Talk:Homosexuality and religion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Untitled

While this article has much information, the general impression that much of it gives, is simply not true. Let me start with the Greeks. If you read the Greek texts themselves, you can see that although homosexuality was common and tolerated to some degree, it was certainly not considered normal, or officially sanctioned by Greek society. Christianity next. The description seems to aim at diminishing any kind of consistency in its teaching or practice in regard to homosexuality. As a Catholic, I can say that if anyone examines the scriptures for themselves (rather than dabble or listen to what experts say), or examines the teaching of all of Christianity practically without exception, he will see that the teaching on homosexuality is unanimous. Now the practice. Notice what the author implies about popes and boys during the Renaissance (I remind you this is supposed to be a scholarly article). Homosexuality exists among Christians, not to a greater degree than it exists elsewhere. But it stands out conspicuously because of the contrast with the teaching of Christianity. Now Native cultures. I don't know where this author gets his information, but after having talked to a Native lady from Canada and a historian on family and sex issues, the impression I get is similar to the impression in most other human cultures. The phenomenon existed and was recognized, but never sanctioned.

By the way, look out for a documentary coming out soon in Canada: C-38 - Searching for Marriage.

I moved a number of external links that were in the article to a "links" section. Generally (there might be some exceptions), we're trying to write our own information here, not a web directory. So we should only very, very rarely, if ever, say "see [URL] for more information." Why not? Because we want to include that information ourselves, eventually.

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with making an annotated list of external links.

--LMS

---

I removed the Wiccan views of homosexuality from this page since this page only has links to the very general religions (Christianity, Islam, Neopaganism etc.). I think that the more specific sects' (like Wicca's) views on homosexuality fit better on the specific religions' "views of homosexuality" pages as opposed to this one. The "Jewish views on homosexuality" page does this nicely and I think using that as a model works well.

---

?!? Richard Stallman is not a religion. He is an American citizen who happens to be a computer programmer. I doubt that he has a faith based on his teachings. (Free-softwareism?) RK

What? You haven't heard that the Church of Emacs canonized him as St. IGNUcius? ;-) Wesley

Richard Stallman's support of free software has a near-religious fervor to it, but the "Church of Emacs" is just an insider's joke. I guess you already gnu that. ;-) Ed Poor

Buddhism

Cut from article:

Some other religions, such as Buddhism, embrace non-heterosexuality as a valid human trait and do not believe homosexuality to be inherently sinful.

The Buddhist_views_of_homosexuality article doesn't call homosexality "a valid human trait" OR "inherently sinful". --Uncle Ed 13:17, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Ed, thanks for the heads up. I changed "many other religions" to "other religions". Also, I think the opening sentence should include that one, if not the primary, reason "sexual relations between people who are not of the opposite sex are forbidden and regarded as sinful" is that they are non-reproductive (waste o' sperm). Also "recent decades" should be changed to something along the lines of "in the last decades of the 20th century" or whatever would be accurate. Hyacinth 21:39, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Problematic material from Homophobia

Some interpret the Bible as saying that even coitus interruptus was severely punished by God, since the semen was dropped on the ground and did not reach its true destination.

Can anyone identify what sect(s) have this interpretation, so it can be included? -- Beland 03:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some cite evidence of religious dogma when comparing attitudes towards same-sex love in cultures not impacted by the effect of these conservative religious creeds. Whether we look back in history at cultures such as the ancient Greeks or the pre-modern Japanese, or we look at present-day Native cultures, such as many North-American tribes, we see societies which understand and integrate the human ability to love and desire someone of one’s own sex.

I'm afraid that this paragraph is suffering from a bit from Noble Savage syndrome. One of the paintings I just moved out of the Homophobia article was from antiquity, and it was essentially marked as being homophobic. I don't think I would be comfortable stating as fact that that anti-homosexual opinion simply did not exist outside of the influence of Abrahamic religion. To be balanced, we need to research some counterexamples of anti-homosexual feeling outside this sphere of influence, if only to document that its extent was minor or sporadic (if that's the case), and shed some light on what the origins of such might be.

The Wikipedia articles that should have more detailed information about this sort of thing, don't. For example, Homosexuality in Japan shows how homosexuality has existed for a long time, but it doesn't really document that it was universally accepted. And pretty much nothing, not even motherhood and apple pie are universally accepted; I would expect to see some friction or opposition, even if marginal in nature.

Homosexuality in China seems to indicate that traditional Chinese culture and Chinese Buddhism have a vague or sometimes definite anti-homosexuality slant.

The material on homosex Ancient Greece and Rome is skimpy, or at least that which is accessible from History of sexuality. "Native cultures" is a huge category, full of diverse attitudes; I think it's unwarranted to make any generalizations about this class of cultures one way or another.

I'm adding a request for a major research effort to the tasklist for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_Sexuality.

-- Beland 03:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:LGBT notice board for a discussion about merging and renaming some LGBT articles, including this one. -- Beland 03:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Significant amounts of material have been merged into this article, so now it needs cleanup. -- Beland 06:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Expansion possibilities

This article is chartered to cover sexual orientation in general. There is scant mention of bisexuality, though acceptance of it often parallels that of homosexuality. But perhaps there's something to be said about it. There is probably also something to be said about the behaviors that are sanctioned by religions that do accept same-sex relations. There's everything from "it's OK if you're gay, as long as you are celibate" to "no sex until after marriage-equivalent for everyone, including homosexuals" to "if it makes you happy, anything goes, as long as it harms none". -- Beland 06:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Islam

Should it be added to "Islam" section that most Muslims today, even in the US, condemn homosexuality, and that practicing homosexuality is illegal in most Muslim states? The current status portrays Islam as not as strictly opposed as it has manifested in real life today.

rename "Religion and homosexuality"?

This article is about homosexuality (not sexual orientation in general). Rather than follow Beland's suggestion above to expand the article, I propose the much easier solution of renaming the article Religion and homosexuality. It seems a little deceptive as is, serving the parent for a whole range of "XX RELIGION and homosexuality" articles. ntennis 04:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

At first I thought you were joking, but after looking at the article, you're quite right that that title would be much more fitting. It might be possible to expand the article (a lot) to not be so unbalanced, but renaming it that would be much easier. –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}

Now moved. ntennis 03:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"Attacks based on stereotypes linking homosexuality to other behaviors" section is biased

The main section overflowing in opinion in is Attacks based on stereotypes linking homosexuality to other behaviors. It consistently treats the linking of pedophilia/CSA to homosexuality as a misconception and "attack" on homosexuality, even though many organizations still contend there are links. Indeed, most pedophiles are, for whatever reason, homosexual when it comes to children (i.e. interested primarily in boys), though strangely many appreciate the 'femininity' of boys.[1] On the other hand, most sexual offenses against children are heterosexual of natural -- against girls -- because heterosexuals have an unusual tendancy to regress and molest even if not they are not pedophilic in orientation, something not usually present in homosexuals. 24.224.153.40 02:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Which exact section are you thinking is not neutral, in tagging it "POV"? All of it, or specific sections? And can you give some examples, or what you think needs to be done to fix it? FT2 (Talk) 22:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Reformist Torah approach with Hebrew translations

I quite like the way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Reformist_Torah_approach_with_Hebrew_translations

can explain how the whole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic history could hind on the translatation of a word. As a opinion shouldn't it be included here?

If so how do I best link into that subsection?

Jago25 98 13:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)jago25_98

no, it should not. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 13:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Confusion

I simply think that this article is too confused and badly-ordered to adequately deal with the topic. The introductory section seems ill-written, and shall attempt some kind of re-write. I think the individual religion pages are a great bonus, definately the way forwards. Is there a way that this page can be turned into more of a list of other pages, pointing to each of these? --Graham Martin 02:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's done all the time, all you have to do is make sure that no material is lost, and to leave a short abstract for each link. Haiduc 02:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed

• "Sometimes male homosexuality is more strongly disapproved of than lesbianism by a religious community, though there is rarely any doctrinal basis for this differential treatment. Some people allege that some or all religious condemnation of homosexuality is a rationalization for a preexisting negative social attitude, or conversely, that religious condemnation of homosexuality induces popular antipathy."

The above was removed because it "introduces a POV which isn't balanced against any opposing view, nor is it sourced." I moved it here because I was wondering, which part? Notice the paragraph says two things. Hyacinth 08:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

if someone doesn't like this part, one could request a citation. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 09:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't feel that the above paragraph adds anything, and I don't mind it's removal. Does the first sentence mean to impy that religious bodies generally disapprove of male homosexuality more than female homosexuality? If so, it should say so and back it up with some research, because it's not self evident. If this really only happens "sometimes", then I think the sentence should be deleted from the lead section. The second claim seems kind of empty to me too: who are these people making this allegation? And what are they getting at? That religious homophobia is not actually handed down by God in the scriptures? Or "conversely", that religious homophobia contributes to homophobia in the wider community? Because I'd say this second point is indisputable, but I fail to see how this is the converse of the first point. Anyone want to argue for retaining this paragraph? ntennis 11:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the faults of these exact words they do address important issues, the comparison between anti-gay and anti-lesbian sentiment and the interaction between homophobia and religion, that do deserve discussion in the article. Hyacinth 21:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The above removed statement seems somewhat incorrect. From what I've read there is in fact much doctrinal basis for the differential treatment, most of the so called 'condemnations' of homosexuality that are supposedly found in various religious books often appear to only refer to male-male intercourse and not female-female. Nil Einne 01:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, most religious texts are written by and for men. I'll remove again it for now. If Hyacinth has a suggestion for re-wording, it can easily be put back in the article. Nil Einne, please feel free to edit the article directly. It needs a lot of work! ntennis 00:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not neutral

Unfortunately, LMS, your view about homosexuality in Greece is not neutral but a Catholic view. It's a Catholic argument to try to deny the acceptance of homosexuality in other cultures, including in the Greek one - even when the facts go to another way. In truth, homosexual behaviours in Greece were not "tolerated to some degree". They were truly accepted, since they were in a particular model (that is, with top-older man x bottom-younger boy, and since the men did family in the adult age). This is possible to see in greek ancient documents and about Greece, poems, texts from greek historians and many sources. About the teaching about homosexuality in Christianism - no, it's not unanimous at all. Today, there is a pro-gay theology with basis in Bible which one has impacted specially Protestant/Non-Catholic groups, like the Anglican Church. If this theology is correct or not, it's a question to individual faith and theological disputes. What's important to this topic is that it exists. And Christian teaching about homosexuality is not unanimous. Yes, the article IS true. Joaomarinho 08:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC).

The only way one can find a "pro-gay basis" in the Bible is by resorting to postmodern deconstruction where words don't mean what they say. Having read pro-homosexual works quite extensively, I can say pro-homosexual scholars frequently go out on a limb, resorting to basing their arguments in what a certain word meant in Classical Greek.

The problem there is NT biblical Koine Greek and 4th cent. B.C. Attic Greek are two different dialects written by two separate cultures.

Any cursory reading of the Jewish pseudepigrapha and the writings of Philo, the ancient Jewish historian, will show that homosexuality was universally condemned in Jewish culture, and the context was irrelevant to them. You can believe what you like and rely upon intellectually dishonest scholars, but their views are not representative of the historic Christian worldview.[2]] User:Pravknight--68.45.161.241 19:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Parallels of Gay / Lesbian Struggle for Freedom to the American Civil Rights Movement

It should be noted that to equate the Gay and Lesbian movement for "equality" is generally offensive to African-Americans. This will remain so until there is actual proof that Homosexuality is actually determined through genetics, rather than lifestyle choice. Public perception is still split on that issue.

Please sign your comments to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.

To say that the equation is generally offensive to African Americans is putting things a bit more strongly than is really accurate. It is offensive to some African Americans, especially Protestant African Americans, but to many others it is not, and many African Americans support gay rights movements, and yet more are gay themselves, and work with those movements. That said, some of those African Americans (and others) within gay rights movements are frustrated by the white, middle class, American focus of the movements, but that's not a frustration with the equation of gay rights and civil rights, but with actually ignoring that equation. The picture you're painting here is far too simplistic. -Smahoney 19:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Sethmahoney you don’t seem realize that the majority of self identifying homosexuals in the U.S. are white middle class. This is especially the case for those heavy in homosexual politics. It’s for this reason that equating the homosexual movement with the civil rights movement is simply invalid in almost every way. And the majorities of African Americans in fact do not support the idea of the homosexual movement being put on a pedestal above or equal to true civil rights. 71.30.253.222 18:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you cite some sources to back up those sweeping assertions? Thanks. Hbackman 04:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that the majority of Americans are presemuably white middle class, it isn't really surprising that the majority of self identifying homosexuals are white middle class. So really 71's statement was disingenous. More relevant is whether there a greater percentage of self-identifying homosexuals are white middle class then we would expect from their percentage of the US population and the relevant percentage of black homosexuals as we would expect from their percentage of the US population Nil Einne 01:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Equating opposition to homosexuality--a behavior--to race is patently absurd. It's comparing apples to oranges because race is an inanimate physical condition akin to having gap teeth; wheras, homosexuality is a behavior.

Comparing homosexuality with race is akin to comparing opposition to smokers with racism or comparing opposing kleptomania to racism. If the underlying argument is homosexuals cannot control their predeliction towards homosexual activity; therefore, society must accept homosexuality as a moral behavior, then the same holds in the other instances. The fallacy of any argument is easily exposed by flushing out its absurdity.

The argumentum ad absurdum in this is breathtaking, not to mention the very argument that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent is a matter of taste or opinion. You can't perform any scientific test to say they are the same because it is impossible to get around personal prejudices on all sides.

Sexuality, divorced from emotional criteria, serves the base purpose of continuing the species. Homosexuals know this, and that is why they are so keen on clouding the waters. Homosexuality is illogical and irrational from the outset and is tied to the complexities of human emotion. Truth can only be known by setting oneself apart from the proposition and asking if A would still hold true under B conditions.

As far as I am concerned, homosexuality fails the acid test of logic. Thus, homophobia thus = the irrational fear of the irrational. --68.45.161.241 19:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Gays and lesbians and STDs

Specifically, some translations of the Old Testament have been used to argue that gay men should be punished with death, and AIDS has been portrayed by some such as Fred Phelps as a punishment by God against gay men and lesbians. However, as of 2005 according to the United Nations more heterosexuals are contracting AIDS compared to lesbians and gay men on a global scale.

This HIV/STDs argument is so common but I'm surprised how uncommon it is for people to point out the obvious flaw in it. Lesbians AFAIK are in fact at much lower relative risk of contracting HIV and other STDs then heterosexual women. The logical conclusion based on the reasoning used by people such as Fred Phelps, is that women should all become homosexual and refrain from heterosexual intercourse. I'm sure there must be someone else that suggested this, surely it merits inclusions? 01:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Overhauling this article

This article is so confused! It looks like it's been a batteground between those "for" and those "against" homosexuality. I'd rather see a dispassionate account of the intersection between various religions and homosexualities. I've already started to rework the article, so I'm just putting a note here to let other editors know of my intentions. I want to keep the article on topic, so I'd like to remove or rework content like "Attacks based on stereotypes linking homosexuality to other behaviors" — where's the link to religion there? Much of the content here actually belongs on other articles.

I've also been starting to redress the imbalance of content toward Christianity and the USA, which of course is widespread on wikipedia, but particularly so on this topic, being such a political hot potato over the last few decades. That's all for now. :) I hope others who want to collaborate in a friendly way would like to join in tightening and cleaning up this article to the point where we can remove the tags. ntennis 10:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism: "disdain towards sexual activity and a distrust of sensual enjoyment"

The Buddhism section begins with the line "Buddhism has been described as having a general disdain towards sexual activity and a distrust of sensual enjoyment." User:Haiduc commented on my talk page that this is an unfair generalisation, and suggested the wording "Buddhism has been described as having a more or less guarded attitude towards sexual activity and sensual enjoyment, depending on the school."

I added a reference for the disdain/distrust comment for now, but obviously it is only the view of one author (Peter jackson), and should be interrogated. However, in defence of Peter Jackson, here's some notes about Buddhist teachings and sex:

The Buddha is said to have admonished his followers to avoid unchastity “as if it were a pit of burning cinders." (Hammalawa Saddhatissa, Buddhist Ethics: The Path to Nirvana. (London: Wisdom, 1987), p. 88)

A core teaching of Buddha's foundational first sermon is that "one should not pursue sensual pleasure (kama-sukha), which is low, vulgar, coarse, ignoble and unbeneficial." (Samyutta Nikaya V:420, Sutta Pitaka). This is reinforced in many passages of the Sutta Pitaka, such as the Simile of the Quail (Sutta 66 of the Majjhima Nikaya) where Buddha teaches that sensual pleasures are "filthy, coarse, and ignoble" and "should not be pursued, developed, or cultivated; they should be feared." In the Simile of the Snake (Sutta 22 of the Majjhima Nikaya), Buddha strongly rebukes those who say that sexual practice is not an obstacle to Enlightenment: "Misguided man... I have stated [time and again] how sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering, and much despair, and how great is the danger in them. But you, misguided man [have] injured yourself and stored up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time."

In addition, the second of the Four Noble Truths states that the ultimate cause of all suffering is attachment and desire (tanha), and the third states that the way to eliminate suffering is to eliminate attachment and desire. Sexual practices are characterised as both attachment (kama-upadana) and desire (kama-tanha). Sensual desire (kama-cchanda) is also the first of the Five Hindrances, which must be eradicated if one is to progress spiritually. Of the three kinds of cchanda, kama-cchanda is the one that is ethically immoral.^ref

Sexual desire is repeatedly described as kilesa, defilement of the mind, and sexual misconduct is one of the five precepts at the core of Buddhist ethics.

ntennis 04:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. But these are the teachings and interpretations of one particular school, following one particular "turning of the wheel of dharma". I would have no problem with the wording if instead of "Buddhism" you would specify that "such and such Buddhist school" held that view. (Is it a Thai school?) But the tradition is quite a bit more varied. And since this discussion probably belongs in the article on Buddhism and homosexuality, here it may be better to use more general statements. In my message to you I mentioned that while some hinayana schools may well take a path of purification and see sexuality as impure, mahayana schools may be neutral or positive towards it, and varjrayana schools may actaully employ sexual techniques to energize practice and consciousness so here I suggest we find a less restrictive formulation. Haiduc 10:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that Buddhist traditions are diverse. However, Jackson is talking about Buddhism in general, although his expertise is in Thai Buddhism. The examples above are not the teachings of 'one particular school' — they are from the core teachings of Buddhism, which form the foundations of all subsequent Buddhist schools. I disagree that a distrust toward sexual desire is unique to a few 'hinayana' schools such as Thai/Theravada Buddhism. Sociologist Marie-Eve Blanc recently wrote that "Mahayana Buddhism (as in China and Vietnam) is less tolerant [toward homosexuality] than Theravada Buddhism (Thailand)." (emphasis mine). (Blanc, Marie-Eve (2005). Social construction of male homosexualities in Vietnam. Some keys to understanding discrimination and implications for HIV prevention strategy. International Social Science Journal 57 (186), 591-595.)

Tibetan Buddhism, one of the main contemporary vehicles for vajrayana Buddhism, clearly sees sexuality as an obstacle to spiritual progress, especially sex for pleasure, outside of marriage or for reasons other than procreation. Even the Dalai Lama sees homosexuality as sexual misconduct, despite pressure from the west — the references are in this article. So if the dominant Buddhisms of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, China, Vietnam, Tibet, Bhutan, Nepal etc. follow these teachings, I would suggest that those that don't can be understood as "exceptions", and don't deserve equal weight in a summary such as in this article. -ntennis 12:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As I'm involved in editing articles in the field of Buddhism, I think I should pre-empt any possible confusion by pointing out that the person of my name referred to in this section is not me. Peter jackson 16:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Abrahamic religion, quotes

Having all three of those quotes makes the page look crazy. I suggest having the Leviticus quote under the main Abrahamic heading, a shorter version of 1 Corinthians under Christianity, something from the Koran under Islam, and something from the Talmud (is there anything?) under Judaism. Having all those quotes together is just overkill--in particular there's no reason for two quotes from Leviticus saying essentially the same thing. DanB DanD 23:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There's quotes from the Qur'an linked in the article: 7:80-81, 26:165 — I like the one about gay men being 'extravagant people' :P

Here's a quote from one website about homosexuality in the Talmud: "Lesbianism is never mentioned in the Torah. One talmudic passage refers to homosexual acts between women: “R. Huna taught, Women who have sex one with the other are forbidden to marry a Kohen (priest).” The halakhah rejects Rav Huna’s opinion and allows a lesbian to marry a Kohen. However, Maimonides ruled that lesbianism is still prohibited and should be punished by flagellation. The prohibition is not as stringent as that against male homosexuality because the Torah does not explicitly prohibit lesbianism, and because lesbianism does not involve the spilling of seed."

ntennis 01:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonbelievers

The use of the word nonbelievers in the atheists, agnostics and secularists part seems a POV to me but I can't think of a better word. I would say atheists but that wouldn't apply to agnostics or secularists. Does anyone know of a better word for it? Mighty Draco 01:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It may seem POV to you, but it is normal, standard English usage. Even non-believers :-) often use it, since that is just what the language calls them.  Sean Lotz  talk  07:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To me, it seems to imply that being a believer is the standard and if you aren't then you are a non-believer. I wouldn't refer to athiests as non-believers for the same reason I wouldn't refer to Europeans as non-Americans.Mighty Draco 23:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"To me" it seems to imply.... Oh, but who cares? It's the language itself that governs the discussion, not how things seem "to me." The term non-believer is just standard English usage.

Question: Why do you use the word atheist? Since a theist is a person who believes in (a) god(s), and an atheist is a person who doesn't, it seem that the word itself indicates that believing in a god or gods is the standard, and a person who does not is non-standard.

But guess what? That's the fact. Considering the human race as a whole, certainly historically but even at the present time, being a non-believer is indeed non-standard. In just about all cultures I know of (actually, all of the ones I know of, but I'm hedging here, just in case), atheism is a deviation from the historical and universal standard. It is non-standard. That is not a moral judgment but simply a statement of fact. And, again, simply a statement of how normal, standard English works.

Now, about "non-Americans." There certainly are times when it makes sense to refer to Europeans as "non-Americans." Americans do not need a visa to live in Idaho for three years, but non-Americans (including Spaniards and Germans) do. There was a time when it would have made some sense to refer to Americans as "non-Europeans." Nowadays, that would probably be silly, except in a similar discussion about visas or whatnot, but it would have made sense at one time, since most people of European language and culture were actual Europeans. A few were Americans, non-Europeans. But that's a digression, really.

Full discolosure: I am a Christian priest, but I'm not arguing with you from that perspective. I'm also a lover of English and of precise, useful language. I know myself well enough to know that I would make the same argument were I an atheist. In fact, I make the same sort of argument at many times where it would be to my advantage just to shut up.

 Sean Lotz  talk  23:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point on the non-American thing, but non-belieber isn't an accurate term to collectively refer to athiests agnostics and secularists. For one, non-believer simply means that one does not believe in an idea. It's often applied to one who doesn't believe in "God" or "the gods." Another problem is that even when you use it to refer to someone that does not believe in "God" it doesn't really apply to secularists or agnostics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mighty Draco (talk • contribs) 07:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

"Welcoming Congregation" restructuring

Please see my comment on reorganization of the "Welcoming Congregation" topic (replying there). Thanks! --Haruo 06:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Anybody else want to revert irrelevant addition?

I reverted this once already, and don't want to engage in a revert war: Edit by Inthebeginning. It is irrelevant in the present article. It contains several logical errors. It certainly does not feel NPOV. Even if factually correct, it is out of place, illogical, and irrelevant.

If nobody else does, I will revert again eventually.  Sean Lotz  talk  00:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop the Censorship

The scope of the LGBT project includes the cultural impact of same-sex relationships. My contribution is factual and relevant to the LGBT scope. Your censorship shows a biased point of view. Let the readers decide if they want to accept the facts. Inthebeginning 13:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Before I take time to reply, Inthebeginning, I removed my distinctive signature which you seem to have appended by accident to your comment. No time for more reply now. Later, I, or perhaps somebody else, will try to explain why your addition is not pertinent in the context of this article. And maybe I'll (or somebody else'll) take a stab at your logical falacy. But later, not now.  Sean Lotz  talk  00:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you fully understand my addition. If you did then you would see why it fits completely within this article. Perhaps you should read the footnotes and consider it for a while. Inthebeginning 13:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, again, Inthebeginning. First, may I request that you please follow normal Wikipedia procedure and sign your comments by putting four tildes (~~~~) after them. That way it is easier to know who said what, and people can go to your user page or talk page to find out more about you or engage you in conversation. It's easy to forget, I know, but is important.

I am going to keep reverting your additions. And you are going to keep accusing me and anybody else who does so of bias and censorship. Yes, I am biased. I am biased toward relevance, accuracy, and making Wikipedia a good resource.

Your comments would be pertinent in the article about homosexual marriage. Silly twaddle, but pertinent. Here, they are irrelevant. Throwing one sentence in about religion does not make them relevant. The article is about the stances of the world religions toward homosexuality. Whether a society which allows homosexual marriage will disappear off the face of the earth is not pertient to that topic. No more pertinent would it be to say how stupid drag queens look in a gay pride parade. It could be a valid opinion; it might even be objectively true; but it is not relevant.

I am going to keep reverting your comments. I guess we have tried discussion; that is the first step, but it has not worked. If you want me to stop, please take it up first, informally, with the Mediation Cabal and then, if that does not work, formally with Mediation. If either group, functioning in their accustomed way, find my reverts to be uncalled for censorship, I will gladly stop. If you don't make the request, I will eventually. But you are the one who seems to have the emotion invested in this, so I will let you be the one to state your case first, if you like.

I could say things like: Supposition has no place in an encyclopedia; logical falacies have no place. But none of that is really relevant here. Even if your logic were incontrovertible and you coinfined yourself only to facts, not predictions of the future, your comments would still be irrelevant in this article. With the logic cleaned up and the predictions taken out, they might be non-silly-twaddle, relevant additions to the Same-sex marriage article. (By the way, I refer you to that article. When I read it, it did a fine job of dealing with the issue from all sides, with lots of pertinent facts. Of course, this is Wikipedia, so things change.)

 Sean Lotz  talk  00:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that you do not understand the material and have made no effort to understand it either. I suppose you think that information in the Statistical Abstract of America and Scientific American is supposition. The link between religion and homosexuality is obvious to the unbiased reader. My emotional investment is nothing other than an interest in spreading the truth. It is clear that your twaddle is the result of an emotional investment in the subject. I will keep reversing your uninformed censorship for now and see if there are any substantive arguments against mine before referring the discussion to the mediation cabal. Thanks for the stylistic advise. Inthebeginning 13:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am relatively new to entering information on Wikipedia. I am not sure if I found the original article on Same-sex marriage that is referred to. When going back to the original thread, several statments showed that homosexuality was tolerated in some societies, but not widely accepted. The references to the Scientific American appear to be valid, even if they are not explained fully. Also predictions based on past history are not totally invalid. The fact that some people are willing to accept actions that have historically had bad effects does not negate the bad effects. Captain twotoo 14:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Coming in as an outside viewer (I saw the request at the Mediation Cabal and got curious), I looked at the paragraph that has been inserted repeatedly; it would appear to fall under the no original research policy, as the author is presenting original analysis based on the references. This site is not meant to provide original research or analysis of outside sources; it is meant to provide links to that research as reported in verifiable reliable sources. The paragraph being inserted (into the lead, where it looks quite out of place to me, by the way) doesn't appear to meet those guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A mediator arrives

Hi everybody! I'm one of the cabalists that just took the case for mediation. I am glad to see that so far this dispute has been rather civil (compared to most revert wars) and I hope we can proceed with that in mind. I'm still only scratching the surface here, but from what I can gather, there is a contested pararaph that Inthebeginning has added and continues to revert to. I have read the paragraph, although I have not checked out the sources yet, and it seems to follow the rules in that it properly cites material. I suppose the real question here is the relevance of that paragraph pertaining to the article, and whether or not the points raised in that paragraph qualify as original research or analysis. User:Tony Fox raised some interesting points concerning that, but, in the interests of remaining impartial, I don't want to take sides here. So instead, I would like to hear from the involved parties. Inthebeginning, are you sure that this article is the right place for your paragraph? Certainly, that paragraph is relevant elsewhere and belongs under the 'criticisms' section of the 'homosexual marraige' article or perhaps in an article all its own, if you can prove that a credible researcher or notable person has drawn the same conclusions. And Queezbo, if you can't accept the paragraph as being relevant, are you sure you wouldn't rather construct a solid philosophical argument instead of simply reverting his edits? for example, the idea that homosexual marraige would inevitably lead to the destruction of society could be counterbalanced by other factors, such as technological advances (e.g. Brave New World) or a concept of societal responsibility which transcends sexual preference (sexually reproducing anyway regardless of orientation). Or, you could argue that the world faces a terrible overpopulation problem as it is, so homosexual marraige is a logical solution to a major problem. These are some rather ridiculous options, I know, but perhaps you should meet each other on your respective terms, rather than reverting constantly. I wish Wikipedia was a place where people could agree to disagree, but sadly this is not the case. Our goal here is to create a good article that does not include bias or irrelevant information. Please contact me and let me know what you think. Also, we should move the discussion of this particular dispute to this page to avoid cluttering the article's talk page. Antimatter 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fertility rates below replacement

We have in eastern europe (Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, ...) the lowest Fertility rates in whole Europe. And this part of Europe has until now no recognition of homosexual couples. But we have in northern/western/southwest Europe the legal recognition of homosexual couples.GLGerman 09:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why I reverted CC80's revert

The paragraph CC80 reverted out refers to current aceptance of homosexuals by some modern Christians. I admit the paragraph is not particularly elegantly written, and the material is touched upon in the section "Abrahamic religions," but it is factual and necessary for understanding the current situation (as it is, not as some might wish it to be), and it needs to be mentioned in the Christianity section itself.  Sean Lotz  talk  09:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Community ban of the Joan of Arc vandal

This article has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal. This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person.

A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned. This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts. Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. Durova^Charge! 17:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Neo-pagans do NOT accept homosexuality

I think I must correct you people in this article's mention of neo-pagan religions. As a person coming from the germanic traditions (Ásatrú) I think I can speak with some authority on the subject. Homosexuality, in my tradition, is regarded with extreme and utter shame and umanliness. I therefore particularly strongly react against this sentence in the article: "Neo-Pagan religions are almost unanimous in their acceptance of same-sex relationships as equal to heterosexual ones." Not true! Most neo-pagan religions (who follow historical traditions) explicitly condemn or stigmatise homosexual behaviour. However, I acknowledge the fact that Wiccans may accept homosexuality, but Wicca should never be mixed with other neo-pagan religions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.67.252 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Anonymous. Thanks for your comments, which are quite pertinent. May I suggest that you be bold and edit the section. I would not want to be the one to do the editing, since I know so little about the subject, and therefore would not want my name attached to the edit in the article's history. But if you know something about it, go ahead and fix it. But if you don't, I probably will eventually. Oh, and may I suggest you sign up for an account? It seems you have done a number of edits anonymously (related subjects, so I assume they are all you). Having an account makes it easier for all of us here to enter into conversation about what we are doing. And it is so much nicer knowing that there is a real person at the other end.

 Sean Lotz  talk  21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "Atheists" section

I'm not at all happy, in principle, with the removal of this section. I'm not going to revert, because the section as it stood was not very good. But in the larger picture of the subject, some sort of discussion of atheism would be appropriate. Atheism is a religious belief (yeah, it is), and if there is any sort of regular (even if not absolute and always) difference between atheist and theist approaches to homosexuality, there should be a mention for completeness. But I'm not sure how to approach it, and I didn't like what was there before, so I just toss it out for discussion. Please discuss.  Sean Lotz  talk  21:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the page needs a easy display table

I don't have the skill to do it, however i think a table displaying all the religions and whether they accepted/practiced/ignored homosexuality would be beneficial.

religions could form the vertical column, while horizontally things like accepted/practiced/ignored were listed, and underneath, they could be checked in accordance to the religions.

What do you think? could some one implement this? thanks

Bias

This page is heavily biased, and accepts certain opinions as set in stone. If it were up to me, I would have the neutrality of this page in dispute. It is not a fact that the translations necessarily favor liberal interperatation.

Adam

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.225.8.41 (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC).