Talk:Homosexuality and Norse paganism

Several statements

I'm concerned that several statements in this article are inaccurate. The statements, "[...] followers of Asatru are primarily concerned with how Norse society viewed homosexuality," and, "Ásatrú is a revivalist religion that seeks to reconstruct the beliefs and practices of the ancient Norsemen" are both untrue of several Asatru Organizations. I'd refer anyone who cares to the numerous articles by William Bainbridge and Diana Paxson on The Troth's website, as well as the AFA's declaration of purpose point 1: "Asatru today is a modernized version of what our ancestors practiced. We have adapted it to the context of life in the twenty-first century [...]" Further, the statement "this is a not uncommon view of male homosexuality" has no relevance to the article in question and serves no purpose other than to try and legitimize homophobic sentiment. The purpose of this article should be to portray an accurate picture of views on homosexuality in Asatru and Norse paganism, you cannot try to legitimize homophobic beliefs without launching into a discussion of the implications of Odin becoming an Ergi - both of which are irrelevant to the article in question. This is a forum for facts, not debate; let's keep it that way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CBH101 (talk • contribs)

That is not why I reverted your edits. It is because you have conspicuosly removed the reconstructionist link now two different times. This article is called Homosexuality in Norse paganism and is primarily concerned with how the historical Norse pagans viewed homosexuality - the references to Asatru are secondary, and the fact that Asatru is reconstructionist is the bridge to the relevancy to what the Heathen Norse believed. I have modified your edit - please look it over. WeniWidiWiki 06:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think it's much clearer now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CBH101 (talk • contribs)

Klámmhǫgg

I'm not sure this really belongs here, but I notice a claim that the Klámmhǫgg or "shame blow" consisted in a rape, destined to break and dehumanize a foe. I strongly doubt this was really the custom. While causing deadly shame to an enemy or his family would have been in the Norse mindset, you have to remember that, as per the Grágás, rape was as worthy of full outlawry as ergi was. A rapist was literally beyond the pale of humanity and could be freely killed of mistreated in any desired manner. --Svartalf 18:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Author's name spelling

The article cites "Sørenson"; Amazon.com has it as "Sýrensen". I don't know which is correct, or perhaps they are equally valid transliterations. Anyone with the knowledge of the language have an opinion? Aleta 07:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete rewrite

This entry is horrific. There is not one source in the lead to document the alleged controversy over homosexuals in Ásatrú. This is a total non-issue. Later in the article, several statements blatantly contradict the scant historical sources cited. This article needs to be about the historical and verifiable opinions on LGBT issues in pre-Christian Scandinavia. Any reference to Ásatrú or Germanic neopaganism should be incidental further down in the entry. If someone is working on this article, please address these issues because I will completely re-write the entry to meet wikipedia standards otherwise, as there is very little redeemable content other than some of the sources. - WeniWidiWiki 20:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance tag

I came across this article from a link in the info box which was on the article on Homosexuality and Scientology, to which I gave the same tag. If anything this article is even more trivial. If someone wants to write an article on homosexuality in pre-Christian Scandinavian societies that would be a worthwhile topic. However what is written here doesn't seem to be about "Norse paganism" as such, and even less about modern neo-paganism. Steve Dufour 16:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the article needs improvement is not at all the same as saying the topic is unimportant. I'm going to remove that tag. Aleta 23:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Homosexuality in Norse paganism

See talk:Norse paganism#Norse polytheism or Norse paganism --Philip Baird Shearer 09:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any takers?

In case anybody is still gonna majorly overhaul this entry as previously announced, I'd say they ought to include quite an amount of facts to be found in Níð as I think it's a much more comprehensive summary of the original as well as secondary sources on the topic, including all the ancient/proto-historical mythological or socio-cultural connotations. This current entry here (as well as those for ergi and seid) shamefully pales in comparison. And don't tell me the more comprehensive article is one focussing on mythology. Prior to secularization, there's no part of social life whatsoever not dominated and regulated by religion, so ancient Germanics obviously weren't able to properly distinguish obscene acts or desires from evil witchcraft and non-human fiends. Medieval Christianity even took up on all these Germanic religious associations (although common Indo-European parallels exist, while not as obviously recognizable and undistorted by attempts of rationalization as in Germanic folk religion in monotheism and classical ancient polytheism of the mediterrean region) on the whole theme by syncretism supported by Frankish monk Benedictus Levita in the Pseudo-Isidore which eventually justified the Holy Inquisition persecuting witches and sodomites alike (see Sodomy#Benedictus_Levita_and_the_Pseudo-Isidore on that). --Tlatosmd 05:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this article is very brief as it stands, and it just rehashes the scope of Ergi in terms of homosexuality. Ergi is the correct title for this topic, and I suggest this article should just be merged into that. dab (𒁳) 18:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a merge of Ergi /argr as per Dab. This entry is extremely redundant and much of the content is tenuous at best. - WeniWidiWiki 17:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]