Talk:Christianity and homosexuality/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

most Christian denominations welcome people attracted to the same sex

Near the top where it says "most Christian denominations welcome people attracted to the same sex, but teach that homosexual relationships and sexual acts are sinful." There are 2 references used, 1 which is broken (leads to the front page of the vatican website), and one is a link to the Methodist Church website, which does not speak for "most Christian denominations". Can we get some real references here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.200.112 (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It is important to note that Christ was Baptized into His Church, The Catholic Church, before He told His apostles to then follow Him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.43.44 (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Unsure how to source Anglican and Lutheran views in Christian denominational positions on homosexuality

Should I just add sources from individual congregational bodies (ie Church of England, ect)?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Evangelical Church in Germany on Homosexuality

The entry simply states that "all German Lutheran, reformed and united churches in EKD" accept same-sex unions. I find this hard to believe since the EKD has 22 churches affiliated and conservative Protestants tend to disaprove of homosexual relationships. It definetely needs a source.213.13.243.153 (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually it states that they don't view same sex relationships as sinful or immoral, which is not quite the same as "acceptance" in my opinion. However, you're absolutely right in that it needs to be sourced, and I see it already has a citation needed tag. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It is now sourced but I ask to someone who knows the German language to please translate the most relevant parts for the subject, so we could understand better the EKD statements.81.193.220.114 (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

so i am from Germany and it is true, that all 22 churches in EKD accept same-sex unions. In Germany the society is more liberal and open to homosexual people as in U.S.A. We had already in 2000 a document in EKD "Verantwortung und Verlässlichkeit stärken", in which is written, that homosexual couples are accepted. 188.118.140.62 (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Only 10 of the 22 churches in the EKD allow blessing of same-sex unions, according to Wikipedia.85.240.20.39 (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Karl Barth View of Homosexuality

Karl Barth is mentioned in the entry, but is stance on homosexuality was similar to the traditional Protestant theologians [1]: "The rejecting-non punitive stance must be taken more seriously, for no less eminent a theologian than Karl Barth represents his view. Since humanity is "fellow-humanity," says Barth, men and women come into full humanity only in relation to persons of the opposite sex. To seek one's humanity in a person of the same sex is to seek "a substitute for the despised partner," and as such it constitutes "physical, psychological and social sickness, the phenomenon of perversion, decadence and decay." This is idolatry, for one who seeks the same-sex union is simply seeking oneself: self-satisfaction and self-sufficiency. While Barth says homosexuality thus is unnatural and violates the command of the Creator, he hastens to add that the central theme of the gospel is God's overwhelming grace in Jesus Christ. Hence, homosexuality must be condemned, but the homosexual person must not."Mistico (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it was right to remove it. The structure of that paragraph doesn't really allow for nuanced discussion that would allow us to contrast Barth's view with the views of those who openly condemn gay people - the sentence is a bit confused because it doesn't specifically note that the other theologians named challenged traditional views on this issue, but it names Spong and Jenkins, who definitely did, so perhaps the rest is correct as well. That part was added aaaaaaages ago, so long that I don't feel like going through the page history to find it any deeper than I already have, and the user who added it is likely inactive - or else I'd ask where they got it from - perhaps that would clarify Barth's role relative to the others named. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

2011: New documents in christian churches

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

• Forbes:Presbyterians clear way for gay clergy

Presbyterians clear way for gay clergy.

Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada

• Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada votes to bless same-sex marriage and is cheerec on by the anglican Church of Canada

Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada votes to bless same-sex marriage.

Church of Scotland

• Guardian:Scottish Church votes to allow gay ministers

Church of Scotland votes to allow gay ministers.

United Methodist Church

• Pinknews:United Methodist Church votes in favour of same-sex resolution

United Methodist Church votes in favour of same-sex resolution.

Lutheran, reformed and united churches in EKD

In Germany all lutheran, reformed and united churches of EKD allowed open homosexual clergy in civil unions. 188.118.140.62 (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is poorly written

This article is poorly written with gross errors in grammar, capitalization, and punctuation. It needs a comprehensive rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.81.117.123 (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

POV tag explanation

Homosexuality is not behavior. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Virgins have a sexual orientation just as much as prostitutes do. Gay men who marry women and never have gay sex are still gay men. Heterosexual men who are paid to perform in pornography involving same-sex activity are still heterosexual. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is malleable or that people only have a sexual orientation if they have sex. This is scientifically established fact. Refer to the American Psychological Association. This article incorrectly bases its point of view on the false assertion that homosexuality is behavior, or "acts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.102.20 (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it does this because leaders in many religions claim that it is only homosexual behavior that they oppose, but perhaps we're conceding too much in our prose. Can we not just say "Christian denominations hold a wide range of views on homosexuality" in the lead and let the orientation/behavior matters be discussed in the body? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I somehow agree with the first commentator: In the Bible, only acts that would be nowadays considered homosexual are called sinful. The Bible does not actually say that having homosexual thoughtsis sinful; thus "being" a homosexual is a sense not a sin but doing certain homosexual acts is a sin according to the Bible, regardless of your "orientation". Tikru8 (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Section "Homosexuality in the Bible"

IMO this section does not at all reflect the content of the main article it refers to, namely homosexuality in the Bible: It does not really say much about what the Bible actually says about things related to homosexuality. It is vague and contains weasel words: "Discussions about these texts focus on their context and translation" => no actual meaning in this sentance; "Some scholars cite alternate translations" => why is the minority view more important than the majority view? I propose replacing the current version with a summary of the main article it links to. This could e.g. be the version I proposed. [User:Tikru8|Tikru8]] (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It actually seems like a pretty good summary of the main article - "there are some verses which are popularly interpreted as referring to homosexuality, scholarly opinion is more nuanced." We could do with elaborating a bit and naming some specific verses - given that homosexuality and the Bible is pretty relevant to Christianity and homosexuality, I think more than an uber-brief summary is called for - but it's not really a problem with the balance. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It omits mentioning the core thing: that the majority scholar view is that the passages in the Bible that somehow refer to homosexual acts portray such acts as sinful. Tikru8 (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem might be a difference in how we're reading the passage. The behavior in question is condemned, but scholars don't agree that it refers to homosexual behavior as a general thing, so we would have to be careful about how we phrased any kind of statement that homosexual behavior is condemned. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"The behavior in question is condemned ... " => then why are these central passages and what kind of behavior is condemned not mentioned in the same way as they are in the main article? (Central things being e.g. the condemnation of men sleeping with other men, men and women exchanging natural relations for "unnatural" ones) Tikru8 (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tikru8. The treatment of the Biblical codemnations of homosexuality is an abomination. (Like the way I slipped that in?) Did someone from The Advocate write this section? Only the tortured logic of queer revisionists could produce something so utterly misleading. It makes perfect sense and is fully within policy for the section to reflect the main article per WP:SUMMARY. The section must explicitly state that homosexuality is a sin. Tikru8...... FIX IT!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 08:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the traditional position of the Bible's attitudes towards homosexuality should be delineated. Moreover, modern attitudes can also be delineated so as to fulfill WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The proposed revision - which is being edit warred into the article - does not accomplish that end. It makes a number of unsourced and judgemental claims. For instance: "The traditional view is that these condemn homosexuality generally as such, but liberal theologians and revisionists..." Liberal theologians and revisionists is unwarranted given the sourcing, and intended only to imply the inaccuracy of the view to follow. Our current text indicates that views vary, which seems to be true per the literature, and directs the reader to an article devoted explicitly to the topic. I'm not sure what adding new wording such as this accomplishes, but to convey a more 'literal' or 'conservative' reading of the Bible over the views of other denominations.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So, how about this proposal?

a) Summary of main article (citing the main passages in the Bible) AND b) short traditional interpretation (homos. in general is a sin) AND c) revisionist/liberal theologian interpretation (homos. is maybe not a sin in general?) This includes both the majority worldwide christian POV (b) and a minority, mostly western liberal scholar (c) view. Tikru8 (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

We need sources for all this. We cannot say "homosexuality is a sin" without attribution. We cannot say "revisionists claim..." before 'modern interpretations'. Including a sourced summary that "There exists a belief that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin." and "There exists a belief that it does not" is fine. We can place appropriate weight on either claim based on the respective sourcing. Attributing the claims may be necessary depending on the sourcing. The current proposal is not acceptable to those ends, but another one may be. Thanks. (BTW, please sign your post using four tildes (~~~~) at the end)   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I propose following: a) citing the 3 most important Biblical passages on the topic with outside references(same passages as in the 1st section of the main article) without any interpretation or reference to "sin" etc. AND b) referencing the "traditional" view which is still majority view in terms of Christian congregations by worldwide members AND c) referencing the "reformist" view. This would a) summarizes the main article b) present and give due weight to the majority view and c) also present an alternative view, thus would be clear, informative and "objective" as far as this topic can go. I don't know how much more you can demand from this without resorting to stonewalling or double standards. The current version of the section is unclear regarding the main point, presents only a minority view and uses weasel words and empty phrases such as "some scholars" and "Discussions about these texts focus on their context and translation". This to me seems to violate Wikipedia standards. Tikru8 (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Tikru, could you propose a specific wording here? Then, we could easily discuss that. As I said, I'm very open to providing a broader or more accurate description in that section, it's just that the standing proposal doesn't serve that purpose. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As well, please provide secondary sources which indicate the greater importance of the verses you wish to discuss, as opposed to other verses which may discuss homosexuality or same-sex relationships. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Rosclese: There are 7 main according to my reference. You can look up the 7 "main" passages yourself (as found in the reference) if you are interested and see what they say. We can quote all 7 or just quote these 3 as they basically say the same as the remaining 4. They are also the ones found in the first section of the main article. I am honestly getting tired of having to prove absolutely 100 % of everything about my view that is almost universally accepted outside the liberal theologian/ reformist/secular humanist / LBGT - intellectual circles. This is Wikipedia, not a PhD dissertation, nor Secularopedia or LBGTpedia and honestly speaking, I feel stonewalled and feel like I need to raise my bar way above normal Wikipedia standards to get anything of my proposal through:

The word "homosexual" was not known at that time but the Bible makes at least 7 references to what could nowadays be categorized as homosexual acts . In the Old Testament it is said that

“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination”

In the New Testament, Paul the apostle says

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,”

In the epistle to the Romans Paul also writes:

“Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.” .

The historical interpretation of these and some other Bible passages is that homosexual acts are sinful, a position that can be found even today among Christians , especially among the more conservative Christians and Christian denominations. The Christian denominations that hold this view form a majority in terms of worldwide members, including i.e. the Catholic and Orthodox church whose members constitute a majority of all Christians. . A question in particular is whether the texts are meant to mean that being a homosexual in general is a sin; or whether they instead condemn more specific acts - without condemning being a homosexual in general; or also condemn having homosexual thoughts. E.g. the Catholic church says that only homosexual acts - not thougths - are sinful. The revisionist view of morality asserts that homosexuality is fully compatible with Christianity, despite being historically rejected by the church. Also some scholars cite alternate translations in which most of the verses do not refer to homosexuality. Tikru8 (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Reflist
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I share Tikru8's frustration, and at this point must invoke common knowledge. It is well established that homosexuality is a sin. The revisionist efforts of the homosexual community to spin Holy Scripture fall on the extremes of fringe theory. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

@Lionelt - perhaps you could conduct yourself in more a gracious manner in accordance with WP:NPA and WP:AGF - Your comments above are unnecessarily provocative - everyone here is meant to be working with the best interest of the encyclopedia in mind. WP:CK cannot be invoked here - nothing here can be absolutely proven - WP:CK is for when someone tries to dispute the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun or something like that.

@Everyone in the discussion in general - this discussion simply seems to revolve around what the leaders of certain denominations in Christianity say and what should be stated in the article about that - should the article perhaps also discuss the views of individuals, of the congregants? In most developed countries the majority of Christians support LGBT rights (e.g in the United States a majority of Catholics support gay marriage - even though leaders of the Catholic Church in the US oppose it; same for a majority of all Christians overall in Australia). Perhaps this could also be discussed with reliable sources. --112.134.212.208 (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"his discussion simply seems to revolve around what the leaders of certain denominations in Christianity say and what should be stated in the article about that - should the article perhaps also discuss the views of individuals, of the congregants?" => That whole discussion can IMO be spared to the main article. Including it here in length risks obfuscating the main point namely "what the Bible says". My point here was just to show that the POV I presented should be given due weight. Please keep in mind that religion does not equal democracy: what laymen, especially ones who have conflicting secular personal interests, or not actively interested in reading the Bible, or in following Christ think, is not what defines what the Bible says. Also, what liberal Westerners think does not equal what Christians think worldwide. E.g. in almost every African country being caught in a homosexual act == Jailtime. Tikru8 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

@Tikru, I don't have a ton of time right this minute, but allow me to briefly clarify. I am not opposed to including more detail on what you're claiming is the majority position. Part of the reason the previous proposal was unacceptable was that none of it was attributed. Can we attribute any of these claims? For instance: "John smith wrote..."; "The Catholic Church believes..."; "Protestants have traditionally...". Claims which garner near 100% support within their domain should be stated in Wikipedia's voice, but claims which share only majority support (where there is a significant minority) should be attributed. It also may be helpful to include the minority position (if sourced, we can say it is the minority position). I can look over the refs you've provided a bit later, but hopefully that provides some clarity on what we're looking for. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

@Tikru, There is no argument that vernacular language Bibles appear to condemn homosexuality. There is no argument that many Christians, maybe the majority, maybe not, believe that homosexuality is forbidden by the scripture. But if you want to make a statement like "the majority of scholars" hold that view, you must provide a source. Frankly, I think you'd be hard pressed to find one. In my own experience, scholars who can read Hebrew and Greek usually come to the opposite conclusion. But if you can find a legitimate source to back up that claim, fine. You should also be aware that it is not only "liberal" theologians who disagree with you. There are fundamentalist denominations which no longer believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality, basing their change of heart on research into the original languages. (By fundamentalist, I refer to evangelical Christians: Baptists, Pentecostals, etc.). So you cannot make generalizations like "liberal" and "revisionist" to describe this view. In fact, if they are correct about what is in the Hebrew and Greek, then the "revision" occurred a few centuries ago, and they are simply putting it back the way it was supposed to be. What happens in African nations is not limited to jail, but includes capital punishment and even lynching. LGBT people are being beaten to death in the streets in Uganda. This stems from three things, imho: first, leftover colonial laws, second, the wide influence of Islam, and third, the interference of American preachers. The situation in Uganda is directly tied to an American preacher who went there, met with an anti-gay preacher and congregation, and rhetoric that might only draw hatred or criticism of gays in the US turned into widespread violence that has since spread to other countries. Africans who attack gay people have been told that gay men are pedophiles, a lie spread by the church in Kampala. So they aren't acting out of a religious belief, but because they think children are in danger. BroWCarey (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)BroWCarey (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

On a slightly more pedantic point, Tikru8's proposed text is also incorrect in that it poses as the main scholarly distinction the difference between "homosexual acts" and homosexual orientation or thoughts. This is not, however, an accurate representation of the varius scholarly interpretations of these passages; in many cases it's whether the texts refer to "homosexuality" at all or rather to more specific things such as male prostitution, or in the case of the Sodom story, to a non-sexual sin like lack of hospitality (see Ezekiel and secondary sources). I agree with you, Tikru8, that this particular section is not the one to discuss lay opinion surveys (other sections are), but it's also wrong to write the passage from the point of view that "The Bible condemns homosexuality a lot, some people disagree." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and you'd also need much better sources, because most of the sources you're citing are quite frankly rubbish. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

BroWCarey, I'm a little flummoxed by your remarks. The article for the org which you appear to have a COI with, Gay Apostolic Pentecostals states: "who identify as LGBT, which is unacceptable in mainline Apostolic churches", "The concept of Gay Christians is still very controversial in the church world. The existence of Gay Apostolic Pentecostals is considered by some to be an oxymoron", and this:

One major area of difference is the belief that homosexuality is not sinful, and that God blesses same-sex marriage. Affirming Apostolics maintain that scripture in the original languages did not condemn homosexuality, but did record same-sex marriage. This view is disputed by mainline Apostolics, who view homosexuality as sinful and satanic in origin.

I submit that your contentions that ""maybe" the majority believe homosexuality is a sin" and "scholars who read Greek and Hebrew come to the opposite conclusion" and, well, your entire post is a fantasy. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I re-iterate my point: This is becoming stonewalling. I have a hard time to assume that the editors opposing my text, who identify themselves as 1. feminist Jewish lesbian 2. secular humanist 3. "Pastafarism as likely as Creation" 4. "Out-of-the-closet gay & proud" are acting in good faith without ulterior motives when they are criticizing my text. The only feedback that I consider realistic, truthful and reasonable is from editor no. 2., the other is IMO just trying to push their POV through, over-emphasize the pro-LBGT view or prohibit mine in getting through. How about we just put the main verses here with references and briefly introduce the a) historical view b) reformist, pro-gay, liberal-whatever-you-want-to-call-it c) today's conservative view and short for/against arguments in manner like this:

---

The word "homosexual" was not known at that time but the Bible makes at least 7 references to what could nowadays be categorized as homosexual acts. In the Old Testament it is said that

“ Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. (Leviticus 18:22) ”

“ If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13) ”

In the New Testament it is written:

“ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:26-27) ”

“ Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) ”

“ The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching that comes from the glorious Good News entrusted to me by our blessed God. (1 Timothy 1:9-10) ”

“ In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7) ”

Some scholars cite alternate translations in which most of the verses do not refer to homosexuality. The historical interpretation of these and some other Bible passages is that homosexual acts are sinful – but not necessarily thoughts. The revisionist view of morality asserts that homosexuality is fully compatible with Christianity, including homosexual marriage. The more conservative Christians today maintain the traditional interpretation and reject the revisionist view, criticizing this view as i.e. having weak biblical arguments and purpose-oriented interpretations of original texts.

---

If you think that b) is underrepresented here, IMO it's your job to find the pro-gay/liberal whateveryouwannacallit- arguments. Tikru8 (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Most of BroWCarey's sayings are besides the point but I'd like to comment on "In my own experience, scholars who can read Hebrew and Greek usually come to the opposite conclusion." => Interesting that "your experience" does not show in practice, i.e. in the Bible translations: As you also pointed out, you don't really see Bibles without the words "active homosexuals" or "men lying with men", arsenokoitēs ('men-bedders', with sexual undertone) mentioned in a list over something that God condemns. Maybe this is related to the interpretation that the explanation that is a) the simplest b) has most explanatory power and c) is best supported by facts is that God does not think homosexual acts are OK?

Furthermore, by saying that "revisionist" ... "are simply putting it back the way it was supposed to be " => IMO this shows your bias on the topic. You identify yourself as LBGT and seem to have a a-priori opinion about The Truth(TM), putting your own opinion higher than the millenia long historical view and the original writers might have because you think that it's not "supposed to be" like that. I'm not saying this to undermine your scholarly merit but to show that you might have ulterior motives in this discussion. Tikru8 (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Lionel, sorry you feel my post is fantasy. Can you read and understand Hebrew and Greek? If not, then come back when you can, and I'd be happy to debate the finer points of biblical grammar and vocabulary. As for Tikru8, I don't know what to say to you. Your bias shows in every word you write. You won't be happy unless the article states that your POV is the correct one, and any other view is heresy. And that's not going to happen. You want to talk arsenokoitais? This word isn't found in any writings prior to the first century. In first century writing, it is found only twice, both times in the NT. It would appear that Paul coined the word. While koine Greek had no word that meant homosexual, there certainly were words to express people of the same sex having relations. So if Paul were attempting to condemn homosexuality, why not use the common language that everyone would understand, instead of inventing a new word? But for the sake of argument, let's say he had a good reason for inventing a new word. It stands to reason he would want people to know what it meant. And the two basic components of the new word are fairly clear. But it isn't men-bedders. Too many make the mistake of associating the formation koit with the similar noun meaning bed. Actually, koit is derived from the verb keimai, meaning lie down. So the word implies "those who lie down with males." But if Paul intended this word to refer to men who lie down with males, why did he give it a feminine ending? Giving it a feminine ending would defeat his whole purpose in creating the word. If the word referred to men, it would have ended in ois (or oi in the other verse). Then there would be no ambiguity. As it stands, it suggests women who lie with males, in other words, a woman who initiates illicit sexual contact with a man, for example, a prostitute approaching a potential customer.BroWCarey (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@BroWCarey: I've never said anything about what majority of scholars, only about what main congregations think. Regarding arsenokoites: "Why did Paul use a word apparently of his own invention? He combined "arsenos", men, and "koites", bed, to create a word similar to "men-bedder." The source of the words Paul combined was the Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of Scripture in use in Paul’s time.

Leviticus 20:13, in English, reads, "If {there is} a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them" (NASB).

In Greek, that reads (in transliterated form), "KAI HOS AN KOIMHQH META ARSENOS KOITHN GUNAIKOS, BDELUGMA EPOIHSAN AMFOTEROI; QANATOUSQWSAN, ENOIXOI EISIN."

It would appear that Paul turned ARSENOS KOITHN into one word.... Maybe because he wanted to make a direct reference to the Old Testament wording. Paul may have simply avoided the direct words for homosexuality because he considered it "disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret" (Ephesians 5:12) I'm not sure about the ending/correct gender form as I don't know Greek, you can take that talk to the page that deals with the topic in detail. I'm sure that next thing you start with is saying that the "men lying with men" passage is just condemning temple prostitution/ritual homosexuality/men lying in a women's bed etc.etc.etc. I'm sure you can go on and on. I'm impressed at how the revisionists are able to use any ambiguity in a single phrase to spin the whole message to their liking. Remember that the Bible is quite strict on sexual immorality as it defiles the body, which is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:18-19). Jesus says that just looking at a woman lustfully is a sin (Matthew 5:28). The Bible also uses euphemisms for sexual sins such as "“None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the LORD." (Leviticus 18:6, ESV 2001) This is usually understood that do not have sex with your relatives but using the revisionist logic, I'm sure you can say that "oh no, it is OK as long as it's in a voluntary mutual loving relationship and they both take their own clothes off". Knowing all this, it is no surprise why homosexuality (along with all sex outside marriage) has traditionally been seen as a sin by Christians and which also seems most likely to have been the view of the original authors. I'd like to use the "revisionist logic" on a couple of Bible passages too as they are "not so nice" from my POV such as John 12:25 or Matthew 7:21 but that would be twisting the truth.

Anyway, exegesis/translation disputes do actually not belong to this talk page or the section under discussion so let's stop with the red herrings and go back to my actual wording, shall we? As the talk page heading says THIS IS NOT A FORUM FOR DISCUSSING THE GENERAL TOPIC so sorry for veering slightly off. Are there any objections to the current proposal or can it be published? As BroWCarey said "There is no argument that vernacular language Bibles appear to condemn homosexuality" so this POV seems to be justified to present at least in form of citing the Bible in that "vernacular language" that seems to condemn homosexuality, which is also done in the main article on the topic. It also seems justified to mention that "some scholars cite alternate translations where most verses do not refer to homosexuality". Tikru8 (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

@Tikru8. You are correct: the translation disputes, etc., don't really belong here. But you brought it up, and your statements in regard to it are in error. In trying to compare 1 Cor. 6:9 (and by extension 1 Tim. 1:10) with the Septuagint translation of Lev. 20:13, you make the common error made by many who do not understand Greek: The KOIT of the NT word arsenokoitai(s) is NOT the same word as KOITEN in the Septuagint. It doesn't matter how similar they look. The former is a verb form, the latter a noun. The Septuagint does have a word related to KOIT in Lev. 20:13, and that is the word KOIMETHE, meaning "he will lie down." The phrase KOITEN GYNAIKOS is a direct literal translation of the Hebrew phrase MISHKVEI ISHAH. Both mean exactly the same thing: a woman's bed. In both cases, the preposition "in" is taken from the context (as is done with the phrase MISHKVVEI AVICHA in Gen. 49:4, which most translations properly render as "to thy father's bed.") (The choice of preposition is determined by the verb used.) (The Septuagint doesn't translate Gen. 49:4 literally, but instead uses traditional Greek grammar. Probably done by a different translator with a different method.) Arsenokoitai(s) does not mean "men-bedders." The word KOIT here, as I stated before, is a verb, directly related to the word KOIMETHE in the Septuagint, both of which are forms of the verb KEIMAI, meaning "lie down." The NT word means, literally, "those who lie down with males." And the ending is unquestionably feminine. It's in the accusative case in 1 Cor., and the dative case in 1 Tim. The endings ai in the accusative and ais in the dative are ALWAYS feminine endings. While some feminine nouns can refer to men, that's not the norm. If Paul wanted his word to be understood as referring to men, he would not have done anything so ambiguous as to give it a feminine ending. The endings would have been oi and ois, respectively.

As for what Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 are talking about, no, I am not going to make reference to temple prostitution. That was a feature of fertility cults, and was a form of "worship" to the goddess of fertility. Because it was about fertility, temple prostitution was always heterosexual. (Eli's sons, Hophni and Phineas were temple prostitutes when Israel fell into sin. They were having sex with the women of Israel in the doorway of the tabernacle.) Women "worshiped" with male prostitutes, men with female prostitutes. And I'm not going to talk about ritual homosexuality, because I've never seen evidence there was such a thing. But just as Gen. 49:4 contains the phrase "mishkvei avicha" -thy father's bed, the verses in Leviticus contain the phrase "mishkvei ishah" -a woman's bed. If these verses are supposed to be condemning male homosexuality, what does a woman's bed have to do with it? Modern (17th century to present) translators attempt to use mishkvei as a verb form in these verses, while acknowledging that it's really a noun in Genesis. While the root word in its absolute form, mishkav (bed) is derived from the verb shakav (lie down), it is not a form of that verb. You may consult any grammar of the Hebrew language and you will see that among the hundred or so possible forms of shakav, mishkvei is not listed, nor is mishkav. Mishkvei is simply the construct form of mishkav. In translating to English, we usually render a construct form by putting "of" after it, or by using the possessive form of the following noun: bed of thy father, or thy father's bed. (501 Hebrew Verbs by Shmuel Bolozky is a good reference for this. It's the most comprehensive of the available books, and includes verb forms from all stages of Hebrew: biblical, mishnaic, medieval and modern.) So there is no question that the phrase mishkvei ishah means "bed of a woman" or "a woman's bed." In Genesis, the preposition "to" is placed before the phrase in translating to English, because unlike Hebrew, English can't usually omit prepositions. Hebrew can if context implies it. The inference is drawn from the verb. In Gen., the verb is alita, "thou wentest up." Since the verb is one of motion in one direction, we use the preposition "to." In Lev. 18:22, the verb used is tishkav, meaning "thou shalt lie down." (It was negated by the previous word, lo, meaning "not.") Since lying down is a stationary motion, done in one place, the inferred preposition would be "in" or "on." So if we translate literally "And with a male, thou shalt not lie down (in) a woman's bed; it is an abomination," what do you think it means? Especially in light of other verses in Lev. chapter 15, which deal with the same subject, i.e., a woman's bed. Lev. 20:13, literally, "And a man who will lie down with a male (in) a woman's bed, both of them have done an abomination; dying they will be put to death; their blood is in them." The only figurative statements in that verse are in the last two phrases: in Hebrew, using a gerund before a future implies certainty, so we could legitimately say "they will surely be put to death." And "their blood is in them" is a phrase where English would use a different preposition to convey the same meaning. To infer guilt, we say that their blood is ON them. To suggest that mishkvei ishah is an idiom for male homosexuality is completely illogical. What does a woman's bed, or a woman for that matter, have to do with male homosexuality? In fact, Hebrew does have a rarely used idiom for male homosexuality using the word mishkvei. It's mishkvei zachar - a male's bed. This idiom, probably unknown by speakers of modern Hebrew, is not found in biblical Hebrew, but is found in Ben Yehuda's dictionary of the Hebrew language. As I said, the idiom is largely unknown, but at least it makes some sense.BroWCarey (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

@BroWCarey: For Heavens sake, if you want to say so much, please take it to the relevant main article - talk page. I don't agree with you e.g. on arsenokotai (due to this professor's arguments ]) but that's irrelevant as what is relevant is the text I proposed (found above between the ------- lines). You have written a lot but not anything directly related to the wording of my proposed text except "There is no argument that vernacular language Bibles appear to condemn homosexuality", thus you seem to agree with me on that. Now can we please go on and get around publishing something? If nobody says anything directly related to my proposal, I assume consensus has been reached. Tikru8 (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Tikru8, people have been repeatedly raising substantive objections to your proposal throughout this entire discussion - the fact that you don't seem to be reading them doesn't say much for your ability to build consensus. I'll briefly reiterate some of them: you're misrepresenting scholarly dispute over the meaning of the text, you need to provide sources for your generalized claims, and your sources are absolute nonsense. The latter two are particularly an issue: the writing problems can be corrected, but we can't write a section based on such obviously unreliable sources or on nothing at all. Using unreliable sources or no sources, as you are doing, means that you may be 100% right but we have no way of knowing and no way of adding the information. Please find reliable, secondary sources that describe the trends you wish to discuss. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

@Rosclese: I have made a new proposal, re-formulating the "generalized claims" to accommodate the comments but received no comments on whether this was good enough. I'm quite new as a contributor on Wikipedia, more used to defending my claims against professors, thus I am more used to the approach that as long as my claims don't have stronger counter-claims, I can publish. But let's try and reach an agreement here, shall we? Your comment "most of your sources are frankly rubbish" is not something I can comment on since you didn't specify why e.g. Catholic Answers and S. Koranteng-Pipim's (Ph.D.) exerts from his books are "nonsense". I also cannot take it as serious academic critique as it seems IMO to be just ad hominem -style comments designed for stonewalling. Using this logic, I can say that the sources found in the old version of the section are "frankly rubbish" as number one is a book published in the 80's by what seems to be a pro-gay organization affiliated with the person who wrote it. The publisher of the 2nd book identifies himself as "gay catholic" ( http://www.visionsofdaniel.net/ ). Despite my faith in people with a Ph.D. being rational, I have a hard time assuming they can be un-biased on a topic that concerns whether they spend their eternity downstairs in the eternal "grill party" or not. Tikru8 (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

@Rosclese: Thank you for making a new proposal, the proposal was much better than the old text but still suffers from 2 things: 1) no sources and most importantly 2) instead of presenting what the Bible actually says, it mostly talks about the interpretation == vagueness. If you read the Wikipedia- articles dealing with the topic in more detail Christianity and homosexuality, History of Christianity and homosexuality Homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible and Homosexuality in the New Testament these deal in detail with the traditional and revisionist interpretation AND with which denominations think it is a sin AND how the "correct "translation should be AND the historical interpretation AND the pro-gay arguments / counterarguments. Thus all the POVs we have been "fighting" about here are dealt with in detail in these articles. Thus I propose that since this is a summary section, we just quote here the main Bible passages and stories that seem to touch the topic of homosexuality and leave the interpretation/POV discussion to the relevant pages, how about that? (see proposal below ) =>

=> .........................

The word "homosexual" was not known at that time [1] but the Bible makes at least 7 references to what could nowadays be categorized as homosexual behaviour. [2] In the Old Testament, there is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the ambiguous story of David and Jonathan. There are also more direct references: In the Old Testament it is said that

“ Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. (Leviticus 18:22) [3] ” “ If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13) [4] ”

In the New Testament it is written: “ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:26-27) [5] ”

“ Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) [6] ”

“ The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching that comes from the glorious Good News entrusted to me by our blessed God. (1 Timothy 1:9-10) [7] ”

“ In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7) [8] ”

Some scholars cite alternate translations in which most of the verses do not refer to homosexuality.[9][10]

...................

(I added the "ambigious" to the story of David and Jonathan because of what is said in the main article. ) The arguments for just quoting passages is that a) the Bible passages (except the stories) fit to a short section b) they are more informative and correspond better to the title "The Bible and homosexuality" than a summary of interpretations c) our seemingly eternal "POV fight" can be avoided d) my "opponents" have stated that naming verses is OK "we could do with ... and naming some specific verses" (Rosclese ) and that "There is no argument that vernacular language Bibles appear to condemn homosexuality." (BroWCarey), thus why not let the Word speak for itself and let the readers do their own interpretations or look for scholars' opinions on the main article pages? Tikru8 (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

@Roscelese: You completely re-wrote the 1st section (summary) of the main article on 4 Feb, that is Bible and homosexuality without first proposing it here or at least discussing it on the Bible and homosexuality talk page. Your words are also unsourced. Thus I reverted these changes. Please do not do something that could be interpreted as an attempt to sneak your POV in through the back door. Tikru8 (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

@Tikru8: Still reverting, eh? So you want the "Word to speak for itself?" I think you'd sing a different tune if I posted verses with the translation errors corrected... because then they wouldn't support your POV. You may disagree with the translations I would post, but in the 30+ years I have been researching this, not a single Hebrew or Greek scholar has been able to refute my work. Or, did you only want a translation that supports your POV? So which would it be? The KJV, where the verses in 1 Cor. & 1 Tim. are vague? Or the mid 20th century versions where they throw in words not found in the original, like sodomite and homosexual? I don't think I'm alone in thinking that you either don't know what NPOV means, or you are so jaded that you cannot see the lack of neutrality in the things you propose.BroWCarey (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

@BroWCarey, I still cannot comment on your translation points as that is not a field of mine and I still refer you to the relevant Wikipedia pages. But we still have to put something in English here as most of us don't speak so well ancient Greek or Hebrew. Now I'm well aware of the Bible translation I proposed is unambiguous, but it does need to be the one selected so I'm glad you raised this point. I do give you credit that at least the translations are unambiguous; my Bible from the 1930-s in my vernacular language says some mumbojumbo about "voluptuary" in these 2 passages. When you look at parallel English Bible translations (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-9.htm), (http://bible.cc/1_timothy/1-10.htm), you'll notice that most contain either the word "homosexual" (most popular) or "effeminate" + "abusers of themselves with mankind" (2. most popular) so I assume either of these would be appropriate to use as they seem to be the most frequently used. For my part, using KJV is fine for 1 Cor & 1 Timothy:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind," ( 1 Corinthians 6:9, KJV)"

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (1 Timothy 1:9-10, KJV)

The KJV is good in that sense that it leaves room for BOTH viewpoints. I think it would be good to include these 2 passages as they seem central as they are found in a) my "hostile" source (religiosfreedom) b) both Wikipedia main articles dealing with the topic. So, what you say people, is KJV good? Tikru8 (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

@BroWCarey P.S. Out of curiosity for pro-gay arguments, do you also think that Romans 1:26-27 is "wrongly translated" in terms of words used? Tikru8 (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Tikru8 and BroWCarey, please keep personal arguments on user talk pages and stick to discussion of the article here. Tikru8, your proposal continues to ignore requests for reliable secondary sources and for appropriate weight given to scholarly interpretations. We simply cannot present religious primary sources without reliable interpretation; that's why Template:Religious text primary exists. Catholic Answers and K-P are unreliable because they're anti-gay individuals/organizations without scholarly qualifications; why the hell would we take what they say as reliable? And if you don't think the sources in the existing version were reliable, why did you revert to it when I'd provided a much more detailed summary that didn't use those sources and that was based on the text of the main article? It's not you who's being stonewalled here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

O-M-G... I have a feeling that we will never reach consensus as I don't trust Roscelese nor BroWCarey as they both identify themselves as out-of-the-closet LBGT on their userpages and IMO are thus biased on this topic. Conversely, you guys don't seem to trust me. Thus we all scrutinize every word the other one says way beyond due Wikipedia diligence. Now if you Roscelese insist that Catholic Answers and K-P are "anti-gay" and therefore I cannot quote them, well guess what problem we have? You 2 cannot quote ANYONE who is LBGT or associated with ANY pro-LBGT publisher or organization as using this logic they have to be dismissed as "pro-gay". Thus nobody can quote nobody = stalemate until Rapture. Now I don't insist on this logic as there is no way I can see any person being un-biased on this topic, thus I accept gay scholar's opinions at least as "significant minority" opinions, even though I consider them biased. Can you do the same too and not call e.g. the Catholic church and traditionalist Christian apologetic scholars "anti-gay"? Roscelese: I reverted your proposal as I) it was unsourced II) you ignored the wording proposed here and instaed wrote something completely different III) you did not present your proposal here first IV) broke my trust as you on your own re-wrote the summary of the main article (Bible and hom.) without due discussion. P.S. I actually didn't know about the "religious text primary" so we have to dismiss my last proposal. Is there any 3rd party with king Solomon -like wiseness who could help us out on this? Tikru8 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is the following: We use the 6-7 Bible quotes I provided (and the KJV translation for 1 Cor & 1 Timothy (with wording "abusers of themselves with mankind" instead of "homosexuals") is that OK? Then we combine this by somehow fusing the interpretation writings provided by me (found between the lines ---- above) and the text of Roscelese that I reverted (but I DO insist on sources). I can have a look at more sources from the relevant main articles but please, let's iterate proposals here first, OK? When the main guidelines are agreed upon we can start publishing in the main article. Now even though I consider you two biased I am open to your text proposals as long as they are on-topic. Tikru8 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Tikru, you need to stop discussing the sexuality/political/religious inclinations of other editors. This is getting into WP:PA territory. Please do not bring any of that up again; per policy, comment on content, not on contributors. Regarding your proposal, outside of the other objections already raised, we can't just fill a whole section with quotes from the bible. This article is intended to discuss interpretations of the bible in various Christian denominations, not simply house passages from the bible itself. See also WP:QUOTEFARM. If you want to clean up this section, the way to do it is to 1) find as many academic, secondary/tertiary sources which provide an overview of the topic as possible, 2) summarize those sources in a short paragraph, paraphrasing from their text, 3) incorporate that into what we have already. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

@ Roscelese: For Heavens sake, please stop making major edits on the Bible and homosexuality page that are undiscussed, unsourced and directly related to this discussion without presenting it here or on the main article talk page first! And especially, stop re-reverting simply by calling the old text "bad"! You have to give specific reasons for why it is "bad" and should be completely re-written as you are trying to do. P.S. I am new at editing, sorry, didn't know that it is against wikipedia policy to call attention to what the users openly say about themselves on their wikipedia userpages, even when it might have a role in their ability to be neutral. Will stop. But in my defense I say that this was not done to discredit the users or to rank people but to point out their potential COI. "Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack". Tikru8 (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

My patience is also starting to wear thin here, Jess. Hopefully someone else will come along who's more interested in improving the article according to WP policy on reliable sources, due weight, etc. than sharing their personal opinions on homosexuality, and then he or she can work with us to provide a detailed yet neutral summary, perhaps building on the one I wrote which summarizes the main article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Tikru, see WP:COI. Having an opinion on a topic is not a COI, and assuming there were a COI here, the appropriate place to handle that would be the editor's talk page or WP:COIN, not this page. With that said, let's move away from policy and get back to content. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

@Roscelese, I totally understand. Sometimes these content disputes can become frustrating quickly. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the literature personally, and only have the time to participate in discussion and make improvements based on our existing sources, not scour the library for more. I wouldn't wear yourself out on this; it seems to me the section adequately summarizes that opinion on the topic varies between denominations. While not nearly comprehensive, that doesn't pose any major neutrality concern, so I think it's safe to invoke WP:DEADLINE. Someone familiar with the literature will come along and flesh out the section more fully eventually. If we can do that now, then great, but this isn't something to burn yourself out over.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Allright, let's work on improving your proposal, even though it's unsourced. I'd like to add to boot some of the most relevant Bible verses here. Now what I do not appreciate is that you say "his only objection appears to be that other users don't share his sexual orientation" is simply a lie and I take that as an attack on my person: I gave you 4 reasons for objecting to your proposal, none related to anyone's orientation. The "orientation" was only something that I called attention to in order to point out a potential COI. As this topic seems heavily polarized, I think it's fair to accept opinions from contributors with any potential COI, but knowing what potential "bias" contributors have helps evaluate the weight that their statements should be given. And please note that while I may seem aggressive to some, I do not consider any LBGT person to be anything less than "an image of God" as much as anyone else. Tikru8 (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@Tikru, have you been reading my replies to you? This comment is more discussion of editors, more accusations of COI (did you read WP:COI?), and no discussion of content. The only substantive suggestion it appears to carry is to add bible quotes to the article, which I've pointed out we cannot do. I really hate repeating myself so much. If you want the section improved, please make a revised proposal here taking into account the concerns other editors have raised. Please stop discussing other editors and COI; that doesn't belong here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@ Jess: Yes, I have. That's why I stopped proposing quotes only (see text above). The Wikipedia rule seems to be that this is not allowed. But based on the main articles I assume that some quotes are OK (I propose 2 central quotes) WHEN presented with appropriate interpretations (in this case traditionalist AND revisionist). Correct me if I am wrong. Tikru8 (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The most recent edits by Tikru8 are unacceptable, to put it mildly. In particular, I note word choice intended to skew readers toward one POV: Anyone who doesn't agree with that POV is called a "revisionist." That word has negative connotations, calling to mind those who attempt to revise history, like holocaust deniers. I don't have time right now to undo this. But I hope someone will... soon!BroWCarey (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@BroWCarey: Could you please elaborate why adding sources and 2 Bible quotes to text written by Roscelese, including the "traditionalist" interpretation and the opposite interpretation is "unacceptable, to put it mildly"? Please also tell me what would be a more acceptable term instead of "revisionist"? The sources I read discussing this use "traditionalist" and "revisionist" in a seemingly neutral manner. Tikru8 (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@Tikru8: Why do you have to characterize those who disagree with you? Why can't you simply say "others" or "other scholars" or "other researchers?" I assure you that people who have taken the time to research the original languages and give them credence over English translations do not consider themselves liberal theologians.BroWCarey (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@BroWCarey: "others" is perfectly fine with me, revised the article as per your suggestion. Tikru8 (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There are still a number of issues with your revised proposal. I'll outline a few here. If you'd like to update your proposal to reflect changes, please do so on the talk page (in a new section) so we can discuss it first without having to update/revert on the article itself.

1. Your text is littered with weasel words. We need to attribute claims.
2. Many sources you've used are poor. Some aren't even available (i.e. [2]). Some are okay. For instance, this source appears to be good for Seventh Day Adventists; good find! Others, like this one, which is littered with ads and sourced to Angelfire, are probably not useful.
3. We can use good sources to make claims about the denominations they represent, but we cannot use a compilation of sources discussing individual denominations in order to make a claim about "the majority of denominations", or the "popular interpretation" globally. That is synthesis. We need a reliable secondary or tertiary source explicitly defining the "popular interpretation" throughout all denominations in order for us to discuss it.
4. Template:Cquote is for pull quotes. See the note on its page. We use block quote for inline quotes from a source.
5. I don't think any quotes from the bible are necessary here. Quoting from the bible poses problems. Differing interpretations often occur due to different translations, and by quoting from one translation over another, we are preferring one interpretation over another. We can reference the passage instead (i.e. Cor 1:1) without quotes.

Again, if you'd like to make a new proposal, please do so in a section on this talk page, and we can discuss it here. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@Mann_jess: Why is the Hope Remains site an unreliable source? BroWCarey (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Am I right in assuming that's Hope Remains is your self-publication? (I'm just making a wild guess due to the similarities in the text and what you've written here.;) Tikru8 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Some of the material they use is derived from a book I wrote some years back. Similarities would be due to that, and the fact that I am pretty much in agreement with them.BroWCarey (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hoperemains is a self published source representing the opinions of its (anonymous) author. It is not academic, nor does it represent the views of any scholarly community or group in any way we can use in this article. For future reference, nearly every website hosted at webs.com falls into that category, just as with other "free hosting solutions", as almost all qualify as blogs. That's the gist of it, but if you have detailed questions about WP:RS, or you want a broader opinion, you can always ask at WP:RSN.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OK... I understand.BroWCarey (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is, and does. Very few things are stated as clearly in the Bible. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 12:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I can think of a very large number of things that are more clearly stated in the Bible than "arsenokoites," a word Paul made up and which was used in subsequent texts in reference to heterosexual sex. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I honestly can see no obscurity about the word ἀρσενοκοίτης (or its dialect variant ἀρρενοκοίτης). It is a masculine noun or adjective, the first element indicating "male" (ἀρσενο-), the second "lying with" (κοίτης). It seems to be perfectly parallel with ἀρρενο-μίκτης or ἀρσενο-μίκτης (having sex with males), ἀρρενο-μάνης (mad after males), ἀρρενο-κυέω (to bear male children), ἀρρενό-γονος (begetting or bearing male children), ἀρσενό-μορφος (of masculine form or look), not to speak of ἀρσενό-θηλυς (a hermaphrodite - θῆλυς means female). Ἀρσενοκοίτης says nothing about the person's character or tendency, but it seems quite unambiguous about his activity or behaviour. It says nothing about his motive for engaging in that behaviour, whether willingly or unwilling, for pleasure or money, but it seems unambiguous about what he does. I am puzzled about how it could ever have been used of heterosexual activity. What are the subsequent texts in which it is said to have been used "in reference to heterosexual sex"? Liddell and Scott cites no such text and only gives "sodomite" as the meaning of the word in the instances it does cite. Esoglou (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It's nice that everything is so simple and clear for you, but reliable sources disagree. Your original research is irrelevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not presenting any view, argument or research. I am only asking for those puzzling texts that you and your reliable sources know in which ἀρσενοκοίτης is used of heterosexual activity. Please. Esoglou (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

One would be John IV Nesteutes's penitential, as should have been easy for you to find if you hadn't been too afraid of having your political positions contradicted to do any reading at all in reliable sources. Now, do you have anything to say about the article, or do you just want to continue pointlessly mouthing off? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you point me to where I could read John the Faster's penitential or a reference to the use of ἀρσενοκοίτης in it? I'd love to see how it was used in any sense other than the obvious. Esoglou (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It's translated in one of Boswell's appendices. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I would have liked to know what you mean by "one of Boswell's appendices", but perhaps it is not necessary. I suppose I have found the essence of it in this Internet source, where I find the abstract noun ἀρσενοκοιτία quoted twice from John's Penitential, together with Boswell's translation (p. 364). There it means anal sex, the kind of ἀρσενοκοιτία, sodomy, that a man can have even with a woman. Not exactly what I was expecting when I read of "heterosexual sex". However, thank you for your effort. Esoglou (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Esoglou, not sure which source told you that ἀρσενοκοίτης is a masculine noun or adjective. I know some relatively modern dictionaries will list it as a masculine noun. In fact, that form of the word, the singular nominative, is just a guess from later centuries. In the first century, the word was used only twice, both times plural. But the fact is, evidence suggests it is a feminine noun (and not an adjective). The word is used in the Bible in the dative and nominative cases, in the plural. The ending of the word in both cases suggests it is a feminine noun. While there was no word in the Greek language at the time for "homosexual," there were certainly words to describe sexual activity between persons of the same sex. But Paul didn't use those terms anywhere in his writing. ἀρσενοκοίται is a coined word, more than likely invented by Paul, given it's absence in other first century or earlier writings. If Paul had intended his new word to refer to male homosexuals, why would he give it a form that is usually feminine? If he really wanted to be clear that he was referring to men, he would not have used the ambiguous forms αι and αις, but the unambiguous οι and οις. It's just common sense: if you're going to make a new word, and put it in a letter to people far away, and you actually want them to know what it means, you're going to make it as clear and unambiguous as possible. BroWCarey (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we please adhere to WP:NOTFORUM? This is very interesting but it would be better off in user talk. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should now close this long thread. From what Roscelese has turned up, it is clear that ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsĕnŏkŏitēs) means "sodomite" and ἀρσενοκοιτία (arsĕnŏkŏitia) means "sodomy". The form of ἀρσενοκοίτης that Paul used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (and it's surely nonsense to say he was using a word that those he was writing to wouldn't understand) is ἀρσενοκοῖται, and you don't have to go at all far in your study of ancient Greek grammar, only as far as masculine nouns of the first declension, to know that ἀρσενοκοῖται is the nominative plural of ἀρσενοκοίτης. The paradigms, I think, in the school grammar I used, and certainly in the more advanced grammar that I have now, are πολίτης (citizen, plural πολίται) and κριτής (judge, plural κριταί). You'd get a red mark in your copybook if you gave πολίτοι (!) and κριτοί (!) as the plural of those words. Esoglou (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight of "Historical views on homosexuality"

This section IMO does not represent the main point of the main article, instead focuses on discussing an alternative interpretation of a single rite. Rewriting to meet Wikipedia standards is IMO required. In the main article, the point seems to be that from the earliest Church fathers until some 50 years ago practicing homosexuality was condemned by virtually all Churches with various punishments described for offenders. Tikru8 (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be an over-emphasis of a fringe view, I suggest it be removed as well as it seems undue with respect especially when compared to the other sections. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge "Christianity and sexual orientation" here?

I noticed that this article IMO overlaps with the topics dealt with here. As I am a newbie at editing, I'd like to hear a more veteran editors POV regarding if this constitutes enough ground to propose a merger? Thanks. Tikru8 (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Good catch! I think it would be a good idea to merge the two articles. However, I think their title (Christianity and sexual orientation) is better, as it covers a broader range of issues than homosexuality alone. If we can merge the content and place it under that title, I think that would be best. You could propose a merger on both talk pages and see what other editors have to say.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, very good catch. I don't know how I missed it as I have both pages on my watchlist/have edited both! I think that particularly given the recent content disputes, we should discuss and plan out the merge before carrying it out, to ensure due weight and no loss of neutrality in the "final" article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

After playing a little game of "Don Quijote vs the windmills" recently I frankly don't have the energy for taking charge of a merger proposal. Tikru8 (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems that only two sections would have to be moved to this article: Transgenderism, and Beliefs and Mythology. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible sources for rewrite

It's come up a few times now that certain portions of the article (or proposals for new content) should be rewritten, at least partly due to sourcing concerns. Below is a very brief list of a few sources we may wish to incorporate. Some of them I've read a bit, others simply look promising. Please feel free to add to the list, or to incorporate them into the article. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality: gay people in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century by John Boswell
2. Christian Intolerance of Homosexuality by David Greenberg and Marcia Bystryn, American Journal of Sociology.
3. The Boswell thesis: essays on Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality by Mathew Kuefler
4. Christian attitudes to homosexuality by Peter Coleman
5. Homosexuality and Christian community by Choon Seow
6. Epistemological Frameworks, Homosexuality, and Religion: How People of Faith Understand the Intersection between Homosexuality and Religion by David Hodge, Social Work.
7. New Testament and Homosexuality by Robin Scroggs.
8. Churches and Homosexuality: An Overview of Recent Official Church Statements on Sexual Orientation by Wolfgang Lienemann, The Ecumenical Review.
9. History of Homosexuality, and Homosexuality in History - may not be useful individually, but provides a number of refs to relevant literature.

Hopefully this helps. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for seeking these out. Scholarly sources like these are the sorts of sources on which we should be basing the article, rather than apologetics and agenda sources... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that these sources are free of their own "agenda", e.g. John Boswell and Robin Scroggs have been criticized by other scholars for either not knowing or purposefully omitting facts that contradict their pro-LBGT claims. Quoting Prof. Gagnon

"As regards Boswell’s other interpretations of biblical texts, I don’t know of any biblical scholars of the past 15 years, including prohomosex scholars, who, having written serious pieces of their own on the Bible and homosexual practice, regard Boswell’s exegesis of biblical texts as “high quality” or in any sense definitive or near definitive."

For these reasons, Boswell's "marriage rite claim" has been described as "a failed attempt to re-write history".

The next book I'll think about reading is

10. The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by Robert A. J. Gagnon

So how about we get honest about ourselves? On this topic, I don't think there is such a thing as "agenda" free source. Tikru8 (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Saying "all sources have an agenda" seems like an attempt to avoid acknowledging that some sources do actually hew closer to our RS guidelines. Say what you like about Boswell, but Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality was published by a very reputable university press and received generally favorable reviews in a number of reputable journals, while Rob Gagnon had to publish his book through an apologetics house because perhaps no one else would take it and it appears to have gone without the notice of any serious scholars of religious history. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not what I meant. Certainly there must be sources that are more academic/more reliable and others that are less. When it comes to my own field of studies, the level of "academicness" of the source is a clear indicator of the reliability and quality of the text. However, the same is not true in the case of LBGT and x-tianity as even a "very reputable university press" releases material from a scholar that is heavily criticized by other scholars for either ignorance or lack of knowledge of empirical evidence that go against his claims. Of course such persons will anyway receive "favorable reviews" as their point they are making is the "right" one- that is of "tolerance" and "pro-LBGT" which are very "sexy" among media, many academics and laymen. What my point is that if we want to have a "neutral" article here on Wikipedia on the topic we should give more credit to the weight of the arguments instead of who or by whom the publication is - as the academic level of the publication does not seem to guarantee an "unbiased" view. Tikru8 (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What you're suggesting is flatly in violation of WP:WEIGHT. The reliability of the sources is precisely how we determine how much weight to give a theory. If your position is that we should instead give weight to views based on how much we agree with them, Wikipedia is not the right place for you to be writing about the history of homosexuality and religion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese, why do you put words into my mouth? I never said anything about giving weight according to how much we agree with an author. And BTW, WP:WEIGHT states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." (Requirement being reliable sources) You have e.g. not stated why what you call "apologetic" sources are "unreliable", even though you seem to hint that. The concern that I raised here is that we go "over the top" and consider only "very reputable university press" sources as reliable sources only. Actually, you seem to violate the WP standards with your proposal

"The reliability of the sources is precisely how we determine how much weight to give a theory"

=> WP says that weight should be given according to prominence, not reliability of sources, reliable is the requirement but prominence the actual weight criteria. Now as this topic deals with Christianity surely the prominence should include the views of the Christian churches and their theological institutions as well, thus actually including "apologetic" sources such as Gagnon (or do you claim that an associate professor is "unreliable")? Tikru8 (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You're quoting the part of the guideline which talks about reliable sources, but you don't seem to be understanding it, since you're still arguing that we should be including views based on agreement with them instead of based on their prominence in reliable sources. If a source is not reliable, WP:WEIGHT does not require us to include it for the sake of "balance." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese, are you still not reading what I say? Where have I claimed that "unreliable" sources should be included just for "balance" or that we should rank sources according to how much we "agree" with them? No wonder it is so difficult for me to build consensus with you as seem to distort my words in this discussion. What happened to be welcoming to new editors? Tikru8 (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a couple of quotes from WP:WEIGHT that jumped out at me:

• Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. BroWCarey (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Basically what BroWCarey said. Tikru8, it's possible that you are correct, but we can't know that because the sources you're citing are absolute rubbish. Please find some real sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese, you're "funny", but I don't know if you realize that. The sources that I last used (in the version that got rejected) were purely copy-pasted from the main article page, where they seemed to be accepted just fine. One of the few sources that I actually did "find" [3] was called "good" by Mann Jess. So your claim that all "my" sources are "absolute rubbish" is a) exaggerated b) seems to be just your self-serving attempt to enforce a demarcation criteria that limits the "non-rubbish" sources to the ones that favor your view. Now for the sake of Mann Jess' request I will find some "better sources" but honestly speaking, I will not be trusting Roscelese's judgement on their level of "rubbishness". And BTW, Roscelese: I hope that you realize that standards is a two-way street: If I put some "better" sources here in the future and you still just blanket-reject them as "rubbish", I will start digging through all sources that you seem to like and start exposing any COI that the authors/publishers have and any criticism raised by other exegetic scholars. We both know where that road will end up: mutual "stonewalling" and bad feeling. So how about we keep this civil, OK? Tikru8 (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If they're no good and they're already being used somewhere, they shouldn't be. Why is this supposed to be a knock-down argument? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just got hold of [http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Homosexual-Practice-Texts-Hermeneutics/dp/0687022797| "The Bible and Homosexual Practice - Texts and Hermeneutics, Gagnon, R., 2001 ]. The covers include very positive reviews from 18 professors (on New Testament or similar)from universities such as Yale Divinity School, Princeton Theological Seminary, Trinity Collage and Oxford University, e.g. "This is one of the very best exegetical/theological treatments of the issue now available... All who are concerned with the issue will need to reckon with it." (Prof. J. Moo) Even his "opponents" such as Prof. Nissinen give positive reviews: "In its learnedness, his [Gagnon's] book will without doubt be in the vanguard of its position and cannot be ignored in future debate even by proponents of discordant views." Now the publisher is not an Ivy League printing house, but as so many professors (of the field) from top universities give very positive reviews, if this is not a "reliable" source that also seems to be among the "best and most reputable authoritative sources" then I honestly speaking don't know what would be. Tikru8 (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That the book got positive reviews is good, but not relevant to the degree you'd like. The book was published by Abington Press, a religious publishing company, and its own description says "this book powerfully challenges...affirmation of homosexual practice." This book is polemic, not academic. If it's significant, we could use it to source the author's opinions on the topic, but it is not ideal for establishing the broad scope of opinion on the topic for all denominations.

Tikru, how is it that you're finding these sources? When I developed my list, I searched google scholar and compiled every source which appeared to give an academic overview of the topic with respect to multiple denominations/interpretations. I did this without respect to the author's point of view or conclusions. On the other hand, the sources you're proposing all appear to present the same point of view, which has me concerned that you're looking for sources to support the POV you'd like added, rather than searching the literature and discovering what POV the article should present.

So, two questions: What problem (if any) do you have with the sources I proposed. For instance, Christian attitudes toward homosexuality and Churches and Homosexuality: An Overview of Recent Official Church Statements on Sexual Orientation. Do these not adequately provide an overview of the topic? Secondly, if there are gaps in our sources' coverage of the topic, what would your source add? How would you propose integrating Gagnon in the article? Specific wording would be helpful. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 08:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Answers: The sources you proposed: Giving Boswell credit beyond his scholarly merit would be a problem. Regarding the 2 sources: one I do not have access to, the other seems to be an attempt to pull the discussion to a meta-level, which is nice (and would rid us of the "traditionalist" vs "revisionist" polemic), but the article does not do that in a particularly "neutral" style: It talks heavily of "human rights" and "new scientific findings" about the topic without specifying what and why are they so relevant for a church. It also more pits against the "liberal" stance and the "that behaviour is a sickness"/"the Bible is inerrant" stance (a.k.a. fundamentalist)- without accommodating a more "middle stance" that uses a more nuanced analysis set (inc. historical-critical approach). It uses numerous unsourced "weasel words" and statements that throw the "traditionalists" in a negative light. The author's view can be crystallized in the sentence "Churches have a duty above all to commit themselves to overcoming any discrimination contrary to human rights" and "They should work at abolishing any remaining discrimination because of individual sexual orientation in the right to hold office and accept homosexual persons as office-bearers" => what happened to Jesus' teaching about the most important thing being Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" and "he who loves will me will follow my teaching" If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me" and | Paul's commandment of expelling unrepentant sexually immoral and only ordaining those who follow biblical sexual ethics? I am surprised that the author completely ignores what the Bible has to say on the topic and just uses the "human rights"/"science" arguments => IMO this is the definition of a "liberal theologian". IMHO the article would be a good one if one wants to describe the so-called "liberal" viewpoint, but clearly such a text does not give a holistic view on the topic. Now you are right in that putting a meta-article here would be "nice", but this one does not seem fit for the job. Finding that article on Google Scholar does not "save" the article. I haven't read Gagnon's book yet so I cannot say what exactly can be used from that book for this but what I guess it can be used for is a) replacing the "bad sources" that present the "traditionalist" view b) is give in-depth analysis to the the question raised in the article "Further fundamental and context-specific study should be devoted to the questions of the understanding and use of the Bible in view of the different types and traditions of ethical decision-making." P.S. I am amused at your claim that "all my sources" have the same POV. I search for them in a semi-random manner on google and stumble across them, while your google scholar search churns out articles/books which are mostly quite "liberal" or "revisionist", unfortunately not "neutral" or particularly "meta-level". I'd also like to point out that I've only found 3 unique sources: 1. religiostolerance.org, which is heavily pro-gay, 2. the 7th day adventist which you called "good" (which is an attempt to pull the discussion to a meta-level) and 3. Gagnon. Let's put forth a 4. source that I stumbled upon: Homosexuality and civilization. Haven't read that yet and can't comment on the "POV" yet, I assume that it could potentially be useful for background information. Tikru8 (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Tikru, in analyzing the sources I provided, you've made a number of assertions which you haven't backed up with sources of your own. I don't see how talking about human rights or the scientific consensus on homosexuality makes it an unacceptable or slanted source. Indeed, considering the books aim to provide an overview of the topic, and both topics are common themes in the discussion, I would very much expect them to be covered in reasonable detail. Without getting into the rest, I see now that you were hoping to present a source you haven't read, much as I did earlier. That's fine. However, I think we have a fair amount of sources now, so the next step would be to rewrite the section using the sources we have. Arguing about the reliability or scope of our current sources, without a solid proposal on the table, probably won't get us anywhere very fast. If I have some time, I might be able to do that, but I'm fairly bogged down this week. If you have the time, feel free. Let's set aside this discussion for that. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Jess, you are starting to interpret what I write in a manner that includes statements that I didn't say nor had in mind when I wrote it. Please refrain from attempts on "reading my mind": Have you read the article? I don't say that it is neither "unacceptable" nor a "slanted source" (the weaselyness/straw man hints such as unreferenced statistics on p. 9, 1. paragraph are not enough to warrant a "slanted" label) but what is main main concern is that it does not give a meta-analysis (or a "neutral" one) of the phenomenon "Bible and homosexuality", not because it talks about "human rights " and "new scientific findings" but because what is says about the Bible and homos. is basically limited to the following sentence: "It is not possible to enter here into a new interpretation of the relevant biblical texts. The two most important passages, Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1 :26f., unambiguously condemn same-sex relations between men.” => then goes on to try to veto that churches do X and Y due to "human rights" and "scientific findings", without linking these appeals back to the Bible itself. So what's the useful output of the article for academic analysis of Bible & H. except presenting the liberal theologian view? (presenting a lib. theo. view I won't object to as long as it's not the only view presented) In the Bible, human rights are realized by 1. loving God then by 2. loving your neighbor as yourself "Jesus-style", but the common misconception is that this "love" would mean keeping your mouth shut about your neighbor's sin, see [4] or [5]. This discussion, however, is not done in the article, which I would have liked to see. The "science" part is also detached from the Biblical setting: The Bible calls h. a breach against God's master plan for humanity (with h. lust caused by sin) not a "mental disease", thus just appealing to the de-classification of h. as a mental disorder- and again - not linking it back to what the Bible says means that the article does not contribute to the topic "Bible and h". on this aspect either. Tikru8 (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked what you thought of the sources I proposed, and you responded that they were not neutral. I don't know how to interpret that except that you believe them to be 'slanted' and therefore unacceptable. BTW, this article is "Christianity and homosexuality", not "The Bible and homosexuality", so the fact that sources discuss Christian views on homosexuality without tying it to the Bible isn't particularly relevant. I still think discussing this in more depth isn't very helpful without a solid proposal, so I'll wait on that. We can discuss sources and due weight then.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's define "neutral": I take an un-positivist philosophical stance that the researcher cannot live in a conceptual vacuum free of "theoretical or personal constraints". Thus nothing but reporting "pure" facts can ever be "neutral". This topic is very politicized and emotional, thus I assume that finding anything that comes close to "neutral" will be very hard to find. Thus I do not oppose using sources that are not "neutral" here but I do oppose presenting sources that clearly take a stand (either traditionalist/revisionist/liberalist/fundamentalist etc.) as "neutral" because essentially they are not "neutral" - IME on this topic the authors always work using some personal presumption on the topic. Thus when I say something is not "neutral" simply means that it clearly looks like belonging in one of the 4 categories mentioned, not that it is "slanted" or it should be discarded. If a truly "neutral" article/book would exist, that would be good to use as it would be free from all the different XXXist constraints. Looks like you have a more lax definition on "neutral" than I have which seems to have caused some communication complications here. And BTW - so far you've been talking just about revising "certain portions of the article", and not the whole article so how was I supposed to know that you had the whole article in mind in this discussion? Tikru8 (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"Neutral" is defined by WP:NPOV. We don't require sources to be neutral, we require the article to be, which is most concisely summarized in WP:DUE.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This section in the FAQ appears to deal with the issue raised about objectivity: [6]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

My two cents

I would add to thread(s) above but not trying to "refute" anyone. I think that the material is pretty good, but restructuring may be necessary.

I think the "seven references" in the bible should be listed as tersely as possible with a (redundant) {{bibleverse}} as one "cite." I think that the subtitled text should be split between Old Testament and New Testament authors. The Old Testament tended to be a "tad harsh" on this sort of thing. (Everyone has seen the joke email on Leviticus. If you haven't, you will).

I think the summary is too long and detailed. Supposed to avoid footnotes in lead. If it is terse, it won't need (many) footnotes. "Most Christian churches oppose homosexuality. Some don't."  :) Okay, too terse, but it could be fairly close to this. Listing all churches pro and con in the lead is not useful IMO.

I think that predominance in referencing specific religions should be based on worldwide size: RC first, Orthodox second, Baptist and Evangelical 3rd and 4th. I think earlier refs to smaller, sometimes tiny churches is WP:UNDUE. Out of 2 billion Christians, 1.5 billion are Orthodox or Catholic. Baptists and Evangelicals are about another 200 million. Let's move away from US-centric wording which tends to emphasize locally founded but not really large, churches. Student7 (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you make a good point about trimming the lead. Not only is it way long, it's also redundant to the article's subsection on denominational positions, which is itself large enough to have spun out a separate article, List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality.

As far as predominance/size, we would need to be very careful in how we worded it and cited it. For example, the RCC is the largest denomination and its official position is a condemnation of homosexuality, but large numbers of Catholics (majorities, in some places) disagree or affirm homosexuality. If we're using the RCC's size as a reason to foreground its position, it's important to acknowledge the views of the people who make it as big as it is. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

My proposed lead was way too terse, of course. "The official position of.... has been stated as .... Not all adherents agree." Then give nuances in article. Student7 (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should use size as anything but a very rough metric; the article should discuss what features most in reliable sources. I would agree that the article appears overly US centric though. There are, for example, around 400 million christian africans but the only african issue appears to receive one paragraph. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's discuss the size thing. There are 2 billion Christians. 1% of this is 20 million. Is 20 million for a particular denomination a good/bad/irrelevant threshold for mentioning one way or another in the lead?

There are supposedly 33,000 Protestant denominations. I'm really not too thrilled at having a separate "Protestantism and homosexuality" article, but, there are about 500 million Protestants. One percent of those would be 5 million. A little easier to attain the threshold. Just seems to be a bit WP:FRINGE if you get much below that. Student7 (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources probably don't discuss all 33k in similar detail. They will most likely focus most on specific mainstream denominations, it is these which we should mention. Extreme/fringe views are evident from how they are treated by reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is, of course, intentionally distorting the topic. Anyone who understands WP:DUE cannot but laugh at this attempt at editorializing. There may be "LGBT-affirming Christian denominations", whatever this is supposed to mean, but that's something like a "five-sigma effect". The overwhelming majority of denominations will, of course, consider homosexuality a sin. Why? Because Paul wrote as much. Sure, you can wave your hands and use postmodernism until any intellegible meaning is gone from any text, but most people will not think this is serious, or honest. In the modern world, anyone is free and welcome to be gay, and anyone is free and welcome to be a Christian. People who must insist to be both at the same time will just have to go along with an attitude of self-flagellation and accept their status as "sinners". Or they can be smart-asses and pluck apart the biblical texts nobody forced them to even consider in the first place. So in a society of billions of people, somebody will end up doing something as absurd as even this. Perhaps it is even "notable"; hence "LGBT-affirming Christian denominations", but this article is called "Christianity and homosexuality", and it cannot portray an absurdist approach taken by a tiny, dishonest minority over the straightforward mainstream approach. --dab (𒁳) 09:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If many reliable sources connect the LGBT denominations, even if they are fringe, to the topic then it has due weight WP:FRINGE. Obviously the mainstream has more due weight though and the mainstream opposition does seem under-developed, you can solve the issues if you like by expanding the relevant sections. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous. If you can't provide a reason for the "undue" tag beyond "I am a Christian who personally dislikes gay people," I will be removing it shortly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, unless it can be substianted it's pointless. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

To me, it's like going back to the US presidential election of 1964 where an incumbent Lyndon Johnson beat the challenger Barry Goldwater, 2:1 or so. And after dismissing those two with a paragraph or two, dwelling for quite a long time on the performance of the Libertarian candidate, the Green candidate, the Farmer-Labor candidate, the Socialist candidate, etc. It's all quite verifiable, but rather beside the point. None were supported by even 1% of the population. Student7 (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there specific language or changes you want to propose? I agree that size is a useful metric, but as I said, it would be a gross DUE violation to foreground the position of the RCC because of its large number of adherents without acknowledging the large percentage of adherents that have other views. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

We know what "notable" is. We don't have a metric for "large." In non-controversial articles, I usually delete adjectives like "large." It's up the editor to supply figures, if germane. I certainly don't mind saying in the lead that "the hierarchies of A, B, and C" officially hold position X, but there are some dissidents within their ranks. That organizations M, N and O, support position Y. But A, B, C, M, N and O really ought to have some minimum criteria to avoid the appearance of WP:UNDUE or even WP:FRINGE.

But as far as "dissidents" go, there is virtually no position on anything in most countries/organizations that have more than a few members who don't have another opinion. Organizations of one mind are usually pretty small. Again, back to "undue." Student7 (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really sure how much space to give either position. There don't seem to be that many.

I understand what you're saying now, but it seems like in this case we would still end up with weird weight, the exact problem you're trying to address, because of systemic bias issues. (Ie. how many times more coverage is there of the beliefs of members of small American denominations' beliefs than there is on the beliefs of larger groups in South America or Asia, for example, simply because more is available on the Internet for the former group?)

However, I don't really think you're making this argument in good faith. In your UNDUE tag, you continue to cite the 80% of the population figure, with zero concern for coverage/notability, as the reason this article is supposedly undue. Please address my having pointed out several times that it is a violation of WEIGHT to say that Christian denominations representing a large number of people oppose homosexuality, when enormous numbers of the people "represented" are perfectly all right with homosexuality or even homosexual themselves. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Being perhaps too perfectly clear here, there are very few, if any, Christians who do not allow homosexuals in their midst, including practicing ones.

There are very few Christian groups who do not allow non-practicing homosexuals to hold any office within their organization. While there are homosexual Catholic priests who are "grandfathered" in, the RC church is no longer allowing even non-practicing homosexuals to become priests.

There are very few Christian groups who uphold practicing, "unrepentant" (sorry. It does reflect what most Christian groups hold. I can't think of another word) homosexuals. Having said that, I was in a large conservative congregation (in the US) where the minister asked those who were celebrating their anniversary to stand for a blessing. Two women stood holding hands, (with other couples), and received a general blessing with the audience staring steadfastly ahead. There were no remonstrations afterwards.

While the issue is a tremendous talking point for most individuals in the large majority of Christian groups, administering it on a one-on-one, face-to-face basis, does not appear to me, to be high on anyone's local agenda. That doesn't mean it isn't "enforced." It's just that there is no one trying to force anyone to wear an "H!" But admittance to the clergy for practicing homosexuals in 80% of Christian groups is denied. Student7 (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is this the cornerstone of your argument now? Admittance to the clergy for "practicing" women is also denied in "denominations that represent most Christians," but I'm sure you would strongly oppose a blanket statement that Christianity was hostile to women, of the sort that you seem to be gunning for here about Christianity being hostile to gay people. Again, I'm not asking for much: I'm asking you to propose changes that satisfy your concerns about denomination size while also maintaining DUE based on the number of dissenters from the official position in a denomination. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

For 99% of Christian denominations, "hostile" is not quite the right word. Their conduct is believed to be sinful, that is true. But all Christians are presumed sinful. Listing them as believing practicing homosexuality is a sin, is precise. It would be classified as generic lust. Anyone not repenting of any sort of lust (or any sin, for that matter), including the practice of homosexuality, would be ineligible for ministry, or sacraments, where those exist.

The argument with homosexuals over religion is that some homosexuals do not believe their conduct is sinful. This is even fine in my church as long as they don't participate in the sacraments. Even then, they can, and do, get away with it. Unsurprisingly, people who have committed other sins also participate in the sacraments. This is considered sacrilege, regardless of the sin. Discussing the general church attitude towards homosexuals as though it had never been considered before as sin, along with other non-sexual sins, does not always make sense. The attitude is still the same. Student7 (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What you're saying means, to me, that it's possible we should be discussing the subject in the article with greater context and nuance, but it doesn't seem to be related to the question of why you want to maintain this neutrality tag at the top of the article. I'll ask one more time that you propose changes which accommodate your concerns about the size of denominations that are generally anti-gay while also maintaining neutrality by not suppressing the fact that many members of denominations that have this official position are accepting of gays and lesbians. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I find your language pov. The majority of Christians are no more "anti-gay" than they are "anti-arguing-with-your-spouse", "anti-beating-your-spouse", "anti-cutting-off-people-in-traffic," "anti-embezzlement", etc. The church is a hospital for sinners, not a hotel for saints. A church that maintains that it's members are beyond disobeying Christian precepts are (in the teachings of most Christian churches), not much of a Christian church. Congregations contain (hopefully reformed) murderers, adulterers, DUI-ers, etc. These behaviors are discouraged.

You appear to be looking for a black and white world where people have the door slammed in their face. This is unChristian in the opinion of most Christian churches.

Rather you appear to be looking for a church that teaches or condones LGBT. I agree that there are extremely few of those. But that is not "anti-gay." That is how you wish to define them, which is a different matter entirely. And a bit WP:FRINGE IMO.

In some Scandinavian country, a lawmaker wished to legalize incest. It did not become law but was much discussed, I suppose. In the meantime, I suppose he would describe the forces that opposed his position as "anti-incest." Or maybe he had a prettier name which would make the opposing forces look stupid, I don't know. I doubt that the Lutheran church supported his position, or very many other churches either. That did not mean that they did not accept people into their congregations who had previously practiced incest. Their position, actually, never changed. They did not suddenly become "anti-incest." They just never became "pro-incest" which the author of the proposal had hoped. In this case, as in the other, "anti-incest" is not automatically the 100% opposite of "pro-incest" just because someone wants it so for purposes of argument.

In 2008, I could be "anti-Obama" without being "pro-McCain." Similarly, I could be "anti-McCain" without being in "pro-Obama." One is not the opposite of the other just because some pollster, or other polemicist, wants it so for their purposes. Student7 (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You insist on maintaining a neutrality tag on this article because you believe it doesn't portray Christians as anti-gay enough. But you're simultaneously arguing that the tag needs to stay until we make Christians look less anti-gay. There is clearly no actionable cause for a neutrality tag here. Feel free to restore it if you can come up with concrete problems and solutions, the way I've been asking you to do for weeks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the neutrality tag that Ywreuv restored. There is no need for playing games here; the tag was removed for valid reasons. First, as Roscelese correctly pointed out, there is no cause for a neutrality tag here. No one, over a period of weeks, was able to offer any concrete evidence of a problem with the article or a solution to said problem. In addition, I would ask Ywreuv for some evidence that churches representing 80% of the world's Christians oppose the practice of homosexuality. But even if that could be demonstrated, it is irrelevant. The official position of a denomination is not always a reflection of the beliefs of that church's adherents. This is especially true in this case. For example, the Roman Catholic Church has firm policies against homosexuality, married clergy, female clergy, etc., that don't appear to be supported by most Catholic people. So to claim that churches representing 80% of Christians oppose something does NOT translate as saying that 80% of Christians oppose it. Further, one cannot simply dismiss as irrelevant the positions of denominations like the American Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Church of Christ, etc., where there is widespread and official support for same-sex couples and gay clergy. They may not be as large in numbers as the Catholics and the various Orthodox churches, but they are by no means to be discounted. BroWCarey (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think my edit was right. I should not have been reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ywreuv (talk • contribs) 06:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The move we've just had

OK, someone has to start this discussion, so it might as well be me. LGBT may be a common term in some parts of the world, but not where I come from. I'm in Australia. I have quite a lot of gay friends, male and female. I had never encountered the term LGBT until I read it here on Wikipedia, and I had to look it up to find out what it meant.

I really think the title of this article has just become more obscure. I'd like to hear a justification for the move. HiLo48 (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I have moved it back. – Lionel ^(talk) 12:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)