Talk:Temple of Priapus

LGBT categories

The LGBT-related categories were removed without explanation. The membership of the church is overwhelmingly LGBT. (It may even be 100% LGBT, but I'm not sure about the latest statistics. Early on in its first decade of existence, it was 100% LGBT.) I find it hard to justify saying that this is not an LGBT-related organisation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

hmm... while I do not doubt that most of the congregants are gay, religious beliefs involving worship of penis does not necessarily = LGBT. What about lesbians? (who would not want to worship penis)... or heterosexual women who might want to worship penis. i dunno............ Outsider80 (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes; I think however that the designation is not because they worship the penis. It's more based on the fact that the membership is overwhelmingly LGBT—OK, overwhelmingly gay males—they cater their events towards gay male congregants and the organisation has been mentioned most primarily in LGBT-related media. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

links relevant to St.Priapus Church

St.Priapus Church no longer exists as St.Priapus Church but has been renamed and evolved into the Temple of Priapus and is currently administered by D.Francis Cassidy at the same exact address in Montreal as used by the St.Priapus Church.

The link that I had added for the Temple of Priapus is the current working link relevant to the religious group formerly entitled St.Priapus Church. Thoroughly reviewing the website link that I had added for the Temple of Priapus you could see and verify that D.F. Cassidy is the head of the religious group and still located at the same exact address of what was formerly known as the St.Priapus Church.

The former St.Priapus Church which is now the Temple of Priapus considers as a major aspect of worship that human semen is sacred and the additional related links on the history of semen as sacred and semen as Eucharist are therefore both very much relevant to the the St.Priapus Church article as related links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Priapus_Church&oldid=280847591

The links are at least partially self-validating as relevant to the St.Priapus article in addition to my clarification as to the relevance of the links.

Please clarify in some more detail,if possible, as to why you (Good Ol’factory) think the links I added are completely irrelevant to the St.Priapus Church article and / or why you dismissed them as 'irrelevant spam' in your edit history. 20:38, 31 March 2009 remove spam--these are nothing to do with church) Egulie (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

We need references. See WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested quote to verify

The following quote from the text was tagged with a request for a source quote to verify: "The church, which is named after the Greek god Priapus, teaches that the phallus is the source of life, beauty, joy, and pleasure." The quoted source says:

... [The church] has reemerged among people, primarily gay men, who acknowledge the power and beauty of the phallus and see it as a source of great joy and pleasure whose power and beauty can destroy evil. As the source of life, beauty, joy, and pleasure, it is worthy to be worshipped and is a path to spiritual enlightenment.

— Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Function of the vagina

Good Ol'factory, do you think that it's a fringe view, or something Wikipedia must be careful to put in the church's hands only, the view that a main function of the vagina is to get the penis to shoot semen?

The Wikipedia article on Vagina says "As the elastic walls of the vagina stretch or contract, with support from the pelvic muscles, to wrap around the inserted penis (or other object), this stimulates the penis and helps to cause the male to experience orgasm and ejaculation, which in turn enables fertilization." deisenbe (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the vagina. I would couch the statement as a view of the church, since the article's about it and not the relationship between vagina and penis in general. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not either, but based on the Wikipedia article on Vagina, I'm removing this from the category of "church belief." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deisenbe (talk • contribs)

You have written the sentence as, "Since a main function of a woman's vagina to enable a man to eject his semen, it is an instrument of worship." Not all people regard this statement to be factual or true—it is a statement of the church's teaching or belief, not an open-ended statement for which there is no disagreement. Thus, I have changed to to "Since a main function of a woman's vagina to enable a man to eject his semen, it is regarded by the church as an instrument of worship." Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a good compromise. deisenbe (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I wasn't sure, because I thought it was OK but the change was reverted when I made it the first time. I think that as it stands now was essentially what I was trying to do the first time, I just misplaced the "regarded by the church" clause at the beginning of the sentence. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. An anon user has removed the sentence as "misogynistic". This is kind of what I was afraid of—when the entire sentence is not couched in terms of what the church believes, it can come across as an offensive statement of fact. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

srsly

Based on what I read at the HuffPo, this seems to be some kind of a troll. Do the scholarly sources treat this as something serious? The "parishioner" quote is telling: "[Cassidy] does this thing in front of the altar with the candles and the incense, and then we stand there naked and we're praying for whatever," he said in the film. "And then after, we just do whatever we feel like doing." It seems that there is not so much religion here as a social sex club with a few neopagan trappings. I was also unable to suspend my disbelief as I read the "official website" from Wordpress... they clearly do not take themselves seriously, so I am not sure Wikipedia needs to do so, either. 2600:8800:1880:927:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Categories

Oh yeah, and categories here are extremely tenuous, given the lack of support from WP:RS. Let's recall WP:CATV requires us to back up category application with something verifiable. The HuffPo in itself is not enough to justify anything like gay, LGBT, neopagan, or even a "new religious movement" - as I say, calling this "religion" is stretching the borders of believability. 2600:8800:1880:927:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)