchus. I do believe Boswell is a revisionist. Does that make me a conservative? Not at all. I just think gay and gay-friendly Christians should spend their time working towards acceptance of queer Christians in today's churches rather than trying to rewrite history to make it sound like homophobia wasn't invented until the 12th century. Here endeth my rant. Sorry about that, just had to get it off my chest. About the page, I think it would be good to replace the labels "Conservative Christian views" and "Liberal Christian views" with something like "Traditional interpretation" and "A modern reinterpretation". --Angr 00:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your conclusions.  I too am not sure of how to title the various sides.  The problem I forsee with Traditional vs. Modern is the claim by some that traditional Christianity prior to the 12th century accepted homosexuality.  Therefore one could argue that the traditional Christian scholars are the "liberals".  Whatever we decide to eventually term both sides we should ensure to avoid placing them on un-equal levels, there are highly respected Christian scholars on both sides of the issue.  As for those who do not fit into either side possibly we could add a paragraph stating that scholars exist who do not fit into either generalization.  Just some ideas.  Any added input welcome. Apollomelos 02:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly traditional labeling would cause problems because some scholars claim that traditional Christians (earlier) accepted homosexuality.  Well just because there may have not been a scholar before the 20th century doesn't mean it never happened.  You must remember after the 12th century very strict laws were imposed.  People who stated the Earth was round or disagreed with the Church were murdered so obviously there wouldn't be any criticisms.  You are going into opinion on the statement.  Another could add an opinion that it would be impossible for Christianity to wipe out the homosexuality of ancient Greece and Rome overnight and thus probably accepted it and only gradually restricted it.  Apollomelos 08:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: That's because it's a modern painting. 205.188.116.71 05:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true.  The website I saved it from provided some false information on the image.  So I have removed it from most articles and changed it's tagging.  I then went and did more research looking for the real image which I have found and now replaced on most wiki pages.  I have verified this one with multiple websites.  I don't want that to happen again. Apollomelos 10:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative vs. Liberal 

message: I moved this article to a better name so it could be used to cover all ages of Christianity and Homosexuality, ie the conquest of the New World, the Inquisitions, etc. Apollomelos 23:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name Move

message: I removed this link (St. Mark's Writings on Homosexuality) for a couple of reasons.  First, it is misnamed.  It looks like a link to the Gospel of Mark; it is actually a link to a citation by Clement of Alexandria of an otherwise lost non-canonical Gospel, the "Secret Gospel of Mark".  Second, the translation is vague, and there is no indication whether the love discussed therein is spiritual, sexual, whatever (there are several non-interchangeable words for "love" in Greek), so this is scarcely "Writings on Homosexuality" as such.  JHCC 21:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Link removal

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! 17:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community ban of the [[Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Joan_of_Arc_vandal|Joan of Arc vandal]] 

message: "And they believe since the earlier translations of the Bible are the basis of the Christian faith they should overrule any opposing opinions formed on later translations of the Bible."
There is a lot of bias in this article in general that needs to be cleaned up, (the portion on "conservative" Christian understanding of homosexuality is almost entirely made up with liberal rebuttals), but this was too obvious to let alone. The author neglected to prove that Christianity is based on the "earlier translations of the Bible". This is not the case, and thus the author is making a false presumption. The Christian Faith isn't based on the earlier translations of the bible, but the correct translation of the bible. That is exactly why the Catholic Church does such extensive research in biblical linguistics. 
I'm honestly overwhelmed at the innumerable biases in this article. I don't know where to start, or where I'll find the time to do this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjford (talk • contribs) 04:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed part about earlier translations.  

message: This needs to be completely dissected and rearranged.  When every other paragraph starts with "In response to claims...", you know you've got a pretty awful article structure.
There are many different people with many different opinions on the subject, and dividing them into two arbitrary opposing camps (conservative and liberal) is wrong and inherently non-neutral.
The article sections should be divided up by topic or concept, not by imaginary "sides".  Instead of a "liberal" and "conservative" section, you should have sections like "tolerance of the medieval church", "relationships among early christians and biblical characters", "vulgate translation issues", or whatever.
See:
* Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_that_can_imply_a_point_of_view
* Wikipedia:Pro & con lists
Also, there is some stuff about translation from original scriptures.  You should really include the original text in its own language and link to appropriate articles like Greek words for love or whatever. — Omegatron 00:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great point!  Perhaps you could take a look-see for someone who is LGBT and Christian who might be able to help balance out NPOV (and the problematic, back-and-forth "however" and "in response" structure).  Joie de Vivre 00:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is pretty horrible 

message: Why in the world are there two articles: "History of Christianity and Homosexuality" and "Christianity and Homosexuality"? The articles appear to cover essentially the same information.207.69.137.20 02:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Process has begun to move 'History of C&H' items to this article and have 'Christianity and Homosexuality' article focus on current status.207.69.137.23 18:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Thanks!LCP 16:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Swap has been essentially completed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why two articles? 

message: This writer totally distorts Boswell and gives only the most sweeping notion of what Boswell says. And whenever he (supposedly) explains Boswell's ideas he always uses words like "dubiously", "doubtful", "tendentious", etc. 
Y'know, one of Boswell's points is that in medieval times, most religious authorities taught that procreation was the ONLY legitimate purpose of sexual activity, a position which almost no authority (religious or otherwise) would now maintain. If you stop and think about it, that makes a lot of the medieval railing against homosexuality totally obsolete. Boswell points out that Dante Alighieri puts homosexuals in the same part of purgatory with heterosexual married couples who indulge too often. Boswell also gives us several very impressive examples of adelphopoiesis that almost anyone would recognize as romantic-sexual unions, and you'd never guess it if all you read was this heavily slanted article. Writers like this have got to go. Where he's confronted with evidence that he's wrong, this writer just ignores the evidence. I'm tired of hacks talking about a careful scholar like Boswell as if he were some ignoramus. Tom129.93.17.68 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, as it stands, Boswell’s single voice is given almost half of the Early Christianity section. It looks to me as if he is taken very seriously—especially in light of all of the documentation we have from Church fathers against homosexuality. Remember, the issue here is not whether the early and medieval Christian understanding of sexuality is obsolete. The issue is whether Early Christianity represents the understanding of the early Christian period accurately. The only thing in Early Christianity that is questionable is how much room is devoted the theories of a single, 20th century, homosexual scholar.LCP 22:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How POV Can You Get?

message: I've deleted the following sentence:
"The rise of Christianity changed attitudes to same-sex unions and led to the persecution of gays and the rise of homophobia."
1) The concepts "gays" and "homophobia" are anachronistic.  They didn't exist 2000 years ago.  Indeed, they didn't even exist 200 years ago.
2) The relatively few Romans (such as Nero) who did ape marriage ceremonies with their own "same-sex unions" were roundly denounced in the literature of the time.  Furthermore, such "unions" bore no legal validity.  
3) Greek and Roman disgust with certain (but not all) forms of same-sex sexual behavior is widely attested in the literature of the time.  Christianity did not invent this attitude.
On these three points see (among other studies) Williams, Roman Homosexuality (Oxford, 1999).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.1.1.101 (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Christianity

message: The openning sentence is problematic. Then it tries to join up a modern concept - homosexuality - with an ancient religion.  I see there are other comments to this effect herein also. --Fremte (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay tag 

message: "aped the role of a bride" and in the footnote "^ Theodosian Code 9.7.3: "When a man marries [a man] as a woman offering herself to men {quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam), what can he be seeking, where gender has lost its place; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. Some scholars (Dalla, Cantarella, and Treggiari) note that the "marriage" in question may be a metaphor for the passive, or "feminine" role in sex rather than a literal reference to a same-sex parody of marriage. Williams, in his Roman Homosexuality (p. 246), agrees but insists that a literal reading is equally plausible."
As written this conflates feminine gay men, submissive gay men, and trans* straight womyn, and is insulting w/in any given interpretation. I don't have her work handy, but I believe Joan Roughgarden interprets it as legislation against womyn and against gender-variance, rather than about sexuality. 72.83.173.251 (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This statement is problematic on several levels 

message: I reverted the recent edit removing Moravian Church and Quakers.  This is unwarranted, as the sentence is clear that it is talking about liberal congregations within churches.  In the case of Quakers, it is correct about liberal Quakers, and specifically links to the Friends General Convention, and according to their site: 
* FGC always took pride in its sense of inclusiveness, and the decision to provide a supportive environment came with what for Friends was surprising speed. In 1972, after Quaker Mary Calderone lectured, New York Yearly Meeting endorsed equal civil rights for gay and lesbians. In 1973 PYM authored an ad hoc Committee of Gay and Lesbian Concerns which became a standing committee in 1976. In 1974 Young Friends of North America issued a declaration calling for the "equality of All persons before the Eternal in matters Spiritual regardless of their sexual orientation." In 1975, when the FCGC began issuing a newsletter, FGC had decided that gay couples could room together and pay the same lower room rate as married couples; the next year it scheduled the first discussion group. In the fall of 1975 four AFSC staffers publicly announced they were gay; in 1978 eighteen more came out and received a letter of support from 250 people in the organization. This letter called the treatment of homosexuals a civil rights issue and demanded that within five years there be on all AFSC committees 20% Third World people, 40% women, and a gay presence.
* In the 1980s the issue for FGC members became: should meetings perform same-sex marriages? Gay Friends wished to gain the approval for their marriages without splitting meetings. Their strategy was to gain the approval of some large meetings in each yearly meeting. Then when conservatives in reaction sought to write a policy prohibiting gay marriages, no unity could be obtained because a few meetings had already engaged in celebrating gay marriages..
* Gay marriages remain a highly controversial issue, particularly in those yearly meetings affiliated with both FGC and FUM. Some FGC meetings now celebrate them, others bless homosexual unions but refuse to use the term marriage, and some have managed to ignore the subject. Cambridge, MA. has a policy of making sure there are written guarantees for the rights of siblings, inheritance, and social responsibility in all marriages. Because monthly meetings have become almost autonomous and there are issues of legality in different states, it is likely that there will continue to be considerable variation in practice.
This edit entailed having to return to the earlier edit, which also removed the subsequent edit where a balanced description of two different understandings about Paul's letter was replaced with an edit that one of the two interpretations. Mish (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit concerning Quakers 

message: This article is a complete trainwreck.  It is not NPOV.  Most of it's statements have no source.  Often, what sources are provided are those of a particualar church (usually Catholic) and stated as fact rather than as the views of that Church.-75.187.76.26 (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trainwreck 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of Christianity and homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927233841/http://www3.calvarychapel.com/ccbcgermany/histdoc04.htm to http://www3.calvarychapel.com/ccbcgermany/histdoc04.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on History of Christianity and homosexuality. 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/20071015063418/http://newadvent.org:80/summa/315411.htm to http://www.newadvent.org/summa/315411.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071015063423/http://newadvent.org:80/summa/315412.htm to http://www.newadvent.org/summa/315412.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of Christianity and homosexuality. 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://web.archive.org/web/20080517072021/http://www.newadvent.org/summa/209400.htm to http://www.newadvent.org/summa/209400.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011133516/http://newadvent.org/summa/200308.htm to http://www.newadvent.org/summa/200308.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050213100735/http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp
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) 00:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is a huge historical topic.  It is also an area of historical controversy which has yet to be resolved.  
“Throughout the majority of Christian history most theologians and Christian denominations have viewed homosexual behavior as immoral or sinful.”
Not only is this sentence beginning the general introduction true (as far as it goes) but practically every book on the topic that I have read starts with a similar statement. 
The problem is that, without some qualification, it is misleading.  The ‘However’ is not just that 20th Century theologians have questioned the doctrine, it is that, throughout, the reasons presented for it were inconsistent, based on often ludicrous reasoning, and led not by theological thinking but by political, social and economic circumstances.
The ‘ludicrous reasoning’ I mention is clear from John Boswell’s examination of the use of ‘The Epistle of Barnabas’ as often the main justification for condemning homosexual behaviour.  (One doesn’t know where to begin here, since the Epistle was actually condemning something different, pederasty. Yet the Epistle remained a primary argument against homosexual behaviour for hundreds of years.)
The ‘inconsistency’ was pointed out by Boswell, when he described the  decisive change in the way homosexuality was regarded by the Church in the 11th Century, resulting in the resumption of treating homosexual behaviour as something to be pursued by the full vigour of the law.  It is worth repeating the point that Boswell, despite errors, succeeded in  opening up a vast controversy. So the book in which he did this,  “Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality - Gay People in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to the Fourteenth Century” is dented, rather than negated, by Professor Southern's trenchant comments.  Many other historians have followed up and added to Boswell's original investigations,  some of them forming a school of like-minded historians.  Other historians back up Boswell’s views coming from a different outlook and background.  For example, R.I.Moore, in ‘The Formation of a Persecuting Society Power and Deviance in Western Europe 950 -1250’ [pub. Blackwell 1987/2003] showed some of the social, economic and political mechanisms operating when Christendom suddenly turned on homosexuals in the period of the High Middle Ages - and they were absolutely nothing to do with theology. 
The idea that political, social and economic conditions rather than theologians were shaping Church teaching on homosexuality was given powerful support by ‘The construction of homosexuality’ by David F Greenberg  [Pub. University of Chicago Press  1988].  He wrote from an anthropological standpoint, and theologians ‘on both sides of the argument’ quote him.  He makes a very striking case that the Roman Empire was already going in the direction of asceticism without the input of Christians, because of the political and military disasters it suffered during the 3rd Century CE.  These culminated in a total reorganisation of the Empire by Diocletian, with accompanying collapse of civic duty and the imposition of crippling taxation.  He points out that the condemnation of homosexual behaviour in the 4th Century was as much the work of the Roman government as of the Church, because it was seen as a threat to the morality of the Empire.  He thinks that the late Roman Empire would have passed laws against homosexual behaviour whatever religion they had chosen to replace the traditional gods, and he cites one such law that was passed long before the Christians were in a position of influence, let alone power.
I’m sorry I can’t do any editing at this point in time, but I hope I have given food for thought.  I recognise the work that has been done to produce an authoritative account, but the plain fact is there is more than one historical interpretation of this topic (let alone theological one).Alfredthegreat (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accepting new historical interpretations 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: — Assignment last updated by Nyxtingale (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexuality

message: I'm not really sure how this paragraph is relevant to Christianity per se.  The paragraph dubiously read "Christian emperors" before I changed it, which I think is still insufficient to determine relevance.  An additional sentence clarifying its relevance would be helpful, elucidating for example if these condemnations have a religious context. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance question