Talk:Homosexuality and religion/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Moral views

Moral views on homosexuality redirects here. This makes no sense to me, as morality and religion are clearly different things. A.Z. 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to begin an article for that title which would deal with morality exclusive of religious beliefs? Frankly, I don't know if much of an article could be created. Is there anything like consistent non-religious positions to right about? But give it a try!  Sean Lotz  talk  10:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I would really like to begin such an article! I believe it can be created and it could be a great article. There are many people who don´t practice a religion, yet have opinions about the morality of homosexual acts, for instance. In my high school, whenever we had a debate about homosexuality and someone was against or in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality, the arguments used were never religious, and yet a discussion about the morality of homosexuality would happen. Maybe those common arguments could be in this article. Like the common view that it is not natural to be gay and therefore it is wrong. And the common answer to this which states that we all do things which are not "natural" every day, like driving a car and using condoms. Or the other answer which would see it as being natural. The article on same-sex marriage has some of those moral views independent of a religion. P.S.: I too sometimes spell "right" instead of "write". A.Z. 01:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Valkrath 07:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC))Perhaps an added insertation should be done. An entire Conservative view of the matter. That way you can get rid of people claiming that this is bias article.

Repetitiveness

I found some of the later sections repetitive. Particularly the "Neopaganism and sexuality" says almost the same thing as the previous subsection about "Neopagan religion". It also seems the article is first trying to organize the content by religion and then alluding to the same things organized by particular stances that are taken (civil rights, persecution, support, genetics). Both are valid approaches to organizing the content. It seems like the stance approach should be broader and more general while the by religion approach should get into the specifics. And I think it is better to give the broader, general discussions before the specifics, so I would recommend expanding on the discussions by stance (to elaborate on all stances so as not to be biased) and having them first, followed by the discussions by religion with links to the more in-depth articles on each religion and its stance as there are currently, allowing those who read the article to first get broad overviews of the stances that are taken and then look at the specifics of those religions which interest them and even follow the links to the more in-depth articles on those religions. 70.112.12.20 06:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Neopaganism and sexuality" and "Neopagan religion" sections actually have some phrases that are identical. For this reason I suggest merging them. 69.143.80.200 02:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

The lead sentence misleading WP:UNDUE: "The attitude of Early Christians toward homosexuality has been much debated." It implies that there has been extensive mainstream debate regarding this issue, and that is simply not true. WP:UNDUE states that "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." LCP 01:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the UNDUE point (I just don't know enough to say), I added a ref that (especially in the subpages about specific passages) seems to lay out the possible interpretations and points to advocates of opposing views. It's not a scholarly source, but maybe a good starting point. Fireplace 02:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, and I like the ref, but I also find the dichotomy the ref’d page creates too simplistic and, therefore, grossly inaccurate. I would leave it in place, and I would add here that it lacks authority. For example, it states that “conservative theologians” accept a literal interpretation of the Bible over scientific finding when the two appear to be conflict. However, Pope Benedict, who would clearly be considered a conservative theologian, respects the findings of science regarding evolution (though he rejects science's attempt to make claims beyond its area of competence and authority). I am going to try to reword the lead sentence so that the discussion here isn’t another example of the discussion we see regarding global warming or tobacco, where the vast majority holds one highly supported view and a very small minority, often backed by organizations with a vested interest, are given equal press as if they have a legitimate alternate opinion.LCP 18:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following revision that more accurately reflects the current situation. I would like to see refs to the historians and theologians who represent the revisionist view, but I do not know who they are. I also need a citation for the interpretation of Romans 1 that claims that it condemns lesbianism. I have not seen that in any scholarly sources or in my own reading. I also wonder if the whole section should refer more specifically to "sodomy" rather than "homosexuality" or "homosexual behavior" as the latter idea is vague and a modern construct. Regardless, here is the revision I propose:

Throughout the vast majority of Christian history, the Catholic Church and, later, Protestant authorities have been explicitly condemnatory of male homosexual behavior, namely sodomy. Where the Catholic view is founded on a natural law argument informed by scripture, the Protestant view is based more directly in the scripture. Nevertheless, there is a broad consensus among Christian organizations that the Bible, principally in Leviticus, denounces homosexual behavior as a sin and, in the eyes of God, an "abomination" — a term used to describe harsh disapproval of a wide range of offenses, from incest and bestiality to eating shellfish. Acts 15 (The Council of Jerusalem) explicitly advised that Gentile converts were keep from sexual immorality. Many of the letters of Saint Paul, the "Apostle to the Gentiles," echo this exhortation to "avoid sexual immorality." It is clear that sodomy is one of several behaviors considered to be “sexually immoral.” The first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans contains the only explicit mention of lesbianism in the Bible, calling it "against nature".

Apart from passages in the Bible, we see denunciations of sodomy in the earliest writings, such as in the Didache and in the writings of Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Eusebius, St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine of Hippo, and in doctrinal sources such as the Apostolic Constitutions — for example, Eusebius of Caesarea's statement which condemns "the union of women with women and men with men.” While homosexual behavior is rejected to the present day, contemporary guides to pastoral care reflect an ethos informed by compassion and respect of the sanctity of other.

In the 20th and 21st century, a few historians and theologians have challenged the traditional understanding and claim that passages have been mistranslated or that they do not refer to what we understand as “homosexuality.”

LCP 19:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the word "sodomy" except in direct or indirect quotes, because it's both emotionally charged and inconsistent in its definition (before sodomy laws were struck down in the U.S., each state that had one defined it differently, some definitions including heterosexual activity; in German, Sodomie refers to bestiality only; etc.). If we mean anal sex, that's what we should call it. In Trembling Before G-d it's explained that Orthodox Jews, at least, interpret the Leviticus passage as referring only to anal sex, so that gay men who, say, go no further than oral and/or intercrural sex are not committing an abomination. I don't know whether the Roman Catholic Church has ever been explicit in their definition of sodomy, though. The sentence "While homosexual behavior is rejected to the present day" in the last paragraph is vague in its application; are we still only talking about the RCs here? Certainly not all Christians, or even all denominations, reject homosexual behavior. —Angr 08:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to revise the use of "sodomy." One of the problems we struggle with when talking about ancient ideas about "homosexuality" is that our construct, how we think of HS, is (as you probably know) arguably relatively new (19th century). Ancient literature doesn’t support the idea that people were entirely characterized by their sexuality (as we are today). If you can think of a better way of stating what the Church Fathers opposed, that would be great.

I also agree that there is a problem with vagueness in the following: “While homosexual behavior is rejected to the present day, contemporary guides to pastoral care reflect an ethos informed by compassion and respect of the sanctity of other.” First, I agree that “HS behavior is rejected...” is too broad. I’ll fix that. Second, I agree that it is unclear that the part about “pastoral care” is supported by a citation to only a Catholic document. I’d like to see a ref to a mainstream Protestant source since, from what I have seen, the prevailing Protestaint ethos is the same as the Catholic. The other option is to qualify the statement with “Catholic” (ie, “Catholic pastoral care”) and while this might be ok since Catholicism is the largest and most unequivocal denomination in the world and the majority of Chritians in the world are Catholic (~1 billion), I think making such a change would too much slant the section to one more suitably titled “Catholicsm.”

I’ll remedy the problem with the first half (“HS behavior is rejected....”) by changing it to “homosexual behavior is rejected to the present day by most denominations...”. I am not sure what to do with the second problem. I think it is a very important statement, especially since it differentiates mainstreat Christianity from those who call themselves Chritians and yet whose attitude toward homosexuals can honestly be characterized as only fearful and hateful.LCP 17:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to remove "The first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans contains the only explicit mention of lesbianism in the Bible, calling it 'against nature'" as it passage in question does NOT explicitly or even clearly refer to lesbianism. Commentaries interpret the passage in question in Romans as referring to temple prostitution.LCP 03:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I am troubled by the uncited opening statement in the Christian section Throughout all of Christian history, the Catholic Church and, later, Protestant authorities have been explicitly condemnatory of same-sex sexual relations I agree that there are many old church records of aruguments against homosexual activity.... however, they had to be arguing WITH someone who believed differently. Its likely that as the losing side, documents support of the other way of thinking just didn't survive.207.69.137.21 04:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you make an interesting point. Why did the fathers feel the need to bring the topic up at all? To help us to decide whether authors were writing against heretics versus merely what they considered scandalous moral behavior, we can look at other examples. Whenever church fathers wrote against heresy, we know who the heretics were and exactly what they believed. See Gnosticism, Arianism, and Jansenism. In this case, there is no such record. So we can safely conclude that they were writing against what they considered scandalous moral behavior. In any case, Wikipedia is not he place for us to speculate. Wikipedia prohibits original research. So, we can go only with known sources. The reason the lead sentence doesn’t have a citation is that it is supported by the rest of the section itself. Look around Wikipedia a bit, and you will see that this is generally the how it is done. The lead is a summary of the contents of the article or section.LCP 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Pederasty in Japanese Buddhism

Pederasty was not uncommon practice among Buddhist monks in Japan when non eldest boys of nobility and samurai were often forced to become child monks. The practice effectively died out when temples stopped recruiting children from lay families. What is unheard of, for me, is a claim that Kukai being the person who started pederasty in Japan. Kukai being the one of the most respected Buddhist saints in Japanese Buddhism, this is highly offensive to Japanese Buddhism, as this implies that he condone child abuse. I also suspect that this edit was inserted by a member of FWBO who has some problematic history with the founder's homosexual practice. Without verifiable citation, this statement must go. Vapour

my tags

Of course, there are many sources given in the article. However, the STRONG bias in the lead paragraphs presenting "Abrahamic" religion as the source of homophobia the world over is totally unsourced. It would be a one-sided POV even if sourced -- unsourced, it's pure propaganda. Dybryd 00:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely! For example, pre-Christian Rome was markedly anti-homosexual.LCP 01:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing unsourced statements

I'm removing the following statements that have been tagged as needing sources since February:

• During Muslim rule (from the 10th to the 18th centuries AD), Middle-Eastern customs that were introduced to India include the castration of male servants and pederasty. These were openly practiced by Muslims and Sikhs in the North while largely overlooked by Hindus in the South.
• Individuals active in the human rights movement claim this opposition is part of a pattern of religiously-based (and Biblically rationalized) resistance to expansion of the sphere of human rights.

If anyone can find sources to back up these statements, feel free to cite the sources and re-add the statements. —Angr 18:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality and spirituality

I am suggesting the addition of a new section entitled "Homosexuality and spirituality" which will treat the omnidenominational, interreligious movement of LGBT adherents (esp. gay and bisexual men) committed to spiritual perspectives not covered elsewhere in the article because they're not associated with a specific denomination or religion. Specifically, I am referencing the "gay men's spirituality movement" as embodied by the Gay Spirit Culture Summit, and the works of Toby Johnson, Christian de la Huerta, Daniel Helminiak, and many others (including myself). My rationale for this addition is that there are substantial numbers of US LGBT-identified individuals (according to the Gay & Lesbian Consumer Online Census) who do not affiliate with any specific religion but describe themselves as spiritual. Many authors have identified common underlying themes and issues pertaining specifically to gay spiritual seekers. I expect to have the additions made later in the month. Comments are welcome before, during, or after the additions. Arguably, this addition could be made into an entirely distinct article. However, initially I believe this wiki article is the best fit. Joeprz 05:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I wonder if what you are talking about would fit under a new "New Age" category, or would that do violence to your ideaology?LCP 00:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of article focus?

I removed the following unsourced paragraph from the article because it does not seem to have anything to do with the topic of Religion and Homosexuality. If someone can source the statements and re-write in a way that focuses on religion and homosexuality, please feel free to return it.207.69.137.25 01:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Same-sex relations between adult males are segregated in a manner analogous to the segregation between the sexes. Thus, the passive role is generally taken on by an underclass of males, often transvestite or transgender who routinely would be entertainers by profession and who would be both despised for their submissive sexual role and admired for their skills. In earlier years these would have had their start through the traditional bacchá or köçek roles. The active role is played by men who do not self-identify as homosexual, who typically conform to societal expectation to marry and have children and view their homosexual adventures as further confirmation of their masculinity. While this construction reflects the way Muslim men generally represent the culture to themselves, actual practices may vary a great deal.

Is it OR and POV to equate sexual immorality in Christianity with homosexuality?

The question is in regard to this edit: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Religion_and_homosexuality&diff=160558585&oldid=160556044.LCP 22:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely not OR to suggest gay sex is sexually immoral. Most Christians throughout history have believed that. Although it is historically the principle POV of Christians, it is still POV. Rather than remove it completely, it could be reworded to explain the relationship with gay sex and sexual immorality.Joshuajohanson 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely OR to imply that when Paul required Gentiles to abstain from "sexual immorality" he was referring to gay sex and not, say, heterosexual fornication or adultery. —Angr 22:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I see what Joshuajohanson is saying. What a statement means has to do with context. In teh context of Pauls writing, it is not a stretch to see "homosexual acts" as part of "sexual imorality"

I see what Joshuajohanson is saying. What a statement means has to do with context. In the context of Paul’s and NT writings, it is not a stretch to see "homosexual acts" as part of "sexual immorality". On the other hand, I think I might see what Angr is saying. Can Angr expand on why the context argument is not valid? I also wonder if Angr’s objections have to do with form and the fact of the matter or only form. In other words, does Angr care about what Paul did or did not actually intend? I thought I knew what Paul intended, but I think Angr raises an objection that should be considered.LCP 23:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this can be easily resolved by citing to a prominent commentator and describing the interpretation as a common one (if that's correct). Fireplace 23:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, and I would still appreciate hearing Angr's thoughts on the matter.LCP 00:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the paragraph in question runs in its original form as follows:

The Catholic Church and, later, Protestant authorities have traditionally been explicitly condemnatory of same-sex sexual relations, namely, "man lying with man as one lies with a woman" and men "burning with lust toward one another." Where the Catholic view is founded on a natural law argument informed by scripture, the Protestant view is based more directly upon scripture. Nevertheless, there is a broad consensus among Christian organizations that the Bible, as in Leviticus, denounces same-sex sexual relations between men as sinful and, in the eyes of God, an "abomination". In Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem commanded Gentile converts to eschew “sexual immorality.” In the Epistle to the Romans, Saint Paul describes “men, leaving the natural use of the woman, [burning] in their lust one toward another” as a consequence or punishment for the sin of idolatry. In several of his other epistles, Paul echoes the command in Acts, that Christians are to avoid sexual immorality. It is clear that “men burning with lust toward one another” and acting on that lust is, along with other offenses, considered to be “sexually immoral.”

The opening sentence tells us this paragraph is going to be about explicit condemnation of same-sex relations, and gives the "man lying with man as with a woman" quote from Leviticus, and the "burning with lust toward one another" quote from Romans. That's fine; that's explicit condemnation of same-sex relations. But then the paragraph also gives the quote from Acts where Paul tells the Gentiles that to be Christians they don't have to be circumcised, but they do have to refrain from (1) consuming blood, (2) eating the meat of strangled animals, and (3) sexual immorality. This is not an explicit condemnation of same-sex relations, and the editorial voice acknowledges this in the last sentence by saying, "same-sex relations are included under sexual immorality". So I removed the part that is not an explicit condemnation, as well as the final sentence justifying it, as being both OR and non-NPOV. When LCP did a partial revert, he actually made it worse by removing only the concluding sentence, making it seem like the "sexual immorality" quote was explicitly about same-sex relations only. I think the paragraph should remain only about explicit condemnation of same-sex relations, not about more general condemnation of sexual immorality. After all, this article is not called Religion and sexual immorality. —Angr 04:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I didn't realize that I my edit would make the passage more objectionable to you. Sorry about that. I saw what you were suggesting about the OR of the editorial voice, and I was trying to fix that. I see your point and agree with Fireplace's comments above.LCP 17:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't realize that your edit made the passage more objectionable either until I started analyzing the paragraph more carefully in my comment here! :-) As for User:Fireplace's suggestion, even a link to published source saying same-sex relations have traditionally been considered immoral in Christianity (duh!) isn't going to change the fact that the Acts quote is not an explicit condemnation of them. For that passage to be included in this paragraph, we'd have rewrite the whole paragraph to be about condemnation of sexual immorality in general, which would reduce its relevance to the topic of the article and water down the point of the paragraph, namely that there are places in the Bible that discuss same-sex relations specifically, rather than sexual immorality in general, which sources X, Y, and Z inform us includes same-sex relations. —Angr 18:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You might be right. It would call for another section on how “sexual immorality” in the New Testament = man-man homosexual acts. I don’t know if such research exists, but even if it does, I see no point in pursuing it. It really adds nothing but verbiage (IMO). Thanks for the edits and the conversation. I found it enlightening.LCP 18:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What confuses me most about Acts 15:29 is that the rest of the passage seems to order the Gentiles to abstain from blood and "the meat of strangled animals", i.e. requiring the traditional and now-controversial kosher killing of cows by cutting their throats and draining the blood. Yet it seems like no modern Christians would stop to ask whether the hamburger they're eating was killed by knife or by pneumatic bolt. How did they come to put so much emphasis on one part of the text, which seems to have some ambiguity, while ignoring another part that seems more plainly written? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, those dietary things never caught on among Gentile Christians. The English eat blood pudding, the Germans eat blood sausage, all in spite of having been Christian for a thousand years or more. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

AFA input

Hello all. I see there are editors of various points of view here. I would like input from any editor here on the American Family Association article. They actively promote the religious version of reparative therapy, and their viewpoints concerning homosexuality are fairly consistent with Abrahamic religions in general, but I'd like more informed opinions from folk here. Actually, I've been having trouble getting the views of the AFA to be presented warts and all[1]. Any information, advice, or input from any editor here will be appreciated. This is an interesting article by the way. Well done folks. Hal Cross 09:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced paragraph removed

I am removing the following paragraph as many parts of it have been tagged "citation needed" for several months:

Historically, and with exceptions, punishment for male same-sex relations [in Islam] has been less severe compared to its Abrahamic counterparts: Judaism and Christianity. The Qur'an states that if a person commits the sin they can repent and save their life. In early Middle Eastern cultures, such as the Babylonians, Egyptians, and Canaanites, homosexuality was well documented to be entrenched in many aspects of the culture by exposure to Hellenistic culture. Later cultures such as the Abbasid caliphate and Safavid Persia, were renowned for cultivating a sophisticated homosexual aesthetic reflected in art and literature. The reconciliation of same-sex attraction with religious teachings may have been based on a hadith from a collection of quotations ascribed to Muhammad: "He who loves and remains chaste and conceals his secret and dies, dies a martyr". Hadiths from later periods are harsher: "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes... Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to." Both ancient and modern fundamentalists have interpreted these injunctions literally, with resulting loss of life.

If anyone can find a source to back these claims up, feel free to re-add it. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Who teaches that a homosexual orientation [is] sinful?

The opening has the following statement "Some teach that homosexual orientation itself is sinful" Who teaches that? Most everything I read is specifically against gay sex. Since many of the churches do not teach against a homosexual orientation (indeed, many deny the existence of such a thing), is it accurate to say they are against homosexuality, or just homosexual relationships? Joshuajohanson (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In denying that orientation exists, churches that do so reduce what is normally called "orientation" to a set of behaviors and beliefs that they consider sinful, hence "homosexual orientation" = just another word [ETA: uh, phrase] for sin.

Dybryd (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Orientation is normally a set of behaviors? On the homosexuality page, orientation is defined as "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to people of the same sex." I don't know of any church that teaches a disposition to have attractions is sinful. That is my question. Yes there are churches that teach gay sex is sinful. I'm not arguing that. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the position that there is no such thing as homosexual orientation is irrational, and so I'm unable to present you with a version of it that will make any sense. Dybryd (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can't present a version that makes sense to the reader then it needs to be removed. Let me try to understand where you are coming from. You are saying because some churches teach there is no such thing as a homosexual orientation, that means they teach that homosexual orientation is a sin. Sounds like a leap of original research. How about we word it a bit more straightforward, like "Some churches teach that there is no such thing as a homosexual orientation." Again, I would need a reference for that, but at least we are saying what it is and don't put in original research. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The existence of lots of ideas that don't make sense is reported on Wikipedia. Dybryd (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

But original research is removed. If you can't find any reference of a church that teaches that the homosexual orientation itself it a sin, then that claim needs to be removed. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, this is what I get for running my mouth! Tasked with sourcing an article I don't even edit! Fine, but you have to look, too. Dybryd (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Found one!

Lee Irons writes:

The homosexual orientation is sinful in the sense that it is contrary to the creation order, is a result of the fall, and is therefore an objectively sinful condition tending toward actual sin. It stands under the same divine judgment that original sin stands under. It is "an abomination" in the sight of our holy God (Lev. 18:22; 20:13), not only because it is contrary to God's will, but because (unlike most other sexual sins) it violates the order of gender complementarity established at creation.

He then goes on to qualify this, saying that although homosexual orientation is an aspect of "original sin," it is not an "actual transgression." But then he goes on to qualify the qualification, saying:

However, I do think a homosexual Christian can and ought to repent of his or her homosexual inclination in the same way that we ought to repent of original sin. In other words, we ought to acknowledge our own personal moral culpability for our sinful corruption inherited from Adam. We ought to recognize that [...] even apart from any actual sins that we have committed, we are guilty before a holy God [...] The Westminster Confession teaches that we are personally guilty for original sin and liable to eternal judgment because of it.

However, Mr. Irons does not appear to be "a church" - he is just a Presbyterian minister. What's the Westminster Confession? I have never heard of it, but I'm typing it in double brackets and hoping that when I press "Save Page" it will be transformed into a useful link.

Dybryd (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

HAVE MERCY this is a zone of weirdness. It turns out that Lee Irons wrote the above in his defense in a so-called "trial" wherein:

"The Presbytery of Southern California of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church charges you, the Rev. C. Lee Irons, with publicly promoting and encouraging the practice of homosexuality, in violation of the seventh commandment."

I don't know if he would've gone to like Presbyterian Prison if he lost the "trial" or what. But significant to our debate is that he was being "charged" by this "court" partly for distinguishing between gay orientation and gay sex in an earlier paper. The Presbytery of Southern California of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church declared:

"The paper [the one that got Irons in trouble] distinguishes homosexual attraction from homosexual sexual activity, and equates homosexuality with the attraction rather than the act. By claiming that homosexuality is an unchosen 'condition,' rather than a sin of the heart, the author contradicts the teaching of Scripture that both the desire and the act are sin."

So ... I think that's pretty clear! The Presbytery of Southern California of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church says that homosexual orientation is a sin. And it also has delusions of grandeur about being part of the court system or something.

Dybryd (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Relevant news article

Presbyterian assembly votes to drop gay clergy ban

(this is a different kind of Presbyterian)

Dybryd (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional References Needed for "Religious Support for Homosexuality" Section

I've added two references and one specific example of a large denomination explicitly supporting homosexuality (the United Church of Canada) but this section needs many more references. Most of its statements are currently unsupported and the editorial charge of weasel words is, given the current text, a valid one. Please contribute specific referenced examples from major Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, or other denominations around the world. Ross Fraser (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight

Hello, I read this article, and I thought that the overall message was misleading. This article is supposed to be about 'Homosexuality and Religion', but instead focuses on Religious intolerance of homosexuality. Granted, the latter has occurred, but the article then goes onto make broad generalizations of certain religions based on remarks made by a few religious leaders, or by lines of text taken out of religious books which are interpreted by the writer of the article. I suggest the the writers of this article be more careful about making claims about large populations of people of certain religions without citing some sort of data which confirms this inferrence.

Another point, I think the article should weigh the quotes and passages in question with the overall message of the religion. For example, isn't it a little irresponsible to base Christianity's overall intolerance of homosexuals on a few quotes when Jesus' overall message was unconditional acceptance, even of people like criminals?

This is just something to think about...90% this article analyzes what, at best, can be considered the article writers' interpretations of vague quotes from religous texts, and on the otherhand the only part mentioning religious support for homosexuals is poorly written paragraph with no citations.--Starchild12345 (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"For example, isn't it a little irresponsible to base Christianity's overall intolerance of homosexuals on a few quotes when Jesus' overall message was unconditional acceptance, even of people like criminals?" - I think you're wrong on this. Jesus always forgave people for their sins and then said "go forth and sin no more." Someone tempted by homosexual attractions can still choose not to sin. 86.157.165.165 (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

He didn't judge people either, but that hasn't stopped his followers from doing so ever since. The problem is that Wikipedia is about accuracy and NPOV, and religion is about belief which is POV, but belief that is constructed in a way that makes it appear as reality. So, it is possible to quote the few Biblical injunctions about homosexual practice ad nauseam accurately. Polemics against homosexual practice are many, but all based on the same few sources. If there are broad generalisations which do not cite reliable sources, then they are inaccurate abd should be highlighted as such - fact tagging for example - ditto for alternative views, as long as they are not given undue weight and accurately reflect the sources. Mish (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Jesus did judge people - for example pharisees and money-changers - but his central message was forgiveness for past actions was available for those who were sorry for their past actions. That is not unconditional acceptance as was suggested above - it is very much conditional. Homosexuals who are not sorry for their homosexual behaviour can not be forgiven for that behaviour. 86.157.165.165 (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but that last bit is a POV. We have no way of knowing this, what we have is that there are sources that claim this. Just as there are sources that suggest that is an interpretation. Mish (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge "oppose" and "support" sections into the "specific beliefs" section?

Most of the content in the "Religious opposition to homosexuality" and "Religious support for homosexuality" sections is beliefs of specific religions. Would there be any objection to merging it into the appropriate subsections of "Views of specific religious groups"? What remains could be either merged into "Religious groups and civil rights political activity" or made into a new section. --Alynna (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What reference 1 says

I changed the sentence "Some teach that claiming homosexual orientation itself is sinful" to "Some teach that homosexual attraction is inherently sinful". I did this because 1) The original sentence is confusing and 2) I looked at the reference, and it says that "The paper distinguishes homosexual attraction from homosexual sexual activity, and equates homosexuality with the attraction rather than the act. By claiming that homosexuality is an unchosen "condition," rather than a sin of the heart, the author contradicts the teaching of Scripture that both the desire and the act are sin.". This seems to clearly state that the author of the reference considers homosexual attraction to be a sin. It is also the only appearance of the word "claiming" in the reference. What is "claiming homosexual orientation"? --Alynna (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I reverted you because I think you may have misunderstood the reference. The bit you quote is the author of the article actually referring to the claims contained in another article (the paper) - it would therefore be wrong to quote words from this sentence as though they reflected the author's view. About 4 pages into the article (just before a subheading 'documents') it says "She distinguishes between an involuntary orientation (same-sex attraction) and homosexual activity, both of which are sinful." - This is the sentence from which the claim is made that both those claiming homosexual orientation and those engaging in homosexual activity are sinful.Hope that's helpful. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

'Claiming sexual orientation' would mean identifying as gay. It is not just the activity that is a sin, but identifying with the activity in the form of cultivating a positive identity that is sinful. There is grounds in scripture for arguing that an attraction per se is sinful - where attraction is read as desire; but it applies to heterosexuals as much as anybody, and was described in that context. Extending this to orientation is a synthesis and original research, unless a clear citation can be found that says 'orientation' rather than 'attraction'. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a very weak link, which cites a paper that refers to a comment by a pastors wife in California. Is this notable enough for the weight given in the article? I don't see how, especially as it consists of a report of a comment made on a blog from what I can see. It does say orientation, but it is still not good enough for the lead Mish (just an editor) (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is a very weak reference, and better removed. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Using Wiki biblemanager for refs

There has been an attempt to push one or two translations of scripture here, most recently the 'Amplified Bible' (and now Today's NIV). I have replaced these with links which will allow the reader to select the Bible they prefer. It is not appropriate to include a reference from a particular translation and highlight in bold that bit which supports a particular POV. That departs from NPOV. I could insert a different reference, such as NRSV, which gives a different (and arguably more accurate) translation. It is better in this introductory paragraph on Abrahamic religions to cite the relevant passages, using the tool which leads to a selection of translations. These references are all discussed in the relevant sections further below, so better to include citations about the range of meanings and interpretations there. Mish (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice the link you give does not lead to the version I happen to prefer (Today's New International Version). Never mind - I was not trying to push any particular translation, because it all comes down to whether you believe that what the bible counts as the supreme authority in deciding our attitudes to these questions. I only highlighted the relevant bit of the verse to be helpful - sorry 86.165.94.78 (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that, it doesn't have the New Jerusalem Bible or the Revised English Bible either. It does have the New International Version (including the UK edition), as well as the King James Bible and New King James Bible, and the New Revised Standard Version, amongst others. Mish (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

should title be reversed?

Hi all. I added a religious topics box above the LGBT topics box ( to reflect the order of the title) and this was then changed to have the LGBT topics box above the religions topic box. I don't mind, but thought the order should reflect the title of the article. Why not move the article to 'Homosexuality and Religion' if the emphasis is supposed to be from a LGBT perspective? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Mish (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No objections then - I'll rename the article. Mish (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesus makes no reference to homosexuality in the Gospels?

This seems like OR. How can you say Jesus didn't reference homosexuality? He did on several occasions. Homosexuality was addressed when he denounced adultery (Mark 10:19) when he denounced fornication(Mark 7:21) and when he commanded a man to cleave to his wife (Mark 10:19). Seems like someone's personal opinion rather than fact. Most Christians agree he addressed homosexuality. Either way, it doesn't belong in the Abrahamic section. If you find someone that has the interpretation that Jesus made no reference to homosexuality, it should be stated as a minority view and kept within the Christianity section. And the no reference to female homosexuality - a command to abstain from fornication should be sufficient for that - but Romans 1:26-27 clearly references female homosexuality. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

To suggest that adultery is referring to homosexuality is what is WP:OR, as is fornication. Fornication and adultery are usually taken to refer to heterosexual sex.

• Fornicate - have sexual intercourse with someone one is not married to. [2]
• Etymology: Late Latin fornicatio, from fornicare to have intercourse with prostitutes, from Latin fornic- fornix arch, vault, brothel: consensual sexual intercourse between a man and esp. single woman who are not married to each other; also : the crime of engaging in fornication. [3]

The original meaning was whoredom, or sex with a prostitute, and when used in the Bible it often has connections with idolatry (as idolatry is a form of religious whoring). However, the Greek porneia (which is what is translated into 'fornication') is a broader word than the Latin root for fornication, or more modern uses; for example, Paul uses it to refer to a quasi-incestuous relationship between a young man and his step-mother. Again, though, this is a heterosexual relationship, and it is not used in the context of homosexual congress.

• Adultery - voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse. [4]
• conjugal infidelity. An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress. Intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman was fornication. Adultery was regarded as a great social wrong, as well as a great sin. [5]

I can see why you might extrapolate that to include sex between people of the same sex, but that is not in the source. When homosexuality is mentioned, it is done so using specific descriptions that do not give any suggestion that this is adultery or fornication (e.g., sodomy, men lying with men, unnatural passions for other men); the definition makes no mention of things like cunnilingus or fellatio (or sodomy) because the sexual intercourse that takes place is usually taken to mean when a man puts his penis in a vagina.

• Sexual intercourse - sexual contact between individuals involving penetration, especially the insertion of a man’s erect penis into a woman’s vagina culminating in orgasm and the ejaculation of semen. [6]

Mark 10:6 to 10:19 is Jesus' teaching on divorce and adultery, and it takes some twisting to make this out to be about homosexuality, especially as Jesus does not discuss two men or two women having sex together (and presumably in discussing divorce in his context he was assuming heterosexual marriage, not gay partnerships). I understand that you believe that this implies certain things about homosexuality, but your interpretation of this is your opinion. Ditto for fornication and lesbianism - clearly lesbians cannot fornicate in the sense in which it was defined historically or in modernity. It was not mentioned, and is you extrapolating a meaning that is not explicit in the text. The point stands, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.

While there is nothing said before St. Paul about lesbianism, I appreciate that one passage can be read this way (not the one you raised), so I have inserted a comment about women engaging in unnatural sex from St.Paul to the Romans, although lesbianism is only implied in the context of what is said about men in the following verse, not stated explicitly. It doesn't matter whether you think most Christians believe something if it cannot be verified - especially as he did not, if he did, it would be easy to verify, but you can't - whereas I can verify he didn't, because it is not in the Gopsels, and this has been commented upon in several sources, one of which I have now cited. As this is about religion AND homosexuality, the contention that most Christians mistakenly believe he spoke about homosexuality is not relevant, because there are Christians who do not believe this, some of whom are also LGBT, and they would insist that in an article about them you stick to the sources rather than engaging in WP:OR and polemic in order to push your own views.

I would move the section, however, it is intertwined with detail about Judaism and Hebrew scripture, and there was some care taken in ensuring sections of the New Testament were incorporated into this section, and a {{fact}} tag placed there which necessitated expansion to show how this featured in reliable sources, as well as your recent deletion of material that necessitated elaboration to show this. If you want all the Christian material relocated, fine, but only moving the bits you don't like seems a bit biased. Mish (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I find this confusing - it is being implied that since Jesus made no direct reference to homosexuality that he is accepting it. Yet Jesus made no direct reference to lots of other things, such as incest, pedophilia, bestiality etc - are we suggesting that Jesus was accepting of these things since he didn't mention these? Seems to me that the most we can safely say in the article is that "some people believe that the fact that Jesus didn't directly condemn homosexuality is significant, whereas other disagree pointing out that Jesus also didn't condemn a range of other behaviours." 86.158.120.73 (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Saying that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality says nothing about whether he accepted it or not. It states a fact. If you want to find a source that argues that his discussion about divorce and adultery implies that he also included homosexuality, that is up to you, but claiming this without such a source is WP:OR. The problem is that once you start to insert such sources, it opens up the need to balance such an interpretation with alternative interpretations - and such discussions are best managed in more focused articles than here. This is why it was a mistake to start adding detailed references to primary sources in this section in the first place. Given that links to more detailed treatment of the subject are already included in the section, such discussion is unnecessary IN THIS ARTICLE. This is not a place to promote one particular understanding of theology and the Bible as if that is neutral, and doing so has opened up the need to insert balancing material. The fact is he didn't, and if people want to look into that further, the links are available. There is no point re-inventing the wheel here, when the work has been done elsewhere. The reality is we might try to imagine what Jesus' views about homosexuality were, but as he said nothing about it specifically, that is all we are able to do, and we do not rely on the imagination here. Mish (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is that Jesus taught against fornication, but that doesn't apply to gay people because they can't have sexual intercourse with each other? I think your definition of sexual intercourse is off. Fornication is sexual intercourse between two people who are not married, same-sex couples couldn't get married back then, and sexual intercourse includes penetration, especially involving a penis and a vagina, but not necessarily. Two woman can have penetration with their fingers."

You said "This is not a place to promote one particular understanding of theology and the Bible as if that is neutral". I'm not the one doing that. You are. If I were to insert the phrase "Jesus taught against homosexuality", then that would be promoting my own view. I deleted the phrase that Jesus didn't teach against homosexuality, and you are the one that put it back in based on the assumption that gay couples are incapable of having sexual intercourse with each other. Citing the Latin root doesn't help because Christ didn't speak Latin. You are being hypocritical. You are promoting your own view that Christ taught strict abstinence before marriage and complete fidelity after marriage, but that doesn't apply to gays since they can't have sexual intercourse so they can do whatever they want. Straight men could commit adultery by simply looking at a woman (which doesn't include any penetration by the way), but gay people get down and dirty with whoever and whenever they want of the same sex without committing adultery because they are incapable of sexual intercourse? Not only does it not make any sense, it goes against what most Christians believe. Yes, you can find a lot of people trying to promote that view, but you need to take your own advice and not favor your own view over any other view.

The scripture from Mark is more than just divorce - it is a command for a man to get married and then cleave to his wife and become one flesh with her. For him to cleave to his wife and become one flesh, he can't be having any other sexual relationships, not a prostitute, another woman, a child, his mother, the family dog or even another man. Jesus taught against fornication, and that entails all sexual relationships with someone who is not your spouse - whether it be prostitution, pedophilia, incest, bestiality or even homosexuality. No sex is no sex - and yes, gay people are capable of having sex with each other. Again, I'm not saying the majority interpretation needs to go in as fact, I'm just saying your interpretation better not go in as fact. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

First point. This is not what I said, so no point discussing with you about something I didn't say. I don't care if you think the definitions are off, they are what they are. The point is that Jesus did not discuss homosexuality. However you want to phrase it, he did not, and whether you read 'adultery' or 'fornication' to refer to homosexuality or not, the fact is he did not, so the statement is accurate and verifiable.

Second point. No, you have the point of view that homosexuality is a form of sexual immorality, therefore when Jesus speaks about some form of sexual immorality he includes homosexuality, which is a view you are entitled to, but it does not mean Jesus discussed homosexuality - only that he discussed sexual immorality (in this case, divorce, adultery and fornication). That is verifiable.

Third point. This is all original research using sources synthetically to reflect your POV, and you are welcome to find sources for this to show where this has been argued, but it still does not mean that Jesus spoke about homosexuality per se. That is indisputable. You may not like that, but that is how it is. Even the source that has been added to clarify this makes that perfectly clear. I am saying nothing about whether he condoned homosexuality or not - simply reporting the sources accurately, which is what we do here. There is no 'truth' to be had here, only accuracy about what sources say. Your views (or mine) are not relevant in this, and twisting what I have said does not help either. I am not insisting on any interpretation - the fact is he said nothing, and that fact is stated without further comment, in the same way as all the relevant scripture passages have been cited just above this without comment. Mish (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Whether you read 'adultery' or 'fornication' to refer to homosexuality or not, the fact is he did not, so the statement is accurate and verifiable." How is your reading "fact" and mine "opinion"? If I say you can't bring fruit into California, and someone tries to bring in an apple, they can't just say the fact is I didn't say anything about apples, and it is only my "opinion" that no fruit implies no apples. Fruits include apples, and fornication includes homosexuality. That is fact, according to your own definition that fornication is to "have sexual intercourse with someone one is not married to." Does that mean prostitution isn't fornication, because it has a different name? What about an orgy? Assigning a specific name to homosexuality doesn't make it not a sexual act with someone you are not married to. You can say what you are saying is "fact" all you want to, and your "fact" is "indisputable", but that doesn't make it fact. I really don't think that Jeffrey Siker can be counted as absolute fact when it comes to biblical interpretation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead of arguing about it, provide a source that shows Jesus discussing homosexuality. That is all you need to do. Siker is simply a source which states that Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality, that is all, no more no less, he is not the fact, he describes the fact, that Jesus does not mention homosexuality. That is all. It is not that big a big deal. It is not an interpretation, it is just the way it is. You are free to think that his talking about other things means he meant homosexuality. I'm only interested in what the sources say, as this isn't Bible-study, it is Wikipedia. Mish (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed your text about what Mormonism believes about this because it was undue weight for a marginal view in a section about the three Abrahamic religions, and suggested you relocate it elswehere. On consuderation, I consider that some of the text I developed in the subsequent paragraph would be better located in the section about Homosexuality and Christianity. Given the text about what Jesus said in the Bible was reworded to ensure nobody was mislead about what he did and didn't say, I consider your edit contentious, expecially as something acknowledging your POV was already included. I have added that Jesus teaching in this instance refers to marriage, adultery and divorce. I will view further attempts to exclude this material or obscure it as edit-warring. This has wasted too much time already. You are welcome to say what Mormons believe in a relevant section that covers LDS views. Mish (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"something acknowledging my POV" was included as going against the "fact" that Christ did not refer to homosexuality "per se". You can't state your POV as fact and expect me to be okay with an "acknowledgement" that my POV goes against "fact". Jesus Christ referred to homosexuality in the Gospels. MOST churches believe that. I only used Mormon because they are more centralized and it is easier to find quotes on their web site. If the Mormon interpretation, or the Catholic interpretation or any other interpretation is undue weight, than so is Jeffrey Sikers. You asked for a reference, I provided it. You took it out and put in yours as fact. Bottom line, if the Mormon interpretation is undue weight, then so is Jeffrey Sikers. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Mormonism isn't even considered Christian by most Christians, nor by any mainstream Christian denomination, and is not a member of WCC - so why it should be included in a section about the three Abrahamic religions is not clear to me. This is a fairly novel interpretation of this passage. So, to use Mormonism to insert a piece that presents Mormon beliefs as if they are mainstream Christian belief in an extensive passage in a short paragraph is what makes it WP:UNDUE. All my source is doing is providing a reference to the fact that Jesus does not mention homosexuality, which you seem to have a problem with. Even the source that was previously inserted, which was not from a reliable source, (but I ignored that) stated that Jesus never said that, and documented why the passage cited about heterosexual activity (marriage and adultery) applied to homosexuality. Now, the way I left this gave both understandings, i.e., that Jesus did not mention homosexuality in the Bible (which, because you cannot provide a reference to him talking about this), and this the leads into the interpretation that the Matthew and Mark passages include homosexuality. If you feel you need to expand on that further, then do so in another section, or another article, but not in a way that breaches NPOV. Mish (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV would be to neither push my point of view or your point of view. Since you don't seem to think Mormons are an Abrahamic religion, here is yet ANOTHER place where they same Jesus condemned homosexual behavior. http://www.thebible.net/modules.php?name=Read&itemid=81&cat=9 To say Christ didn't mention homosexuality is wrong. He did. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This source also says he didn't mention it. "While it is true that there is no NT record of where Jesus explicitly stated that homosexuality is wrong".

This discussion is pointless. This is an overview article that should be simply using summary-style to precis the subarticles that we have on each religion. All this research has already been done - this should not act as a content fork for information that isn't in the subarticles. The Abrahmic, Christianity and Judaism sections should be reduced to merely a couple of paragraphs of prose (no ugly lists), otherwise this article deserves a "worldwide" and "Undue weight" template. Readers want an overview of all religions here, not a coatrack for Christians to add their disputes.YobMod 08:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. My suggestion has been to take it out completely - not to favor my view or that of MishMich. However, if he insists on including that Christ never mentioned homosexual behavior, in order to be balanced it would need to mention that Christ condemned fornication. Right now it seems as if Christ were silent on sexual relationships between two unmarried people, or as if that were some weird twisting of his teachings on divorce. It is true that in his teachings against sexual relationships before marriage, he did not make specific mention of the gender of the participants of the sexual relationships. I would be fine with either completely leaving it out or saying something like "Jesus taught against fornication, but did not directly mention homosexual or heterosexual behavior before marriage." Preferably, I would like to see the whole thing removed. The solution is not just to put up your interpretation, but to come to some conclusion. We need to come to an conclusion before the flag gets removed. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

@JoshuaJohnson. I agree also, and I have removed the list (as per YobMod's suggestion) and the disputed paragraph that follows them, with a brief summary introduction to the sections that follow, which all point to specific articles. Mish (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

@YobMod. In relation to your other point, about the excessive detail in the Homosexuality and Christianity section, I had a look at History of Christianity and homosexuality#Diverging opinions in modern era, and this seems to provide a reasonable summary/intro for the main article on Homosexuality and Christianity:

• Historically, Christian churches have regarded homosexual sex as sinful, based on the Catholic understanding of the natural law and traditional interpretations of certain passages in the Bible. This position is today affirmed by most Christian groups, including the Catholic (1.1 billion members) and Orthodox (250 million members) Churches, part of Protestant denominations, especially among Evangelicals such as the Southern Baptist Convention (16.3 million members), and the LDS Church (13 million members). However, there is a minority who interpret biblical passages differently and argue that homosexuality can be seen as morally acceptable. This approach has been taken by a number of denominations, notably the United Church of Canada (2.8 million members), the liberal congregations within United Church of Christ, the Moravian Church (825,000 members), the Anglican Church of Canada (800,000 members), the Methodist Church of Great Britain (330,000 members), Friends General Conference and Lutheran churches in Europe. A new denomination, the Metropolitan Community Church (40,000 members), has also come into existence specifically to serve the Christian LGBT community. However, individual Christians maintain a variety of beliefs on this subject that may or may not correspond to their official church doctrines. Some mainline Protestant denominations in the United States have also removed language in their bylaws which suggest that homosexuality is a sinful state of being. The Book of Order used by the PCUSA reflects this change. Similar modifications in position can also be seen in the ELCA and Disciples of Christ. Although acceptance of sexually active LGBT laity has increased in terms of actual practice and in terms of church law, some of these denominations continue to limit leadership and clergy roles for LGBT persons.

Perhaps something along the lines of this brief entry would be better? Then any material that is in currently in the section that is not in the main article could be relocated there. It stikes me that much of the recent discussion is more relevant for the article Homosexuality and the Bible, which is linked to already. Mish (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good start. I think having the section at a couple of paragraphs is long enough, so this would leave some room for future expansion. Eg. One on the biblical, one describing official church stances, one on catholic, one on protastant. But for now i think this shortened version is better than what is there. We should make sure no sourced information is lost, so maybe copy the lonest version onto a subpage or talk page of homosexuality and christianity/the bible?YobMod 08:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Freemasonry and homosexuality

Freemasonry is not usually classified as a religion, although as a secret society, it is often thought to be a kind of sect. In any case, there ought to be additional material added on the topic of freemasonry and homosexuality, in order to better discern the views of masonic lodge organizations on the subject. ADM (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As you say, Freemasonry is not a religion. It is an openly secret society whose members follow a religion like Christianity, Judaism or Islam, it is supplementary to a given religion, not alternative. Mish (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is actually incorrect, only Anglo-American masons will require deistic beliefs as a supplement to another religion, while Grand Orient masons elsewhere in the world are in fact closer to agnosticism and atheism. In any case, there is certainly a freethinking masonic spirituality that has developed its own views on a whole host of issues, including homosexuality. ADM (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, it is not a religion. Neither is the Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes. Much the same could be said for Alcoholics Anonymous. Mish (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Cannot see anything on the Freemasonry page about it being a religion. Why don't you do an article on it - and incorporate it into the Freemasonry project? Then you can stick the LGBT project template on it as well. Mish (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Freemasonry, according to many well-meaning scholars such as Stephen Knight, actually has two faces. Its visible face is like what you said, it is a form of deism that tends to integrate many other religions. Its hidden face is only revealed to advanced initiates and actually looks like an entirely different religion, because it integrates many of the mystery cults of the ancient Greco-Roman world. There is a huge difference between high-ranking and low-ranking initiates, and at the top levels Freemasonry is in fact very close to groups like the Ordo Templi Orientis, the Rosicrucians, the Great White Brotherhood and Wicca. So, this is what I am really talking about when I use the word religion in the context of Masonic rituals. Most if not all secret societies are in fact very similar and they certainly have relevant views on debated social issues such as homosexuality. ADM (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Secret societies? Ordo Templi Orientis, the Rosicrucians, the Great White Brotherhood? Strange. Smells of WP:OR and WP:Fringe to me. That before we get into WP:RS that talk about it being a religion. Seriously, if you want to write something about Freemasonry and homosexuality, that's fine, but not here - Nazism had a spiritual basis as well (all-be-it a synthesis of pop-religion and social-Darwinism), but it doesn't belong here. Mish (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverted Edits that Removed Referenced Material Supportive of Homosexuality

I've reverted some recent edits that removed a fairly substantial amount of supportive material that was fully referenced. While I certainly understand the desire to edit for brevity, removal of fully referenced material that is positive in its view of homosexuality and religions should first be discussed here on this talk page before destructive editing takes place. This is especially the case when the material has not been copied over into another more extensive article (e.g., Christianity and Homosexuality) but instead, merely deleted from Wikipedia entirely.

Homosexuality and religion is a somewhat controversial topic and existing text should be excised with great care and sensitivity. Even more vigilance is needed when the material to be removed attempts to provide a wider cultural or geographic context (e.g., Africa, Canada, views of black Americans, etc.)

Discussions of how to achieve brevity and clarity without sacrificing content are always welcomed. --Ross Fraser (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not sacrificing content, it is keeping it in the articles it is supposed to be in. Christianity should not have a section bigger than every asian or african religion combined, it is a massive WP:Coatrack, and not a help to readers who want to learn about all religions. If people want to write so much about Christianity, they need to go to the Homosexuality and Christianity article. The removed material is on the talk page there. This is how the sub-article organisation works. No matter how supportive or not, this level of detail is simply inappropriate for a top level article about every religion in the world. (And as a long-standing member of the LGBT project, i clearly didn't disproportionatly remove positive content, i simply removed details from each viewpoint)YobMod 19:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if you had integrated the material removed into Homosexuality and Christianity, rather than merely dumping it on the talk page. In any event, the paucity of material on, say, Islam, is not for lack of research -- there just isn't much published currently material that can be referenced that is gay positive and Islamic.

As for balance, the material on Christianity now almost exclusively focuses on Roman Catholicism and American protestant churches. Other than a good list of 20th century theologians, the article now refers to Fred Phelps (American), Jerry Falwell (American), the Church of Latter Day Saints (headquartered in Utah), the United Church of Christ (American), and Gene Robinson (American). This is American-centric editing at its most blatant. Surely you must realise that there are Wikipedia readers who want a more global view? I worked hard to obtain material from other countries and cultures and you seem intent on removing it but preserving all US references. --Ross Fraser (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to integrate some of the material placed on the talk page of Homosexuality and Christianity. I am torn between both positions on this, but think YobMod has a point. There is a section link to the main article. The problem is that the same six or seven verses from the Old and New Testament, quoted at every opportunity, referenced numerous times, isn't appropriate here. It is not possible to give all the arguments justice in a summary, beyond that there is a history, there is a view expressed by certain authorities, and there are different positions on this - both as denominations and within all denominations and forms of Christianity. Mish (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary errata

In this previous edition of mine, the description of the "Edit summary" should instead be read: "Added [new] data, reinstating previous reference (prior to current editings), on convergent (...)". Please accept my apologies for the earlier linguistic inaccuracy (English not being my mothertongue...). Regards. --VanHelm (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuals are not pederasts

I have removed several references to pederasty. This appeared to confuse homosexuals with pederasts.—Ash (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

LGBT Community and Religion

Shouldn't there be information about what Religions the LGBT community typically belong to?--Occono (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There are religions that LGBT people typically belong to? If so, and if you can find sourced information on it, by all means add it. But I'm not aware of any "typical LGBT" religions. We're everywhere :) --Alynna (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I know we're everywhere, but it's all about Religious views on Homosexuality, which to me posits that Gay people aren't Religious if the Religion they were raised with or identify with has a negative view on them. I think there needs to be information about how Gay people in various Religions typically deal with their Faith and Sexual Orientation. (I suppose it sounds like I'm talking about something different now, but I meant there should be info on whether Gay people in an unfriendly branch of Christianity to them move to a friendlier one or what.) And I couldn't add that sort of information, I'm a Humanist.--Occono (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, yes, there should be information on how LGBT folks deal with their faith, especially when that faith is traditionally unfriendly to them. LGBT-welcoming church programs should be in there, along with stats (I'm sure there are some) on how many people stay with their faith vs. leave (or more nuanced options, such as "find a different group within that faith"). I'm not sure where to find it either... I'll look. --Alynna (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Be careful of original research. There are quite a few LGBT people who are quite happy in religions that teach against same-sex relationships. Don't assume because some LGBT people have a problem with it, that all do. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the terminology, but yes it should include openly gay celibate or Married in opposite-sex relationships religious people. ----occono (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge template

Somebody placed a template to merge LGBT matters and religion into this article on the LGBT matters and religion article. I have placed a template to merge this article into LGBT matters and religion, as the topic would be better served by one article giving coverage of all aspects of LGBT matters and religion than two - one for homosexuality and one for transgenderism. Mish (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with either proposed merge. LGBT matters and religion is an overview, while Religion and homosexuality and Transgenderism and religion deal with more specific topics in more detail. --Alynna (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but will not remove the 2->1 until the 1->2 is removed. Mish (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed merge template from here.Mish (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Good Guys and Bad Guys?

First, the picture. Though that may be a picture of Christian protesters, putting "Christian Protesters" as part of the caption, quickly changes this article from being "Religion and Homosexuality" to "Christian Acts Against Homosexuals".

The text in the introduction seems to be a little biased where it says "Current authoritative bodies and doctrines of the world's largest religions generally view homosexuality negatively. This can range from quietly discouraging homosexual activity, explicitly forbidding same-sex sexual practices among adherents" I don't see how "quietly discouraging homosexual activity", or "forbidding same-sex sexual practices" at all depicts a negative view of homosexuality. Perhaps you could say something about "Homosexual activity", or "practices" but the title of this article is "Religion and Homosexuality" not "Religion and Homosexual Practices".

Also in the introduction it mentions "Liberal voices within these religions tend to view homosexuality more positively" referring to the previous section where it mentions religions offering assistance to people who do not wish to be homosexual. Helping someone "avoid homosexual behavior", is not in anyway viewing homosexuality less positively, however I will agree that the latter example of '...help "people seeking freedom from homosexuality".' is viewing homosexuality less positively and even negatively. If any rewording can be done to remove the word "Liberal" from that section, that would also be much appreciated as well.

Those are my complaints for the introduction. Hopefully someone could take this and change not only the introduction, but the rest of the article, to something where religion and homosexuality are not are not presented as good guys and bad guys (not necessarily respectively) but something that describes the relationship between religion and homosexuality. EMSchmittgen (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that the picture turns the article into "Christians acts against homosexuals," since there are no other pictures of Christians acting against homosexuals, nor is the article focused in that direction. I'd have no problem with moving the picture further down the page if you have a better picture- surely one of us has a picture of Christian homosexuals doing something photogenic? I can't think of a phrasing that would be as clear and simple as 'viewing homosexuality negatively' to describe the point of view that homosexuality is something to be avoided; do you have a suggested phrasing you think would be better? I don't really think that the word 'negative' is an inherently biased one in this context; it seems to be accurate. I'd be against replacing it with a word like 'bigot' or 'homophobe,' which would be unnecessarily biased. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 09:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the picture needs relocating within the Christian section and balancing with a picture of LGBT Christians, there are two other religions represented in photographs. Perhaps we could have one of homosexuals being whipped under Sharia Law from somewhere or other? Mish (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Fisher, I would say that saying that homosexuality is something to be avoided would be (somewhat) viewing homosexuality negatively, however what it currently talks about is homosexual practices. What I mean is (in most cases) it is the homosexual acts that are seen negatively, and not homosexuality that is seen negatively. So the phrase "...view homosexuality negatively. This can range from quietly discouraging homosexual activity, explicitly forbidding same-sex sexual practices..." is talking about two different things, homosexuality, and homosexual activities/practices. Perhaps this part could be rephrased to "Some of the current authoritative bodies and doctrines of the world's largest religions see homosexual behavior negatively, while others view the homosexual orientation itself negatively. This can be seen within quiet discouraging of homosexual activity and explicitly forbidding same-sex sexual practices among adherents, to actively opposing social acceptance of homosexuality, and execution." The next line "Most who are opposed to homosexuality argue that homosexual sexual activity is a sin, not the sexual orientation." would then be taken out, due to its redundancy. Also its wording is confusing, as it says that people who are opposed to homosexuality are not opposed to the sexual orientation... kind of contradictory. I think that it is fair enough to put the picture further down the page and another picture up in its place. I am kind of reluctant to have a picture of homosexuals being whipped, put up but I suppose that it is something that happens and is related to this article, however it would be nice to see something balancing to that, if there's a picture of homosexuals being whipped, by Muslims, perhaps a picture of homosexuals being helped by Muslims would be nice. EMSchmittgen (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we could have a better picture -- the current one implies that over-the-top protesters at a pride parade are representative of the intersection of religion and homosexuality.

As far as the lede, I'd argue that discouraging/forbidding "homosexual behaviour" is certainly indicative of a negative view of homosexuality. Seriously, if you think same-sex attraction and/or sex are bad, how could that be considered anything but a negative view of homosexuality? It might be true that some groups consider only gay sex sinful, and don't have a problem with celibate gay people, but that's still a negative view of homosexuality -- if they had a neutral or positive view of homosexuality, they would encourage gay sex or treat it the same way they treat straight sex. --Alynna (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a difficult call, because what the negative view appears to be about is any expression of homosexuality - not just behaviour. So, buggery is condemned, but then so is are same-sex relationships, partnerships, marriages, regardless of the sexual activity within them - and in many cases, simply gay or lesbian identification. It is hard to see how you can distinguish between 'homosexuality' and any expression of homosexual love, simply by reducing this to 'behaviour'. Mish (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I also find the distinction between 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual acts' to be incomprehensible in relation to real homosexual people- this is a distinction that only makes sense to straight members of certain religious groups. Assume that having sex is a 'homosexual act.' Is kissing a homosexual act? Is taking care of a sick partner a homosexual act? Is taking one's turn washing the dishes a homosexual act? Is saying 'not tonight, dear; I have a headache' a homosexual act? Would religious groups that oppose 'homosexual acts' oppose a gay person buying flowers for her partner? Does it matter whether they're roses or daisies? I'm getting a little silly here, but- the distinction between 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual acts' is one that simply is not used outside a few religious groups, and it's one that many readers would consider to be simply nonsensical. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

They would be against buying partners flowers, because that implies having a partner, which unless homosexual people are in a heterosexual relationship, is not supportable. It is not supportable, because of what might happen in the bedroom - those sexual acts. It all comes back down to sex, and of course, by focusing on the sex, and reducing any partnership (which may involve a romantic gesture like buying one's lesbian partner a padded lumberjack shirt) to sex, the relationship is effectively dehumanised. Hitler did a similar thing with Jews and images of rats. In this case it is the mental image of sticking willies up bums that does the job - ironically, even for lesbians, who rarely have a willy anywhere near their bum (strap-ons maybe, depending on the politics and aesthetics of the lesbians involved). Mish (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Alynna, I agree with you that saying that homosexual attraction is wrong, is discrimatorry towards homosexuals. However then you go on to say that people believe that celibate gay people are not to be viewed poorly but gay sex is. First of all the problem with this is we're analyzing, sex and people. The two are not synonymous and thus can not be compared in this way. If we were to look at people that say that homosexuals who have homosexual intercourse are bad while homosexuals who do not have homosexual intercourse (or intercourse at all) are good then I would say that we have a variable. This being whether or not there is homosexual intercourse. Since celibate homosexuals are seen as good then the argument that homosexuals are seen as bad to these people is invalidated, as there are homosexuals that are seen as good. It has to be that the variable of having or not having homosexual intercourse, is seen as "bad" part.

Fisher, I'm not certain what everyone else says but what I hear from most religions who oppose "homosexual acts", and what I mean by "homosexual acts" is, homosexual intercourse. Now, yes there are people out there that do oppose homosexuals kissing, taking care of a sick partner, or any of the other potential acts named, however that does not mean that this is a homosexual act. What's more a religion can not be defined by its members, but only by its doctrine (unless its doctrine is its members) and I do not see that "...the worlds largest religions" (as mentioned in the article)for the most part, have doctrines against anything but homosexual acts.

Mish, I'd like you to clear up what you said because you're kind of contridicting yourself there. However if you don't mind I'm going to use it to my advantage. You said that reducing a relationship to sex is dehumanizing the relationship, however you also said that buying a partner flowers implies sex in the minds of the people who are "viewing homosexuality negatively". However in the article itself, it says "Most who are opposed to homosexuality argue that homosexual sexual activity is a sin, not the sexual orientation." and while I stated before that I don't like the wording to that sentence, the initial message stands true. Now if we view "homosexual activity" as homosexual intercourse, then the article essentially states that nobody really cares if flowers are bought. Furthermore, heterosexuals buy flowers for their partners all the time, and this rarely specifically means sexual activity. As you can see the fact that the argument is out there that it is believed that homosexual activity is different than homosexuality, I believe that it needs to be incorporated into the article somewhere at the least, if not being the reason for rewording many of the sentences in the article. EMSchmittgen (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No contradiction there at all. It is not only the sexual act, it is also the relationship, and the sexuality includes relationships. Same for heterosexuality, it includes relationships as well as sexual acts. Restricting homosexuality to homosexual acts is defamatory, as it is about more than sexual acts. Stating that opposition is against sexual acts and not homosexual attraction is incorrect because it is incomplete. Opposition is against sexual activity, sexual relationships (including committed partnerships), and yet somehow states it is not opposed to the attraction (despite often promoting therapies to change that attraction from homosexuality). OK? Get it? If we had an article Religion and heterosexuality, would we say that promotion of heterosexuality involves affirming heterosexual sex, but not the attraction, and yet omit the point that heterosexual relationships (such as marriage) is part of that affirmation? The relationship in both cases is more significant than the act or the attraction, yet this is ignored in the case of our coverage of homosexuality, instead foucsing on sex, and yet the with heterosexuality we focus on the relationship, ignoring the sex. That suggests a bias in the way we cover these things. Mish (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

lack of citations

I began tagging unsourced material, then I found an article tag applied in a section from 2007. I have moved the article tag to the start of the article, where article tags should be, so I don't have to tag all the unsourced material. I will start going through the article and removing any unsourced material. It has been article-tagged for three years, which is plenty of time for people to provide sources for uncorroborated statements. The purpose of doing this is to improve the article, and the encyclopedia. Mish (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The footnotes for the Islamic section are dead links

I am bi and Muslim and I have no problem with that. God, in Islam, I believe, does not care about one's sexual orientation but only their deeds, or taqwa (God consciousnes) Perhaps citations by Irshad Manji as well as traditional sources should be advanced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.5.16 (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

Odd that there's no importance assessment! I assess high. Feel free to adjust. The topic is causing much debate. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Too high! I readjusted to Mid level for religion in an attempt to follow the guide line for Wikiproject Religion Assessment – the article is not vital for the understanding of Religion. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-Religious Views of Homosexuality

I have been thinking that a section about non-religious views of Homosexuality should be included (Atheist, Secular, etc.) but I'm having trouble tracking down information on the subject, can anyone help? The Fading Light (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? it is about religion and homoseuxality - atheism is not religion. What about humanist or communist views? Then it would need to be renamed something like 'views about homosexuality'. Mish (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If the humanists and atheists believe themselves to constitute religions, they're welcome here, but if they don't, let them outside! Marxism is often considered being a religion, so why not – when the few remaining communists decide they're adherents of a religion. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Islam section

"Islam views same-sex desires as a natural temptation"

I don't know from where did the writer get that, the reference link is broken and the page now on http://www.al-inaam.com/library/homos.htm I think say nothing about that. but how come some one says that Islam see homosexuality as natural? I'm going to delete that section soon if Allah wishes. Will731 (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone should rewrite this

Hi people, I think someone should rewrite this whole article. I would do it myself, but my English is honestly not good enough. Reasons to rewrite it: (1) Reading back all the comments, the article was very subjective from the start. Since then, it has changed a lot, but it still spreads a false message - that nearly every religions are against homosexuality. (2) Follows from this that there are quite a little number of citations. And that these citations are not really relevant in the topic or interpreted falsely. An example. This is a well-known and objective citation from the article: http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/china,5.html And what the article says referred to this citation: 'Among the Taoic religions of East Asia, such as Taoism, passionate homosexual expression is usually discouraged because it is believed to not lead to human fulfillment.' My conclusion is that we should be objective here, either we support homosexual people or not. Religions are not subjective scenarios. They are based on books or at least some people wrote books about them, which we should read with an open mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annab88 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Child prostitution

The section Buddhism starts: "Asian societies shaped by Buddhist traditions take a strong ethical stand in human affairs and sexual behavior in particular. However, unlike most other world religions, most variations of Buddhism do not go into details as to what is right and what is wrong in what it regards as mundane activities of life." Anybody who has read the Buddha's teachings in Pali knows that the second sentence is untrue and that is why the author has not verified it with a citation. As regards the first sentence it may be noted that Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Vietnam and India have the worst incidence of child prostitution in the world. United Nations and other human rights groups have conducted studies which show that at least one third of prostitutes in these countries are children. In India and Thailand an estimated 40% of prostitutes are children. Can it therefore be asserted that 'Asian societies shaped by Buddhist traditions take a strong ethical stand with regard to sexual behaviour in particular'? 81.107.150.246 (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Child prostitution is a major problem in many countries, including those with strong Christian, Muslim and Hindu cultures. Would it therefore be correct to say that Christianity, Islam and Hinduism do not condemn child prostitution? I agree that a citation for the current text is desirable, but I also agree that your removal of content is not warranted. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Added - I looked up the citation given at the end of the paragraph: the text you wish to remove is already properly cited. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

homosexuality vs homosexual practice

This is so you can discuss this.

What was there was 'homosexuality', which got changed to 'homosexual behaviour' and back and forth. The argument for 'behaviour' is that scripture refers to 'acts'. So, that would rule out much homosexual behaviour from the list. For instance - miming to Abba or Freddie Mercury, camp comedians, anything I've seen on Will and Grace. Of course, there are those who say anything that presents the gay life as 'normal' promotes homosexuality - so that would unclude any behaviour perceived as homosexual, including identifying as gay, having a homosexual identity. But that is not scriptural. Behaviour is not neutral. If the point is 'acts', that does not match up with 'behaviour' - so why not say 'acts'? as 'homosexual activity'? or 'homosexual practice'? Or something along those lines... Mish (just an editor) (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello - I changed the word 'homosexuality' to 'homosexual behaviour' because the previous paragraph used the 'behaviour phrase' and was clearly consequential to the first - I though it made the article more consistent. I don't agree that 'homosexual behaviour' is open to some interpretation - it is 'sexual behaviour' that is (homo) i.e. 'same-sex'. As for 'the gay life', what is 'the gay life' if it does not involve gay sex? Take out the 'gay' and it is just 'life'. Similarly, the 'heterosexual life' only has meaning with reference to heterosexual sex. My point is that the title of the article itself is wrong since this article should really be about 'religion and homosexual behaviour'. \by the way, I don't understand your point that 'Behaviour is not neutral' - why not? 86.150.206.248 (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I only have to read what you wrote to see why it is not neutral. If you are referring to sexual behaviour, then specify this. For instance, two male penguins who bring an egg to hatching abandoned by others, and raise the chick, is seen as homosexual behaviour - but it is not sexual.Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study Mum, dad and the kids sitting around the table for Sunday dinner is heterosexual behaviour, but is not sex. If you mean sexual activity, say sexual activity - but describing people's sexual activity as the sum of their lives is derogatory, which is what is implied in what you are saying. To you all homosexual behaviour may be sexual activity, but that is your view - the religion may have something about acts, but nothing to say about pairs of male penguins acting as surrogate parents. 23:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstand, but I don't see anything radically different between 'behaviour' and 'activity' - I thought 'sexual' was already specified in homoSEXUAL and heteroSEXUAL. 86.150.206.248 (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how you see it. That is a POV. The article is not meant to reflect how you see things. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - the article should not reflect how I see things. But if I can see little difference between 'homosexual behaviour' and 'homosexual activity', I suspect many other readers of this page will see things in a similar way. I am quite happy if you wish to see more clearly set out phrases to avoid confusion. The passages in the bible that deal with homosexuality never use phrases like 'homosexuality' or 'homosexual behaviour' but uses phrases that make clear that 'homosexual sex' is the issue that is unacceptable (passages like "And you shall not have sexual intercourse with a male as with a female" in Leviticus 18.22). 86.150.206.248 (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, actually the Bible does not mention homosexual sex ever. That is because the concept of homosexuality did not exist prior to 1869/70 (although there was a proto-typical gay subculture in the 18th century, it was not then known as homosexuality, because it was sodomy that prohibited); 'homosexuality' only became current through the shift towards medicalisation of people who habitually engaged in homosexual activity - which began when it was delineated as a form of psycho-sexual pathology in 1869/70). What it does talk about are examples of sexual activity in a handful of places, mostly in the legal books and Paul's Epistles, and what they tend to refer to is what used to be called 'sodomy'. Since its decriminalisation, we no longer talk about sodomy, although despite its de-pathologisation we do still talk about homosexuality. When referring to a few specific acts that are detailed in the legal system developed by a group of desert nomads, which still applied in the religious culture inhabited by St. Paul, and that persisted for some time after the Reformation (as happened with churching of women after childbirth,[7], unlike segregation of menstruating women and eating pork), then it is probably best to be clear about it being (certain) 'homosexual' acts - because homosexual behaviour cannot be substantiated by the archaic sources the prohibitions rely on. For example. Two men engaged in a passionate kiss, or as lovers walking along the road hand-in-hand, are aspects of homosexual behaviour; a same-sex couple setting up home together, embarking on a civil union, jointly adopting children, all these are part of homosexual behaviour - and the Bible says nothing about this; it doesn't even discuss the sex that takes place between two women - all it discusses is when two men share a bed together (which is translated in some Bibles as meaning 'sexual intercourse').Mish (just an editor) (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Firstly, you are correct that the bible does not use the phrase homosexual sex since the word homosexual is a relatively recent creation. However, as you rightly point out, the bible does condemn sexual acts that have been called sodomy. (The fact that sodomy is no longer illegal is irrelevant to this discussion.) The three examples you give are all interesting - in the case of 'two men engaged in a passionate kiss', I think the key word is 'passionate' as that would appear to infer a sexual component (a kiss is often a cultural greeting and need not be sexual); 'as lovers walking along the road hand-in-hand' - the key word is 'lovers' as this implies a sexual relationship (again, in many cultures mem will walk hand-in-hand, but there is no sexual aspect to this); 'a same-sex couple setting up home together' - I shared a flat with a fellow male while a student, but we never 'set up home together' as that phrase usually implies a sexual relationship. My point is that I think you are wrong to suggest that 'the Bible says nothing about this' as regards all these three examples as in each case, sexual relations are implied which the bible does comment about. Coming back to the point about trying to find neutral phrases, would you prefer a phrase such as 'same-sex sexual activity' rather than 'homosexual behaviour'? Does that not narrow down the debate better? 86.150.206.248 (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to note that the paragraph in question is about churches who accept/welcome homosexuals; those churches would not use the term "homosexual behavior" to describe what the welcome- they'd say that they welcome homosexual people. It isn't a fair or accurate paragraph if it describes those churches using the language that people who oppose "homosexual behavior" use, especially since this way of describing homosexuality is specific to those churches, and not used by gay-accepting churches, or gay people, or professional psychologists, or anyone other than the religious organizations which are working against gay people. The term "homosexual behavior" is inherently biased, unless it is used in a paragraph about sex- no one is engaging in "homosexual behavior" or "heterosexual behavior" in church, since both gay and straight, conservative and liberal people, all agree that it is not appropriate to have sexual intercourse during a church service. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually. you're wrong - the paragraph in question is not about churches who accept/welcome homosexuals...it is about churches who accept homosexuality. There is a difference. Almost every church welcomes homosexuals (as sinners in need of forgiveness) in the same way as they welcome heterosexuals (as sinners in need of forgiveness). However, 'accepting homosexuality' is to accept homosexual sex as not being inherently sinful. You are correct that some churches do accept homosexuality in those terms, so I see no problem with saying so. 86.150.206.248 (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Again; the distinction you are making is a distinction which is only made by the people who are opposed to homosexuality, and no one else. There is no meaningful difference between 'accepting homosexuality' and 'accepting homosexuals,' except to the same people who would divide the two with phrases like 'love the sin but hate the sinner,' but those are not the people that this paragraph is about. You appear to be trying to add your own opinion on homosexuality into the article, by using a phrase which is inherently biased and which is not in widespread use, but used only by people on one side of this issue. I cannot think of any reason why you would want to change the term except for the purpose of adding your opinion to the article. Changing the term does not make the article better or more accurate; it makes the article more biased and less accurate. Those are the reasons that you are not finding any consensus to make the change you'd like to make. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my unintentional error; those people claim to 'love the sinner but hate the sin.' When someone is trying to love and hate the same person at the same time, I get mixed up- it's not unlike a husband who claims that he beats his wife because he loves her. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A better analogy is a parent who loves his or her child even when that child has done something really bad. Most children in that situation can understand that parents can still love them even though they hate what they have done. 86.150.206.248 (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

True. But hating your child for an innate quality- hating your child's left-handedness, or your child's red hair- would generally be considered to be bad parenting. And there, again, is the distinction which only people associated with your opinion are making- it is not a distinction that is made by people with other opinions, or with the researchers who have studied the subject. And since Wikipedia strives for neutrality, we try not to make distinctions that would inherently represent only one point of view, except in clearly explaining that point of view. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point, (though left-handedness is not a behaviour!) By the way, you make my point for me when you say "the distinction you are making is a distinction which is only made by the people who are opposed to homosexuality, and no one else" - the 'no one else' group are those who are not opposed to homosexuality. In other words, a form of words is currently being used that is accepted by one side but rejected by the other side - that, surely, is the definition of biased language! You go on to say "we try not to make distinctions that would inherently represent only one point of view" but you seem to do that by using language that represents the opposing point of view! (I appreciate there is no consensus on this!!) 86.150.206.248 (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try and look at this from a neutral perspective (I know this is old, but this is really bugging me). It is definitely not hatred to claim that someone should not act on their attractions. The fact is, there is a difference between believing homosexual relations are wrong and treating homosexuals poorly because of their identity. It is simply that only those who oppose homosexuality typically put any focus on this distinction- it is only those who support homosexuality very fiercely, and (not always, but far too often) who are unwilling to tolerate a differing opinion, who try to pretend that there is no difference. To accuse someone of being hateful because they disagree with you is a frightening sort of prejudice in and of itself. 69.151.210.26 (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Falwell POV

Jerry Falwell and his followers could never be considered by any reasonable person to be a "small fringe sect". See Moral Majority. I understand that some editors may want to make Falwell's views seem less mainstream, but that is dishonest. Fred Phelps and the WBC are a small fringe sect. Jerry Falwell never was. Primium mobile (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Jesus and Homosexuality

Recently I attempted to make the following edit to the last paragraph in the Christianity section.

Some Protestant churches condemn same-sex sexual relations based on the teachings of Jesus[31] and scripture texts that describe a man lying with another man 18:22 as a sinful act.ref>Akin, Daniel (2012-8-9). "Is it true Jesus never addressed same-sex marriage". Baptist Press. Retrieved 2012-8-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)</ref>

http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=38461

The author of the article is Daniel Akin who is the president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and prominent leader in the Southern Baptist Convention. What made this article interesting was its emphasis on applying the teachings of Jesus to same-sex marriage. Many have argued that Jesus had nothing to say about the matter. I thought that wiki readers might be interested in hearing Daniel Akins tradition Christian interpretation on this matter.

While I appreciate Dominus doing what he believes best, I would like to appeal his removal of my edit. Please weigh in on this issue and help us decide if wiki readers would be better informed by Akin's thoughts and my edit. Please note that Akin's perspective is widely held by traditional Christians. Toverton28 (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Groups that Dissent policies within the denomination

The Reconciling Ministries Network is working within the United Methodist Church to welcome all regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. I think the article does not fully represent groups like RMN trying to reform things — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.223.184 (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Great idea. Perhaps you could find some sources in newspapers, magazines, or news web sites and add some of this missing information to this article. Don't worry if your edits aren't perfect; be bold!. — MrX 23:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Humanism

I reverted the boldly added section on Humanism, because it is not a religion. Also, the section is inadequately-sourced and written in a non-neutral manner (almost like an advertisement). - MrX 16:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Humanism is considered a religion by many humanists: http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/What_is_Humanism. There is even a Wikipedia page for Religious Humanism: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Religious_humanism — Preceding unsigned comment added by NixManes (talk • contribs) 18:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hinduism

The article states that homosexuality is not considerd as a sin in Hinduism. But following source states that hindu scripture ManuSimriti is totally against homosexuality with extremely severe punishments.

http://www.notsostraight.com.au/faq_about_religion.php

What else is required to make homosexuality sinful in Hinduism. I think Buddhism should be mentioned in place of Hinduism because its scriptures are neutral regarding this topic. Thanks.Septate (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal fabrication by some unknown unreliable source. Buddhism doesn't force sexuality, it doesn't say that you burn in hell even for fornication, but evidently condemns homosexuality as 'misconduct'.[8] Over! Bladesmulti (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti, I am not talking about Buddhism, its about Hinduism. If one Hindu scripture rejects homosexuality with severe punishments then one can't claim that homosexuality is not a sin in Hinduism. Furthermore, you need to distinguish between whether homosexuality is not a sin in Hinduism or homosexual acts are not a sin. If homosexual acts are not a sin in Hinduism, then it needs to be mentioned in lead. But if homosexuality simply is not a sin in Hinduism then there is no need to mention it in the lead because most religions don't view being simply homosexual as a sin.Septate (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Following respectable Hindu site states that Hindu religion does not accept homosexual acts. You can't simply claim that it is unreliable source.

http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/7390.html Septate (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The site claims that

‘Narada-Smruti’, marriage of homosexuals is considered to be taboo.

Mahakavi Kalidas has also condemned homosexual relations in his poetic literature ‘Raghuvansh’. Mahamahopadhyaya Dr. P. V. Kane, a ‘Bharatratna’ awardee has mentioned that, since a woman is respected in the form of a mother in Hindu Dharma, having homosexual relations is a sin. Can you explain this? Its not something fabricated.Septate (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Article by a non notable commentor of the opinion website who provide no reference for his information, he must had a bad dream. Read Wikipedia:Reliable source. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti, you have still not answered my question about distinction between homosexual acts abd homosexuality. What about author of 'Gay Histories and Cultures', does he provide any reference.Septate (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly BBC claims that there is no mention of homosexuality in Hindu scriptures at all and most Hindus consider homosexuality as a taboo. What is the credibility of the claim that homosexuality is not a sin when you have got no mention of it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/rs/relationships/hiloveandsexrev1.shtml Septate (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

BBC source has nothing to do here. Read Wikipedia:Synth and Wikipedia:Original research. We had consensus to remove bbc sources from religion pages. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti, Again you have not answered my question whether being homosexual is not a sin in Hinduism or homosexual acts are not a sin in Hinduism.

Please provide me a link about concensus regarding BBC and religion!

Wikipedia:Synth and Wikipedia:Original research applies to you not me. The only conclusion that I get from this talk is that info regarding Hinduism in lead is obvious POV and WP:UNDUE. My suggestion would be to remove info regarding any religion in the lead. The section regarding Religions already explains this. By the way, the vast majority of Hindus in India reject homosexuality and consider it to be a taboo. I don't need any so called reliable source for this.Septate (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Why I have to bother about a source that has nothing to do with this page? Now if you want to gossip, I cannot help you, but state a permanent fact that no hindu ever went on killing rampage of homosexuals or even 1 homosexual. Done already. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti, again my question remained unanswered. Please tell me whether being homosexual is not a sin in Hinduism or homosexual acts are not a sin in Hinduism. The rest of dispute will be resolved quickly.Septate (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a sin. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you are unable to distinguish between whether homosexuality is not a sin in Hinduism or homosexual acts are not a sin in Hinduism. You have to distinguish between homosexuality and homosexual acts. If being simply homosexual is not a sin in Hinduism then Hinduism does not deserve it place in the lead because most religions including Abrahamic religions don't view being simply homosexual as a sin. The trouble lies with homosexual acts. Keeping in view all this discussion my suggestion would be to remove Hinduism from the lead.Septate (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

" In 2009, the Hindu Council UK became one of the first major religious organizations to support LGBT rights when they issued a statement "Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality""

I don't agree with this statement. Plenty polytheistic religions of the Ancient world were fine with homosexuality, suck as the Greek and Roman ones.Scientus (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Scientology

What is the Scientology teachings on homosexuality? --Splashen (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Homosexuality and religion. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=29699
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://oncourse.ag.org/help/index.cfm?targetBay=24b28860-fb44-4e27-92a1-a2fe92076e8b&ModID=2&Process=DisplayArticle&RSS_RSSContentID=9123&RSS_OriginatingChannelID=1202&RSS_OriginatingRSSFeedID=3859&RSS_Source=
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://erlc.com/topics/C43
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306041528/http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=bc24b62d8bece96593d6041cc48a3f54 to http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=bc24b62d8bece96593d6041cc48a3f54
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123025839/http://www.tpuuf.org/2008/08/03/glbt-in-world-religions/ to http://www.tpuuf.org/2008/08/03/glbt-in-world-religions/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19990221081940/http://badpuppy.com/gaytoday/garchive/events/051397ev.htm to http://badpuppy.com/gaytoday/garchive/events/051397ev.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sarbat.net/2007/10/sikhism-and-same-sex-marriages/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/china%2C5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060716123613/http://www.uua.org/news/freedomtomarry/index.html to http://www.uua.org/news/freedomtomarry/index.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.uusm.org/services/021305.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://iheu.org/content/homosexual-rights

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)