Talk:Christianity and homosexuality/Archive 1

Decrowding
Right now this article is really crowded, because this is such a complex and hotly contested issue. Maybe it would be better if we made this an overview page that linked to other pages with more specific content. Something like:

1 Overview
 * Very brief acknowledgement of issues relating Christianity and homosexuality (ie. whether it is sin, what the Bible says, whether gays should receive communion, whether gays can be ordained, whether gays deserve non-discrimination legislation, etc.)

2 Is Homosexuality a Sin?
 * Paragraph summary
 * 2.1 Biblical Justification
 * ''Brief summary with link to Homosexuality and the Bible
 * 2.2 Denominational Views
 * Paragraph summary with links to Catholic views of homosexuality, Baptist views of homosexuality, etc. where appropriate or maybe even just Christian denominational views of homosexuality

3 Historical Treatment of Gays
 * Paragraph
 * 3.1 Persecution
 * Paragraph summary, possible link
 * 3.2 Acceptance (ie. Boswell)
 * Brief Summary, link
 * 3.3 Reformational Ministry
 * Paragraph Summary with link

4 Non-discrimination laws Paragraph Summary
 * 4.1 Argument for
 * Brief
 * 4.2 Argument against
 * Brief

5 Something else etc, etc, etc...

It might be good to agree on a structure first and then rework this article, keeping in mind that topics which warrant lengthier discussion can branch into new articles. What do people think? -- Queerudite 03:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea to me! --Angr 08:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Homosexuality and the Bible is that forming that page might be a bad idea. If we're talking explicitly about Christian views on homosexuality, then we need to keep in mind that the Jewish conception of Homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible is worlds away from the Christian conception of Homosexuality in the New Testament.

Also, this page itself is about Christian denominational views of homosexuality, so why create a new page for it? That bulk is why this page is here in the first place!

Just some thoughts... Drostie 04:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Older issues
In the German Wikipedia there is an article about Homosexuality in the New Testament. Wouldn't that be a case for the English Wikipedia, too? Anybody speaking German? (I'd help translating if necessary.) --Amys 01:02, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bible Passages: -
 * Lev 18:22 - Homosexual act is an abomination
 * Lev 20:13 - Considered detestable and punishable by death
 * Rom 1:25 - Is a result of giving up Gods truth for lies
 * 1 Cor 6:9 - Practicing Homosexuals will not be in Gods kingdom

Ok, the page as I see it currently has three sections:

First, a basic treatment of the basic facts, expressed in good NPOV terms: the traditional opproprium, a bit about Boswell's position that it ain't so traditional, and then the fact that there has been significant dissent in more recent years.

Then comes a big giant section which is mostly presenting both sides of the argument, with the usual problem that most of the authors are trying to present the other side of an argument on which they hold strong opinions. There is an attempt here to be NPOV, but it fails here and there as a result.

And finally, a nice section which tries to describe where various Christian denominations lie on the question. I just fixed up here the Anglican section, since that's what I know most about.

It seems to me that some refactoring is in order.

The first section should stay. It's good. The second section should be moved to two separate entries, so that each "side" can be presented more or less on its own. I think this would increase the total NPOV of the whole thing. Alternatively, it might be best to simply drop the entire inter-necine argument. The third section is mostly ok, but has problems. (One is that it focuses only on official statements from church judicatories and it could usefully also discuss the diversity within each denomination too.) That itself suggests that the third section should be made into a set of entries (Anglican views of homosexuality, Methodist voh, Presbyterian voh, etc., etc.) Each such page then has room to discuss the official position, the current politics, could provide external links to activist organizations on each side, and so forth.

A serious failing with the page as it stands is the language used for each side. "Traditionalist" and "Liberal", or "Modernist" are very poor terms. I don't know what the right terms are, but these are loaded, and the use of them itself already makes that whole section very non-NPOV.

--Tb 03:42 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree that a restructuring as you suggest would be good. Have each position presented separately and answering counter views. There are more than two sides, with choice and celibacy as factors. Presenting it this way may enable the labels "Traditionalist" and "Liberal", or "Modernist" to be avoided. I could write more about positions within the Uniting Church in Australia. The Assembly vote on homosexuality will be this week.

Pwd 04:11 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

-

"Much of the debate stems from the question of how a person acquires homosexual desires. Popular articles on studies of identical twins raised separately tended to claim that a genetic component was proven. However, the Bailey-Pillard study was not based on a random sample, but a biased sample, as the twins who volunteered were solicited through advertisements in homosexual newspapers and magazines as opposed to general periodicals. Therefore, the subjects were more likely to resemble each other than nonhomosexual twins. Dr. Simon LeVay stated, ?In fact, the twin studies . . . suggest that it?s not totally inborn [homosexuality], because even identical twins are not always of the same sexual orientation.? Dr. Bailey himself stated, ?There must be something in the environment to yield the discordant twins.?

Anyway, all of that is irrelevant because Christian doctrine is not formed by reading scientific doctrine but is generally a matter of traditional faith."


 * - Not bad but probably belongs on a page other than Christian views of homosexuality

Notice LeVay's deliberate evasion: "...that's it's not totally inborn..." Not one of the twin studies even claimed that. The most rigorous one (which did NOT have the self-selection problem of B-P study which he conveniently singles out, as if to suggest that all such studies are flawed) made the correlation at 50%. Read that again: 50%. An identical twin raised in a completely separate environment from his brother, has a 50% chance of being gay if his brother is gay. Compare that to a base rate in the population of about 5%, and you'll see that it's quite extraordiary, and to ignore it is totally dishonest. There is a genetic component. Of course it's not 100%, because no possible genetic predisposition could ever predict a behvior 100%--that would be tantamount to genetic determinism, which has also been so thoroughly debunked that no sane person takes it seriously.


 * I don't think LeVay, who is the author of the study and says he is gay, was being evasive or deceptive. My choice of that quotation might be motivated by bias, I concede, but LeVay is a scientist and was (I believ) adopting a NPOV tone, as befits one researching a murky area of scientific research. Perhaps he was responding to media misinterpretation of his work. Newsweek did a front page "Gay Gene" article, which they quietly retracted in a later year. There is much debate over how to interpret LeVay and other researchers' work. Also, if there is a twin study with no self-selection bias, that's news to me. I'd love to hear more about it, because despite my religious views I really want to know the science of the matter. --Ed Poor

At any rate, I think it is somewhat relevant to this article, because many rank-and-file Christians do think that a genetic basis undermines he purely moral argument, and many churches do quote it as their basis for coming to a more tolerant position than that of more fundamentalist churches. --LDC


 * I think we should make a page on "Homosexuality: Causal theories", put this text there, and link to it from Christian views of homosexuality.


 * I suggest we link it to Causes of sexual orientation as this page already exists. Plus, it's more NPOV to assume that both heterosexuality and homosexuality have causes, rather than assuming one by default.

I removed the following opening paragraph from the article--this kind of admonition to the other Wikipedians doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article:

Let's try to keep this page on topic. The dominant Christian view is that homosexuality is a sin. The revisionist view that it's not a sin has gained in popularity, but that should go in a debate page.

"The Roman Catholic Church has clearly stated that homosexual behavior is a sin, not homosexuality itself. Other prominent figures in the Christian Church, such as the Episcopalian bishop [John Spong]?, have argued extensively against this position."

-- could be understood as meaning that Spong thinks homosexuality itself is a sin!

Why is it so important to put in the 'conservative' label? I think it's more likely to mislead than to inform, as Wiki has no definition of conservative Christianity. The word 'traditional' means that it was mainstream until recently. Conservative no longer is synonymous with traditional, is it? --Ed Poor


 * Well, if you are concerned that Wiki has no definition of conservative Christianity, then the solution is to add an article on it, not to remove the word 'conservative' from the article. It is important to put in the 'conservative' label here because it is important to highlight that not all of modern Christianity holds this view--rather, only certain brands,  which by and large are considered theologically conservative.

Maybe "conservative" is not the best label. Can you propose a better one? Certainly it is more prevalent among some subcultures of Christianity than it is among others. Some denominations ordain gay ministers, for example. That's the fact I'm trying to make clear. --Dmerrill


 * Perhaps you are right that conservative is not the best label, but theological conservatism is a fairly commonly used concept. Whether it is accurate or not is another question.  It is worth noting that some denominations have both conservative and liberal elements.  Bishop Spong, for example, is an Episcopalean, but not all Episcopaleans agree with him.

I'm not sure separating traditional from modern views is useful. It prevents accurate expression of the *range* of viewpoints. It's not just TRADITIONAL vs MODERN. --Dmerrill


 * Quite right. The initial bifurcation was (I think) my idea, making the article neutral by highlighting some of the contrast. No doubt the many disparate views deserve attention. I'd like to see more varieties of Christian thought expressed. Do they fall along a continuum or spectrum, or what? (I'm reaching finding out just how little I know, here.) --Ed Poor

I removed the following comments on John Spong because they are irrelevant: "His views are not well accepted among most other Christians, because Bishop Spong also denies that Jesus was really the messiah, or part of the Trinity. Thus most Christians hold him to be a non-Christian monotheist." The point of bringing Spong up in the first place is to simply identify that many prominent Christians do not agree with the Catholic teaching on the subject, not to initiate a discussion on Spong per se. Debates regarding Spong belong in an article on Spong, not here.
 * Although I know nothing about Spong, I think the comments you removed are very relevant. The relevant question is whether prominent Christians disagree with the Catholic teaching. Spong is listed as an example of such a person. However, if Spong disagrees with most Christians about most other Christian teachings as well, than he really is representative of very few Christians, and his example does not serve to advance the point being made.
 * The point is that there is a diversity of opinion among Christians. If Spong is not a good example, then another example could be chosen.  It doesn't matter how many Christians agree or disagree with Spong or with the Catholic Church; this isn't a popularity contest, it is a debate.  The issue isn't what the majority of Christians believe, but rather that there is a difference of opinion among Christians.  It is completely irrelevant whether Spong is in agreement with most Christians.  However, I am willing to accept that there might be better examples to use than Spong.


 * Perhaps Bishop Spong may be said to represent the views of the Episcopal Church, or a new current within it Ed Poor


 * I know he doesn't represent all Episcopaleans, but he does represent the views of some of them. So the compromise you propose would be fine with me. --Egern

How can we work in the intense emotional pain felt by homosexual people, caught in the bind between a Christian Church that condemns in them the same thing that heterosexuals hold so dear? (You see, I'm a humanist as well as a traditional moralist.)

Another issue is the distinction (if any) between denoting something a "sin" and condemning a sinner. Jesus saved a condemned woman from being stoned to death, but told her, "Sin no more." Is it possible, as some Christians believe, to hate the sin and love the sinner? Is the gay world correct in equating disapproval of homosexuality with hate speech? It's a complex issue, but I'm confident wikipedians are competent to address it. --Ed Poor


 * Well, Ed, the Catholic church makes the simple point that heterosexuals are not allowed to have sex with anyone and everyone of the opposite sex - just one person. Chastity is enjoined on all, single or married;  married chastity happens to include marital sex.  Single heterosexual and homosexual chastity would mean no sex, not even with yourself.  There is no guaruntee of sexual fulfillment for everyone all the time - no double-standard there.  See celibacy. --MichaelTinkler


 * To repeat Michael's completely correct statement another way, Catholics may have sex only with their spouses. If you don't have a spouse, you can't have sex.  Since someone of the same sex cannot be your spouse, you can never have sex with someone of the same sex.  It is simply not true that the "Church ... condemns in them the same thing that heterosexuals hold so dear."  Sex outside of marriage is condemned regardless of your preference in partners. --the Epopt


 * But that is a rather disingenuous formulation of the issue, since the church only defines marriage as being available to heterosexuals. Church teaching does allow heterosexuals to have an outlet for their sexuality and romantic desires.  Yes, there are rules that they put in place that determine exactly how that sexuality can be expressed (namely throuth marriage), but some form of expression of heterosexuality is allowed nonetheless.  But the church does not permit any outlet for homosexuality.  So it is absolutely true that the "church condemns in them the same thing that heterosexuals hold so dear."  With one group of people, they allow an expression of sexuality through a defined set of parameters; with another group of people, they allow no expression of their sexuality whatsoever.  In other words, it is a double standard.


 * I am not a Catholic, but as I understand it there is a general position by the Church that the purpose of sexuality is procreation. (I'm not quite sure how infertile couples fit into that paradigm, but for fertile couples, if you have sex, you are expected to allow for the possibility that God will create life).  Jared Diamond refuted this position from an evolutionary point of view in one of his books ("The Third Chimpanzee", I think it was).  The hiding of estrus among human females and other factors leads to human sexuality fulfilling other roles besides procreation--in fact, one could argue that procreation is a secondary purpose of human sexuality, with bonding representing the primary purpose.  But hey, I digress.  -- Egern


 * No, you've hit the nail on the head. That was just the comment I was looking for. I think the issue of double standard is the key point. Those who call homosexuality a sin (behavior or feeling) must answer address the "double standard" issue. (I call homosexuality a sin, but I'll duck the issue for a couple of days; ca'nt do everything at once.) --Ed Poor

No, it is not a double standard. There is one standard that happens to include some types of behaviour and exclude others. You may as well say that condemning theft promulgates a double standard because it doesn't acknowledge the desires of thieves to acquire things by theft while acknowledging the desires of others to acquire things through honest trade or purchase. Yes, the Roman Catholic view of sexuality says that the couple needs to be open to the possibility of conception and having a child, and not actively try to avoid that, unless they avoid it by not having sex. (This could include periodic abstinence.) So infertile couples are fine, provided they aren't infertile because of a surgery or some other action whose purpose was to make them infertile. Homosexual behaviour has roughly a 0% chance of resulting in pregnancy, as well as being outside of marriage, so it happens to be excluded by that standard.


 * Sorry, but it is a double standard. The analogy with theft is nonsense because there is nothing inherently dishonest about homosexuality or inhererently honest about heterosexuality.  The difference between the two forms of sexuality is the object of the desire, not the deceptiveness or honesty in which the desire is fulfilled.  A better analogy would be to describe any scenario in which the church defined parameters for some universal human desire where the parameters necessarily excluded certain objects of that desire, even when some people can only truly satisfy this universal desire through those excluded objects.

The closest example I can come up with at short notice is to imagine some church saying that all people can fulfill their desire to eat dessert, but only if they eat desserts with nuts in them. And if some people are alergic to nuts, you can claim that there is no double standard there, since the standard is the same for everyone; but we all know that is ridiculous. If your standard excludes those who can't eat nuts but who can eat, for example, vanilla ice cream, then you are simply setting up the rules to allow some people to enjoy dessert but not others, no matter how honestly they might want to purchase that delicious dessert.

But of course, human sexuality is not some garden variety desire like eating dessert, but a fundamental one that relates deeply to human relationships and ultimately human happiness. The building of a sexual and romantic relationship is a central component of humanity. To deny something that fundamental to certain people but not to others is just plain cruelty, pure and simple. And to insist on using analogies with things like theft is disingenuous, because surely even the Catholic church knows honesty in the relationship has nothing to do with the difference between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, and to continue to use that kind of analogy is to suggest something that we all know isn't the case. -- Egern


 * After rereading this, I realize that the tone of what I wrote is probably a little harsh, and for that I apologize. It hit a hot button for me and I was a little angry when I wrote it, but the tone is probably inappropriate for this forum.


 * That's very understandable with this sort of topic. I didn't mean to suggest that homosexual behaviour is somehow dishonest, and I'm sorry if I did. The only point I was trying to make was that the Roman Catholic standard is internally consistent. The analogy you proposed, "the church defined parameters for some universal human desire where the parameters necessarily excluded certain objects of that desire", seems accurate enough, as far as it goes. Whether the standard is "fair" or appealing is an issue to consider separately from whether it is being applied haphazardly or hypocritically. --Wesley

I was unclear when I said, " . . . condemns in them the same thing that heterosexuals hold so dear." I was referring to the desire (some say need or right) of homosexual couples to enjoy romantic love and/or marriage. Although I regard homosexual behavior as sinful and homosexual "marriage" outrageous, I recognize that (a) I'm in thin company, and (b) much of the pain gays feel stems from their rejection by straight society. Hence their desire to gain acceptance in religion, law, housing, employment, and so on.

I propose we incorporate the issues I'm beginning to describe, into this article or wherever they belong.

--Ed Poor

Although your reasoning is generally good, the dessert parallel is an incorrect analogy. If I understand the previous post correctly, there is one standard: infertile sex should be avoided when possible. This is a biologically sound policy; infertile sex decreases the chances of a community for survival. Whether or not dessert is eaten with nuts is purely arbitrary. (If it were found that nuts increase life expectancy (sp?) the policy would no longer be arbitrary.) In our time, infertile sex will not hurt society. Actually, if the possibility of overpopulation in the near future is taken into account, infertile sex might be a good thing. In the end, it no longer really matters, so in purely biological terms the standard has become obsolete.

I have avoided any mention of "soul" or "love" or other such ideas, since they would require a much more developed post and my ideas (as any opinions are bound to) might push some buttons best left unpushed. --KamikazeArchon - "But where do they stand on flogging the Bishop?"

The Book of Leviticus also contains proscriptions against other practices such as eating shellfish, wearing cloth made of more than one material (e.g., wool/cotton blends), and planting more than one crop in a single field. How do Christians who base their belief about homosexuality being a sin on Leviticus explain their ignoring of these verses with their adherence to the ones on homosexuality, which are only one chapter away in some cases? --Dmerrill


 * Very good question. The easiest answer is that there are other clearer passages, such as Romans 1, as well as more general injunctions to be faithful to one's wife or husband, presumed to be of the opposite sex. As far as deciding how to interpret various passages in Leviticus, the Catholic and Orthodox hermeneutical method is to interpret them as the church fathers interpreted them, or as the church has always interpreted them. For them, the Bible is part of Holy Tradition, the central part of Holy Tradition, but must be interpreted in the context of the church's overall tradition. I don't know off-hand what the traditional interpretation of those particular passages is, or whether either Catholicism or Orthodoxy "bases" its views of homosexuality on Leviticus, but I hope that helps a little. I'll let someone else explain how Protestants approach this question. --Wesley

Given the active presence of Ed Poor here, why isn't there a section on the Moonies' (no insult intended, I can't remember the real name :>) view of this topic? I would've thought he'd be in a position to provide it :). P.S., can I say this is an absolutely excellent article and easily deserves to go on the entry that lists exceptional articles. --AW


 * Thanks for moving the Unificationist section down -- I wasn't sure where to put it. Maybe after Latter Day Saints is better? I was thinking of sorting churches into an anti-, neutral and pro-homosexuality spectrum -- if anyone thinks it's worth the trouble. --Ed Poor


 * Don't think it's worth it given the amount of churches there at the moment. Maybe when there's more and it's harder to keep track. Just MHO. --AW

--

I've added the United Church of Canada.

One thing we desperately need is more detail on Christian groups that explicitly affirm homosexuality, e.g. Metropolitan Community Church. - user:Montrealais

I've noticed no-one has mentioned John Boswell's fascinating study on the christian churches' attitudes towards homosexuality centuries ago, namely the existence in ancient prayer-books of explicit 'rites of same sex union' alongside heterosexual marital rites. Or even the tradition of homosexual church art, such as the painting in Mount Sinai of the gay marriage of saints Serge and Bacchus, with Christ as Pronubus or best man. I've added in a paragraph.

(removed a few pedantic quibbles [mine] about fixing grammar)


 * Maybe no one mentioned Boswell's advocacy before this, because there is no evidence that the "same-sex unions" he so earnestly sought in church history had any sexual aspect. See this rebuttal to Boswell. --Ed Poor


 * St. Catherine's on Mount Sinai contains a painting of two homsexual saints, Saints Serge and Bacchus marrying

The above is Boswell's conclusion, unless there is some evidence that the male saints were homosexual. I don't think the article should endorse Boswell's POV, without such evidence. --Ed Poor


 * Indeed. I don't know anything about Boswell, these particular saints, or the icon in question. I do know that the Orthodox marriage ceremony is deliberately very similar to the Orthodox ordination ceremony, since marriage is seen as a sort of ordination (as well as martyrdom), so it's possible that an icon showing two men being ordained (for example to the priesthood), or being tonsured and made monks for that matter, could be mistaken for a marriage icon. It's certainly not uncommon for multiple people to be ordained or tonsured during the same ceremony. Wesley 15:36 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)


 * Right. And I'm not calling for censorship of the article, or of the desperate hope of gay rights activists to "prove" that the church used to support gay marriage. Just that the article should clearly label advocacy and points of view as such. There's a world of difference between saying they actually were gay vs. Boswell asserts they were gay. --Ed Poor

Regarding this recently amended text:
 * Some critics of Boswell claim that the rites he refers to were actually rites of adelphopoiesis, literally Greek for brotherhood or "blood brothers". Such an explanation was used when referring to a medieval description of one such ceremony in Ireland. However Boswell's interpretation received the surprising endorsement of one respected conservative Church scholar during a media debate in the issue on the 1990s in Ireland, the scholar saying in his words "regrettably Boswell's scholarship far exceeded those who have criticised him." Other senior academics unconnected with the gay debate, indeed some hostile to homosexuality, also sided with Boswell's interpretation of church documents, and argued that his translation of a latin description of such a ceremony in Ireland was far more accurate than the nineteenth century 'Wright translation' up to that point regarded as definitive.

Based on what I've been able to read of this debate, it appears that there's no question that the rites were called adelphopoiesis. Boswell discusses this word in detail. What is in dispute is what exactly that rite meant or entailed. It's important to define the issue clearly. As for the latin ceremonies, it wouldn't hurt to give the latin name for the ceremony; if the name or the translation of the name is debatable, give both translations along with who the supporters of each translation are, and/or the arguments in favor of each translation. Also, if the article is to cite "one respected conservative Church scholar", it should go ahead and name the scholar. Basically, an encyclopedia article should try to stick with facts, and be careful about offering conclusions from those facts to remain NPOV. Wesley


 * Let's just say that some people like X think the images and text in question represent an official church endorsement of homosexuality, and that some other people think not. --Ed Poor


 * That's fine, where there are truly opposing viewpoints. But if both Boswell and critics agree on X, shouldn't the article avoid saying that only one side says X? That's what appears to be happening now with regard to the word adelphopoiesis, if I'm not mistaken. What the ceremonies were originally labeled ought to be a matter of historical fact; what they really signified can probably be debated, and it's worth presenting the debate. Wesley

So the Boswell text has now just been deleted from the article wholesale, without explanation and without the text appearing on the Talk page? soulpatch


 * Okay, never mind, I see that a new article was created out of much of that text. I didn't see any explanation that this was going on in this talk page, but now I realize what happened. soulpatch


 * It still belongs here. All that remains here is an (unexplained) link to "John Boswell", which no one has any reason to follow. The material is about homosexuality and Christianity, it's not about John Boswell. -- Someone else


 * I added an explanation. Is it better now? P.S. Please help fix the John Boswell article; it's only half done, and I'm short on time. --Ed Poor


 * I frankly don't know enough about John Boswell to help, and think that most of the material in that article belongs here. I would suggest moving it back: moving controversial items to obscure articles may be of some value when things are heated or edit wars are underway, but they should be moved back to the appropriate article when that is no longer the case. -- Someone else


 * You're right. Would you please fix it? I'm too short on time today to do it justice. --Ed Poor


 * I'll give it a shot. -- Someone else 19:12 Nov 22, 2002 (UTC)

-

Some of the previous comments about Spong in this article are either an irrelevant diversion from the subject at hand, or just plain wrong, so I made some changes to the text in that area. For example, he is not a "deist"; he probably comes closer to panentheism than to deism, if anything. soulpatch

We already have a Unification Church views of homosexuality page, does this really need to be here? Considering how the UC seems to center around Mr. Moon as the messiah, I'm not sure they belong in the "Christian views" page. Also, the Unitarians should probably have their own page. --Eloquence 14:25 Nov 22, 2002 (UTC)

Ah, but that page has only 28 words, of which only 15 have to do with homosexuality: "The Unification Church is against homosexuality. Heterosexual marriage is held to be the ideal state."

But I agree that the UC's stance on homosexuality need not be in 2 places. Which would you prefer: a whole separate article, or just quietly slip it in next to the Mormons?


 * Ed, I think it would be good to move the information that is currently here into the aforementioned separate article. We could link it from here with the remark that some other churches do not consider the UC a Christian church.--Eloquence

Or is the issue of "are they really Christian" the main problem? Perhaps we could say that the UC, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, considers itself Christian although some denominations dispute this. I've been planning an article on "Christian churches which at least one other denomination considers non-Christian" for quite some time, now ;-) --Ed Poor

Also, I have written the webmaster of religioustolerance.org, but he refused to correct his statement that "actively homosexual persons are not admitted into membership" of the UC. Although he's correct about their not being invited to hold leadership positions.

I have met 6 gay UC members: Member P dropped out; Member Q straightened himself out; Member R is celibate; two were indulging in gay sex: Member S, who not consummate his marriage, and Member T, who was committing adultery. There's also Member U, who has AIDS and (pending discovery of a cure) is thus ineligible for church-recognized marriage.

There's hardly any sin a person can commit that would get them disfellowshipped or prevent them from joining. "Condemn the sin, not the sinner." --Ed Poor

I read somewhere (I wish I could find it now) that the term "abomination" used in Levitcus was mistranslated and it should have been (literally) "ritualistically unclean." If that's true, then the Old Testament authors didn't think homosexuality was a big deal.

Bible says this "abomination" was punishable by death.

Removing the following line:

The Unification Church is not considered a Christian church by other churches because of its tenet that Sun Myung Moon is the Messiah; see Unification Church views of sexuality.

As the Unification Church is not regarded by anyone but itself as christian, its views do not belong at all on a page on the Christian views of homosexuality, but on a general religious page on the topic. JtdIrL 02:02 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)


 * However, the Unification Church does regard itself as Christian. Besides, the UC views are on a seperate page: all those two lines do is provide a link. Martin


 * Besides, not all bodies regard the UC as non-Christian. Jewish groups think it's Christian, and some Christian groups regard it as "Christian-but-heretical" or as a remote sect like Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. It's hard being a religous group that (a) regards the Bible as an authority, (b) teaches Bible stories in Sunday School, (c) regards Jesus as the son of God, etc. -- and yet be classified as non-Christian. --Uncle Ed 16:43 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

I've reverted. Any information people have on which groups do and do not recognise the UC as Christian could be usefully added to Unification Church. Ed - name your groups! :) Martin

Okay, I like the Beatles, the Beach Boys, and Simon & Garfunkel. I'm also partial to Sunburst, the Ancestors and Gandalf Murphy's Slambovian Circus Dreams. --Ed

The last section seems less valid than the rest of the article and therefor I have removed it from the page. If you have any further information that would validate this section plz add it. Otherwise, it is gone. nhishands4ever


 * Question- Does not the term "modern" connotate a forward thinking, thereby giving the term "traditional" a backward connotation? The point is that change is good, but how far can change go without becomming harmful? Some things were made to change. Others were not. Let me know what you think. nhishands4ever

Think For A Moment Please
Okay, Christians think that homosexuality is wrong. Okay, you have the freedom to think how you want, but don't blame the gay community. I myself are bisexual and no I'm not confused.Its just that I see everyone the seem, and I don't believe that you shoudl be with someone becuase of how they look. If you have a connection with someone, whether its the same sex or not, thats great. God wants us to love and to be happy, so if being with the same sex makes us happy whats the big deal. Plus, we didn't wake up one day and say "Oh I think I'm gay for now on." No one chooses who they do and do not like. So instead of being closed mind to what some crazy guys wroke thousands of years ago, open up and see that God made us the way we are for a reason. Thats what ya'll are supposed to believe. And one other thing. Ya'll believe in the bible cuase some guys long ago said God told them to write it, well say you were walking down the street and some nasty homeless guy came up to you, handed you a book, and said God told me to write this, please read it. Would you seriously in all truthfulness think that hes telling you the truth, or would you think that he was wierd. But for real we don't choose who we like so get off it. Besides the world is over populated.


 * Much furor has been raised over homosexuality recently. But from a Biblical perspective, it's just another sin and the homosexual another sinner.  I am sorry if this offends you but you see, I am a sinner just like you are a sinner.  Everyone is a sinner.  Everyone, you, me, Charles Manson, Adolph Hitler, and Mother Theresa.  Not one person person has earned their way into God's presence.


 * Having said that let's move on to your next point. You claim that the Bible was written by some nutcase who said he heard voices when nobody was around.  The historical and archaeological evidence just does not support that position.  People 3500 years ago were much like we are today.  They didn't believe a great many things unless you had proof for them.  This talk page is neither long enough, nor the proper place to discuss the historical accuracy of the Bible from the last half of Genesis on through the end of the book of Jude.  Suffice to say that my believe in God, the Divine inspiration of the Bible, and the inerrancy of Scripture is not because I bought my lobotomy at a two-for-one sale.  Rather say that Jesus instructs us that the most important commandment is to "...love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind..."  The historical evidence is out there and well documented.  The question is are you willing to review it objectively and change your life to match the facts? - David Original edit done in mid-late Feb '04.

infrequently-encountered views of Lv
This text is added to the article:
 * One infrequently-encountered interpretation of Leviticus is that only penetrative homosexual behavior is disallowed; non-penetrative sex is acceptable. "the Talmud understands the Torah’s interdiction in Leviticus 18 and 20 to be limited to male/male anal intercourse. Other male/male non-penetrative sexual practices, such as intercrural intercourse, are included in the category of masturbation&mdash;a category that is not condemned. To phrase the matter in contemporary language, the issue at stake in Leviticus and its later Talmudic interpretation is proper gender-role differentiation, not orientation or object choice. The text does not address the issue of homosexuality as that issue typically is framed in our conversations today" (Boyarin 337-39).[2] (http://www.wartburgseminary.edu/people/gwen/getty3.htm)

I wonder: How unusual is this view? The text of Lv (e.g. 20:13) states "If any one lie with a man as with a woman". Can anyone seriously imagine one of the children of Israel explaining, 'Ah, yes we were together, but it wasn't penetrative, not to worry; we were just rubbing around and stuff, not like what men and women do during coitus.' I have a pretty hard time seeing that argument as credible. Just a thought. Trc | [msg] 07:06, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC) My point may be seen more clearly in comparison with Lv 18:6-17, in which, over and over, the sexual act is euphemistically referred to as "uncover the nakedness of [so-and-so]". It would seem that it was not considered necessary to be overwhelmingly explicit about the physical details. Trc | [msg] 07:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The Talmud explicitly allows two men to sleep under one beadspread. You are completely right: it is nearly impossible to prove anal intercourse, because two male eye witnesses must testify to have observed the insertion of the penis in the anus. Therefore, not a single case is known in which the law has been applied. By the way, it's the same thing in Islam. --Amys 14:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * And it is even the same in old Christianity with only one difference: there, anal intercourse ("sodomy") had not to be proven by eye witnesses. Rather, the confession was extracted under torture. But you could not sentence someone to death without a proof of anal intercourse. --Amys 14:10, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I have reverted back to the "infrequent" view. This is definitely not a mainstream view and I am unaware of any Biblical text that supports it.  Particularly in view of Sodom, and Romans ch. 1, to name only two.  The phrase "...is an abomination" strikes me as a very specific warning that this is something to be avoided at all costs, therefore skirting the edge of something so abhorable would be like tap dancing along the rim of the Grand Canyon.  The Israelites were so careful about breaking the law that they built a figurative fence around it, the Talmud.  The business about two men under one blanket would no doubt be to legalize that for the conservation of warmth in the frigid desert nights, not to justify "dry humping". Respectfully - DavidR 15:52, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey, sorry that this is buried in here and isn't obvious. I'll add this to Wikipedia eventually. The condemnation as "an abomination," in Hebrew, is unclear about labeling something as cleanliness or moral sin. However, at the end of Lev 18, the author looks back at everything mentioned in Lev 18 and says, "Don't defile yourself with this," repeating the words "defile" and "abomination" side by side till they're blue in the face. Now, defile is a VERY clear word in terms of Old Testament law. Kind of like how English has "clean" (adj.) and "clean" (v.), Hebrew has "unclean" (adj.) and "unclean" (v.), and they are the exact same word except one is used as a verb, "to make unclean." This word is translated in English as "defile."


 * The upshot is that it must be a cleanliness law--if you take "abomination" to mean "moral sin," then all you've done is create a biblical contradiction when the Bible says "defile, defile, abomination, defile, abomination... ...". So it's clear that it's a cleanliness law.


 * Now, in Matthew, Jesus warns that what makes a man unclean isn't bizarre and tangential laws--it's what's inside their heart. This is why eating pork can be incorporated in Christian life. The question is: Look at what's inside the hearts of loving heterosexual couples, and what's inside the hearts of loving homosexual couples. Are they the same? If they are, then there is no real case against homosexuality from a Biblical perspective -- a Christian must instead fall back to creeds and traditions.


 * Do their hearts hold the same things? I think so. I think that any two homosexuals in a truly loving relationship are condoned by scripture. The last case that a non-acceptance Christian has against this is that fornication, which gets condemned a bit by Paul, is sex outside of marriage, and homosexuals are not married, so they must abstain from homosexual sex. But this is a dumb catch-22: We shouldn't marry homosexuals because homosexuality is immoral; homosexuality is immoral because homosexuals are not married.


 * --Drostie 05:34, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * And where to you get that "confession was extracted under torture" business? I don't find that anywhere in the Bible.  DavidR 16:10, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Have I said that? I've talked about the legal procedures in the Middle Ages, where torture was applied to get a confession that sodomy (anal intercourse) was performed. Besides, I don't agree with you at all. The sentence in the Talmud about two men sleeping under a blanket is an explicit comment about the Levitical law. The interpretation that only anal intercourse is prohibited was shared by Islam, Christianity and Judaism alike. So you are absolutely wrong when you are asserting that this is a minority view! I'm sorry, I will have to revert it back again, until you can provide any serious argument for your view. Compare, for example, Theo van der Meer about the Dutch persecution of Sodomites in the 18th century: "the courts [...] considered sodomy [...] only then when the act had been committed to full: namely penetration and ejaculation in the body of a partner. When a suspect confessed to anal intercourse he was asked whether the act had been complete. Pieter Wagenaar, on trial in 1798, confessed that he had committed a coitus interruptus with a boy, but claimed he had never committed sodomy." --Amys 18:09, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * By the way, it is very funny that you consider the wording "an infrequently-encountered and apparently unsupportable interpretation" a neutral point of view. I had a good laugh about that! --Amys 18:34, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether or not you feel that it is permited by Lv 18, "dry humping", as you put it, is no more "skirting the edge" of homosexual anal penetration than vaginal intercourse is "skirting the edge" of heterosexual anal penetration.

- I have updated the Catholic section to reflect the second edition of the Catechism, also changing the "chastity" link to point to an online copy of the second edition. --Mpolo 19:43, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Adventist section
I am rewriting the section on the Seventh-Day Adventist position. The quote given, "obvious perversions of God's original plan" from standing alone gives it bad POV context&mdash;where the original page puts it in the same bucket with everything from premarital sex to bestiality, the quote standing alone makes it look like a specific injunction. (In any case, that statement is dated 1982, and the newer statement dated 1999 is considerably less brutal in wording if not in intent.)  &mdash;Muke Tever 21:01, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1 Romans
I think something should be added in to the article about the 1 Romans verse almost certainly being mistranslated from the original Greek into homosexual, but I don't want to offend anyone here, so I thought I'd put it up for discussion first.


 * I dispute "almost certainly"...


 * Rom 1:27: "homoiws te kai hoi arsenes afentes ten fusike:n chre:sin te:s the:leias, exekauthe:san en te:i orexei autwn eis alle:lous"&mdash;"similarly, also the men, throwing away the natural use of the females, they lit up with their desire for one another" (very literal translation by me...) doesn't seem to leave much breathing room about what Paul was talking about. His point is that homosexuality occured among the idolatrers, not among the devout Jews. When they became idolatrous and left God, serving creatures, God allowed homosexuality to arise among them.


 * Certainly there can be differences of opinion as to how that is to be applied to the current debate about sexual orientation, but that Paul thought that homosexuality came as a punishment for idolatry, and that he was talking about homosexuality seems pretty clear in the text. (Unless you can come up with another "natural use" of women that was thrown away because of desire of one man for another.) -- Mpolo 09:54, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Translation Problems


This website argues that the Hebrew words for homosexuals and their activities have been mistranslated. The original Hebrew Bible condemns certain homosexual behaviour, eg.

''"qadesh" means a male prostitute who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple. This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. it is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or "homosexual." (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple prostitute. It is frequently mistranslated simply as "whore" or "prostitute." A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple.

''"to'ebah" means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but often simply translated as "abomination." Eating food which contains both meat and dairy products is "to'ebah" A Jew eating with an Egyptian was "to'ebah." A Jew wearing a polyester-cotton garment would be "to'ebah".''

Therefore condemnation of specific practices such as prostitution have been mistranslated to include all homosexual practices.

The New International Version (NIV) currently translates Leviticus 18:22 as:

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

The New Living Translation (NLT) widens the translation to also include lesbians:

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Imagine what would happen if the translators decided to be accurate to the original Hebrew and render this verse as:

"Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed; it is ritually unclean. (my emphasis)

This shows that homosexual behaviour in certain contexts (on a woman's bed) was considered sinful, this does not include all homosexual behaviour. And though this specific homosexual behaviour was considered sinful this was only considered "ritually unclean" which puts it on the same level as coming into contact with a dead body which also made someone ritually unclean. It was forbidden to mix certain things together (eg. two crops in one field etc) therefore it is likely that the main point of this verse is that it is ritually unclean for a man to have sex with another man in his wife's bed as this made either the woman unclean from the act or the men unclean from using the woman's bed for somthing other than what it should be used for.

Therefore sinful practices such as rape and prostitution were condemned, not the homosexual acts themselves. Where homosexual acts were forbidden, this was only for "ritual cleanliness" not somthing morally or ethically wrong (and these rules on ritual cleanliness only apply to Judaism and not Christianity). --Cap 20:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) Another important point is that of course all this relates to homosexual practice, not sexual orientation. They did not have any concept of homosexuality/Heterosexuality when the Bible was written. People could engage in sexual acts with someone of the same sex without being labelled as homosexual. (eg. the idea of a celibate homosexual would have been an oxymoron).--Cap 20:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hebrew Leviticus 18:22 ‏וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תֹּועֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃

(Hebrew but in the latin alphabet) We-et-zakar lo' tishkav mishkevey 'ishshah

Literal translation in English: "And with a male, you [male] shall not lie down [=have sex] in beds of women". --Cap 22:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Orthodoxy and Homosexuality
Regardless of the "Popular" view, the Eastern Orthodox Church is not legalistic in its understanding of sin. There is no solid pronouncement against homosexuality that cannot be relegated to opinion. In order to have a fuller understanding to how Orthodox approach homosexuality one must understand how the Church approaches sexuality in general.

From the Church’s point of view humans are not truly sexual creatures, as we currently perceive them. Fallen human nature has lead man to adopt a more animalistic view of sexual activity that is not true to man’s ultimate transfigured nature. Sex and marriage are both temporary states experienced in this world only. In heaven all are equal and our relationship is with God (Matt. 22:30, Mark 12:25, Luke 20:35). Therefore we could say that the Orthodox Church does not support any sexuality at all; at the very least it makes certain compensations towards man’s current state and allows and even blesses the heterosexual union albeit temporarily. So when it comes to homosexuality it really has nothing to say, as this is simply another example of a temporary state of affairs and irrelevant to questions of salvation.

Also, nothing in Orthodoxy is automatic. What is a sin for one man may not be for another. The interpretation of all situations with regard to the individual is handled through a spiritual father or confessor.

Also - "αρσενοκοίτες" is an obscure word appearing in no ancient greek literature other than the New Testiment. Considering the nature of the condemnations –murderers and cuthroats – it seems harsh to assume that homosexuals belong in this category. Properly translated the term breaks down as Man Bed, not Man Looker. Most likely a slang term for Rapist, not homosexual. Phiddipus 21:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I came across this term in a modern Greek book, that meant to serve as a guide to the "pneumatikoi", the Orthodox priests that receive confessions, and it referred to gay men in a very pejorative (one could say arsonous) manner. I'm sure you are aware of these books. Etz Haim 22:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Plus, I don't understand why you trimmed the few things about Onuphrius and the recognition of trangenderism on the transgendered person trough a special wish/ceremony (ευχή). Etz Haim 23:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Such guidebooks for confessors are a modern aberration probably developed from Roman Catholic ideas. A good confessor must use his own judgment based on his careful knowledge of the individual at hand. In each case, there are too many factors to consider to accept an easy black and white answer to the question of how to handle sin. Love covers a multitude of sins.


 * I can find no reference to St. Onuphrius (os) as having changed gender accept in wikipedia (I will continue to search). There are a number of female Orthodox Saints who lived their lives in men’s monasteries and were not discovered until their deaths (St. Theodora). There are also female saints who have been commended for their clear thinking and logic and thus been called Manly or worthy of being called Men (Sts Nina and Paraskeva), but this may simply be a generalist term based on the concept that men are logical and females are emotional.


 * As to ceremonies concerning the acceptance of transgender; such a thing may also be a modernism. From the Orthodox perspective such a thing is unnecessary, the blessing unneeded. It is a matter between God, the person, and his confessor. Phiddipus 23:46, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Indeed some scholars are very purist regarding orthodox tradition and denounce modernisms and influences from other churches; however these influences and modernisms do exist and form the features of modern Eastern Orthodoxy. We shouldn't exclude this information, even if certain thinkers think these are misconceptions. We should rather provide it alongside with the official church thesis on the subject, as popular beliefs are at least the same important. Etz Haim 00:21, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * But, in that case, if one were to present an "Orthodox" viewpoint at any given point in time one would find there are always innovative ideas that are eventually excluded (like arianism, nestorianism, monophisitism, etc.). What one should look to for a true orthodox perspective is what has been refined by the Holt Spirit through time. We believe that God works through history to weed out the incorrect belief for the correct, thus revealing truth. The traditions of the church have been tried and triumphed through the passage of 2000 years. It remains to be seen how these modern ideas will hold up. In any case one cannot measure as equal the modern untried concept with the established tradition. Phiddipus 02:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid none of us is going to live long enough to tell which of these "popular misconceptions" find their way into the church's tradition, and which follow the way of arianism, nestorianism, monophisitism etc. Also, neither Wikipedia nor any of us both can actually describe something as heretic; it's not our jurisdiction and we have other things to focus on. We should present the facts as they are, without trying to idealise them (what's "ideal" may differ, too) or hide/rationalise the controversies inside them.

However, you've made an interesting contribution regarding the Eastern Orthodox views on sin, which deserves to become an article of its own. You should probably move some stuff you've written here there, expanding it with some examples of what's sin and what's not, and provide a link from here. All the best, Etz Haim 18:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Distinction between Fundamentalist and Traditionalist
There is a problem in using the term Traditionalist when referring to the opinion of Christians when what is meant is Fundamentalist. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches are 2000 years old and claim to be keepers of Christian tradition. Yet neither church considers Homosexuality a choice. Therefore I have changed the term traditionalist in the various passages to fundamentalist. Phiddipus 16:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Baptists; multiple questions
It's rather unfair for Southern Baptists to be the only group of Baptists represented on this page. Many Baptist churches, especially those belonging to the American Baptist Churches, are very welcoming towards homosexuals in general (I don't know to what extent gays oe lesbians in sexual relationships are accepted as ministers though).

But this brings up another point: we can't really divide the churches into "pro-gay", "gay-neutral", and "anti-gay", because there is more than issue here. Off the top of my head I can think of at least three different general issues with various subissues: (1) Are gays and lesbians welcomed as members of the congregation, (a) only if they are celibate, (b) even if they are noncelibate, (c) not at all; (2) Are gays and lesbians allowed to become ministers/priests, (a) only if they are celibate, (b) even if they are noncelibate, (c) not at all; (3) Is the church willing to perform any kind of commitment ceremony for same-sex couples, (a) only if it's called a "blessing of the union" or a "commitment ceremony", (b) yes and will call it a wedding, (c) not at all.

The Anglican church I attend, for example, is "pro-gay" on question (1) [the answer is (b)], but "gay-neutral" on questions (2) and (3) [the answer being (a) to both].


 * I wrote this posting a few weeks ago and forgot to sign it. Sorry!  --Angr 20:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Phiddipus' personal essay
The section about the Eastern Orthodox views of homosexuality has been transformed through a series of POV edits into a personal essay by Phiddipus, something you would most likely expect to find on Wikinfo.

Phiddipus describes everything throught the church perspective, presenting a dogmatic approach that overemphasizes on the church's doctrines, and tries to conceal how the church acts towards gay individuals in real life:


 * The extensive essay about the Eastern Orthodox Church views of sin and sexuality in general is merely an attempt to evade talking about it's views of homosexuality, which are the subject of the article.
 * Phiddipus assumes the role of Christodoulos' advocate, saying that his description of gay people as "handicaps" seeks to be instructive.
 * Phiddipus also values his own interpretation of the church's doctrines more than Christodoulos' sayings: What Christodoulos has said is his personal opinion, and the right interpretion comes only from Phiddipus' authority! Blatant advocacy of the church.
 * The claim of Phiddipus that "transgendered individuals often cite the story of St. Onuphrius the hermit" is utterly ridiculus.

For now, I'm leaving the article as it is and I'm asking for comments. Etz Haim 02:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * In response to our brother in Christ, Etz Haim,


 * The article is not mine, though I have added to it, corrected quite a bit of it, and verified its correctness. To answer your points:


 * There is no evasion to expressing the Orthodox Church’s views on homosexuality. What is explained is that there is no specific point of view. The same could be said for any other sin. Very little in the church is black and white. If I were to say that the church does not support homosexuality and leave it at that, it would be a lie of omission since the Church doesn’t support heterosexuality either. This is quite a different view than what western thinkers are used to. Western thought demands rules and laws; Orthodox thought does not need any. Love and compassion are our motivation. The writings of the Fathers of the Church are filled with examples where the “Rules” are ignored in favor of Love and Compassion. What the Orthodox Church has is a guide, the Pedalion or Rudder. This is not, nor should it ever be considered a “rulebook” or “book of laws”. Also, the Church does not have a structure comparable to the Papacy, all bishops are equal and Orthodox hierarchs cannot interfere in one another’s discretion when guiding the faithful. Likewise, the pronouncements of a spiritual father (even if he is a lowly monk) cannot be overruled even by the patriarch himself; he has no authority.


 * I know nothing of Archbishop Christodoulos nor do I have any affiliation with him. I was simply pointing out that his opinion didn’t matter at all.


 * I have always been and always will be an advocate of the church and its teachings. I will also be the first to speak up if those teachings are misrepresented. If the “people” in the church choose to ignore Christ’s command that we should love one another, that we should not judge one another, that we should be concerned for our own sins and not anyone else’s; then such a position should be ignored. The Church does not advocate harming anyone or hating anyone. And it is this Church, separate from the misunderstanding of some of its members that I have sought to explain in this article.


 * The part about St. Onuphrius is not mine; though I did verify the story.


 * Phiddipus 04:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear Phiddipus, my comments refer to the article in its current form after your recent edits. Just a few things for you to consider:


 * I've already suggested to you that you should move some of the doctrinal analysis on sin to a separate article; that would be a most welcomed contribution. Also, some of the church's viewpoints of sexuality that are not exclusively Eastern Orthodox should be moved elsewhere, in order not to divert the reader's attention away from the orthodox views of homosexuality, which are the subject here. A link to a separate section/article would suffice here.
 * Christodoulos is a prominent cleric and his opinion does matter, for the church and the society around the church. Unfortunately. I'm glad that you disagree with him, but he represents the church's authority, not you.
 * The part about Onuphrius (minus the "saint") is part of the church's oral tradition. In the parts of Asia Minor where I come from this story used to be very common within the people. I've never heard a transgendered person cite the story; I'm not one either.
 * There's no place for any kind of advocacy within Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy that you violate by adding your personal comments to facts that are controversial to you and your way of thought.

I would certainly appreciate if you added the church's perspective on matters related to religion, but this would require you to respect the different views, try to think with a secular, real-world approach on some instances, and make your personal remarks in the talk pages instead of the articles. It seems you are very knowledgeable, and if you work within Wikipedia's guidelines, you are going to be a very helpful contributor. Etz Haim 05:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * My dear friend Etz,


 * I understand the Wikipedia guidelines and its desire to have a neutral point of view, but when a “View” is asked for (The Orthodox View on Homosexuality) then how can it remain objective. Do you want the observations and misunderstandings of an outsider looking in, or do you want it straight from the horse’s mouth. While it may seem that much of what is said is “My” opinion, you must understand that I base my opinion on the direct teachings of the fathers of my church. It is in their authority, not the authority of some bishop, that we are called to place our trust. In these times, it is common for church leaders to overstep their bounds. I can site many examples where the “hero” in the story is the individual who ignored some misguided hierarch in favor of the traditions of the church. We have had numerous misguided hierarchs and it is our duty as Orthodox Christians to educate ourselves concerning the teachings of the church.


 * As to St Onuphrius, I originally removed this bit as irrelevant to the topic at hand. Someone who felt rather strongly about it repeatedly added it back in. I don’t know any transgendered people myself. After some research I was finally able to find the story. I was skeptical at first that this might be an accident of history. It seemed more plausible, when comparing it to other stories, that the saint was a girl who hid in a men’s monastery pretending to be male (Like St Theodora). In the end all I could verify was that the story existed. I still have the opinion that it is irrelevant to the topic, but I got tired of omitting it. Phiddipus 17:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Many things found in the Church's tradition are fictional. Did St. George actually kill the dragon? Anyway, what NPOV mandates is that everything regarding the Church's stance on this issue has to be included, including the "misunderstandings" that the church is responsible of. It's Christodoulos' own fault that he creates such a negative impression, not the "outsiders"'; these "outsiders" may be people of the Church too. Christodoulos' views on homosexuality matter because he is the church leader, while neither of us has the authority to tell who is "misguided" or not. If you comment his statements saying that he is "misguided", you alter their context by adding your own POV to them. Respect what he has to say, even if you disagree with him. Etz Haim 18:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Etz,


 * We, the writers of this text, you and I, are responsible for the impressions made on the readers. I am a very traditional Orthodox Christian from a long line of conservative Orthodox belonging to a very traditional parish. I have members of the clergy in my family and have contacts in numerous monasteries both in the USA and Greece. My spiritual father is the abbot of a very traditional and well-established monastery. I have never encountered any opposition towards homosexuals in these groups. I have seen trends in some other groups that move towards a very western approach to spiritual matters that I find unfortunate. In any case, it seemed more beneficial to the reader to understand that there is a great deal of leeway in these matters. Readers exploring the Wikipedia looking for the opinions of churches on homosexuality expect to find blanket statements, black and white answers. Are gays doomed to hell? If I am gay am I lost? Can I hate gays cause God hates them? The thing is that Orthodox do not believe any of these things. God loves us, God is merciful and compassionate, and God forgives sin. We believe the church to be true, to be holy, so we want to paint it in the best light. There are flaws in people, even hierarchs, but not in the church. If one considers the situation of gays one has to ask the question of harm. Sins harm. Adultery harms, fornication harms, murder harms, lies (above all else) do great harm. But homosexuality does not harm. Also we must consider that two men or women in a committed relationship who love one another have love, and that love cannot be discounted or ignored. Love is a gift from God. Love covers a multitude of sins. The church advocates love.


 * Also, The story of St George slaying a dragon is not necessarily fictitious, but rather symbolism has been confused with reality. In Icons of the Saint he is shown slaying a dragon, but we can assume the dragon is sin or perhaps the devil. St. George fought against and conquered sin within himself. This kind of symbolism is shown in many iconographic depictions of the Saints. Phiddipus 19:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The editor's only obligation on this one is to write down the facts, and separate the facts from the comments. Then the reader, as individual with a judgment of his own, will understand. It's neither the editor's nor the reader's fault if the latter gets a "wrong" impression, when the church itself has done everything in its power to create these exact "wrong impressions". Also, my opinion of what's right or wrong does not derive from some doctrinal analysis, but from what stands in every day life. Since the church's readership has assumed that position and the vast majority of the society has accepted it, it hurts me to say so, but it stands. Etz Haim 08:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To you both--

This is a perfect example of a case where the whole no-subpages debate can go to pot. The biggest problem with that section is that it is several paragraphs too long; on this page we'd want a one-or-two-paragraph synopsis. So here is where a subpage would be perfect: Christian views of homosexuality/Eastern Orthodox.

But whatever; I've had lots of trouble understanding the debate, and it seems like people favor never using subpages again. So the complete treatment could be given in Eastern Orthodoxy view of homosexuality, we can mention it in Eastern Orthodoxy.

But wherever you come out on that subject, on this page, we need a short descriptive synopsis.

Something like "Eastern Orthodoxy refuses to view homosexuality (or any moral status) as a legalistic sin. However, the Orthodox churches in general look down on all sexuality, including homosexuality. Resolution of homosexuality in particular varies from church to church; some churches have come out explicitly condemning homosexuals, and some churches are compassionate. For a more in-depth treatment of the matter, see _________________."

See, for reference, all of the other bite-sized snippets offered in this article. A comprehensive treatment can be given elsewhere; those sections are little blurbs that cut straight to the chase on official positions. Drostie 09:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And your synopsis is fairly good. But in treating the text great care must be taken not to give the wrong impression. Might I suggest the following:


 * The method by which the Eastern Orthodox Church deals with topics such as homosexuality (or any other human condition) is always on an individual basis. It does not make blanket statements nor is it legalistic in its views. Despite this policy, many church leaders have made pronouncements condemning homosexuality as unnatural. While their opinions may have a wide scale effect on members of the church, such pronouncements do not promote either love or compassion and are therefore inappropriate. How one deals with homosexuality should always remain between the individual and his or her spiritual counselor. There are many congregations within the church that accept homosexuals with love and compassion. Phiddipus 16:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd be very content if the situation was as described above, but unfortunately things aren't that way. The above is not even factually accurate. I would put it this way:


 * The Eastern Orthodox Church opposes homosexuality as well as every kind of sexuality, and advocates celibacy instead. The non-legalistic views of sin, which are outlined by the some of church's doctrines, are in contrast with many pronouncements against homosexuality found both in the Old and the New Testament. The church has assumed an active role in encouraging negative social stereotypes against gay individuals in many occasions. Several prominent members of the clergy have made statements condemning homosexuality and the leader of the Church of Greece, archbishop Christodoulos of Athens has described gay people as "handicaps". Other juristictions, such as the Orthodox Church in America have taken a more tolerant approach. 

-- Etz Haim 17:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "The Eastern Orthodox Church opposes...every kind of sexuality, and advocates celibacy instead." Do you have a reference for that? It seems wildly unlikely, given that Eastern Orthodox Christians seem to have been producing little Eastern Orthodox Christians for two thousand years. DJ Clayworth 19:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * From Eastern Orthodoxy, the EO take on Eden is that Adam and Eve did not have sex until the Fall, which would make any kind of sex "imperfect," and the EO churches as a whole require that you not have sex the night before Communion or during a fast--religious devotion and sexuality are kept in different beds, so to speak. Other Christian denominations view the Song of Songs as supportive of sexual relations, but you can make the argument that the sexual innuendo is not the most important part to the story in Song of Songs. 24.58.5.139 20:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (Sorry about the IP address... wasn't signed in. 24.58.5.139 is me... also in the edit log) Drostie 21:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * 1 Corinthians 7:1 -- Etz Haim 08:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * As a gay Christian, I've always been fond of 1 Corinthians 7:1. That's an easy suggestion for me to follow.  When some straight friends of mine were planning their wedding, and wanted me to do a reading, I said I'd be happy to read 1 Corinthians 7 (instead of the more usual 1 Corinthians 13).  After they found out what that chapter says, they asked someone else to read... --Angr 20:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Comments, comments, comments. User:Phiddipus is extremely eloquent, I'll say that much. The point in question is not Christodoulos' fat belly^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsayings, but that the main article, while does mention the theory behind Eastern Orthodoxy, does no mention to the practice. imo, the article should mention the ignorance and prejudice a chunk of the greek orthodox clurgy guides their flock under. Granted, people are imperfect, so, they bring their own POVs into life, so priests are unperfect, too. Since there *are* problems in the implementation phase of the Christian Religion software package, i'd like them to be documented, aka, be mentioned in the main article. Project2501a 22:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks George for at least enjoying the composition of my sentences. In my opinion, the Software, in its original form functioned beautifully. Unfortunately hackers have attempted to infiltrate and modify the programming causing serious damage. I have always considered it one of my duties to go through the coding line by line and remove the offending material. In many ways, this task is impossible, but then again I have always thought that if one person does what he can to change the way things “are” into the way things “should be” then maybe others will see his example and follow suit. Phiddipus 18:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Referring to a chunk of Greek Orthodox clergy as ignorant and prejudiced is hardly NPOV. And anyway, even if we did, we'd have to do the same for almost every other denomination listed here.  But I do agree with the view already mentioned that the article on Eastern Orthodoxy is disproportionately long and perhaps should be moved to a separate "Eastern Orthodox views on sexuality" page.  There are already separate pages for Anglicans and the Unification "Church", so why not one for Eastern Orthodoxy? --Angr 20:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, for all of y'all, a new page has been made: Eastern_Orthodox_view_of_sin. Phiddipus's essay is there, and if you want to edit it and expand it, be my guest. The page here has had Etz Haim's treatment placed there instead, for brevity. If there are still wording discrepancies or disagreement with what stands, be my guests to debate it here in Talk and come to a productive wording. The point is that it's now the appropriate length, with an outside reference. I'll also post to Eastern Orthodoxy with the hope that the article is expanded to cover all forms of sin.

--Drostie 07:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Attacks on Metropolitan Community Churches
This is for User 67.41.237.52 (or anyone else who knows): could you add the dates of the attacks mentioned? It would make them more verifiable. Thanks! --Angr 13:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've relayed the request to MCC via their website. I've also asked if they could give references that verify those attacks, to save people some time. I don't know how long it will be until I get a response, though, so if anyone else has some sources, feel free to save everyone some work! --Drostie 01:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This is the source which is ""A Partial, Representative Listing of Hate Crimes Committed Against the Congregations of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches During Its 30 Year History" UFMCC Press Release issued 1997-OCT"".


 * We may have a copyvio problem here since the religioustolerance.org page is word-for-word the same as the original add by 67.41.237.52 before I cleaned it up (removing, for example, the use of "arson" as a verb). (I see I forgot to sign. It was me, Angr.)


 * The MCCs relayed an e-mail on this subject to me. Since it was very clear in my original letter that this was to go on Wikipedia, I'm going to take it as placing this in public domain. (The work itself is a letter to the President, hardly a private affair if shared with whosoever inquires.) I'm still deciding whether it'll go on a subpage of this or in its own page. Also, can I just cut and paste HTML into Wikipedia? Or does it all have to be in the normally easier Wikipedia format? Drostie 05:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure normal HTML will work here as far as formatting goes (i.e. nothing complicated like buttons and frames and the like). Anyway, just paste it in, click "show preview", and see what happens. --Angr 07:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I've posted it on Wikisource and linked it from here; a source document is not an encyclopedia document. For convenience, here's the link again. Drostie 03:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pattern of authoritarian interpretation of the faith
I see my suggestion about contextualizing Christian resistance to the gay revival as part of a greater pattern of narrow textual interpretation did not last long. But that seems like a basic step that has to be taken in order to present the current debate in perspective. If this contextualization does not belong here, then where? Haiduc 12:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic and Orthodox inclusive errors
The passage in question was:


 * At the same time, those Christians such as Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, who lay a heavy weight on Christian tradition, will point out that until the 20th century, the Christian tradition, in all denominations, prohibited homosexual activity. In fact, it universally prohibited all orgasmic acts outside the context of non-contracepted heterosexual intercourse. Those, thus, who take the Christian tradition as normative on moral issues, will insist that homosexual acts are wrong in the same way as artificial contraception, masturbation, oral sex, etc. Even if the acts were not condemned in Scripture, this would not imply that they are morally acceptable--necrophilia, for instance, is not mentioned in Scripture, but is universally condemned by Christians. And in any case, the Christian tradition interpreted the biblical texts as prohibiting homosexual activity, so that those Christians who, much like Orthodox Jews, take tradition as normative for exegesis, will not be able to re-interpret the texts as some scholars would.

This passage is wrong for the following reasons


 * 1. The Eastern Orthodox POV concerning sin in general is never a blanket statement, the church never universally condemns anything.
 * 2. Orthodox can use Contraception
 * 3. It would be ridiculous to condemn Masturbation, the church recognizes it as mearly part of growing up, it is not evil. It does require that the individual learn to control themselves.
 * 4. The church has never condemned any sexual act between married couples, nor does it consider the sex act to be for procreation only, but rather as a bonding force between two people who love one another.
 * 5. The Orthodox Church is not bibliocentric, things condemned in the old testament do not apply to Christians, nor is it a prerequisite that something has to be in scriptures to be true.

Phiddipus 01:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Links to Bible books or verses?
Up till recently, the section on specific passages had blue links to the books of the Bible in which they were found. Then SimonP changed them to red links to the specific verses mentioned. But Wikipedia doesn't have articles on most Bible verses (except very well known ones like John 3:16 and Jesus wept), and I think it's more useful to have blue links than red ones. So I reverted the changes, restoring the blue links. Then SimonP reverted my revert and as the page stands, it now has a bunch of red links to things that not only are not now Wikipedia articles, but also are unlikely to become Wikipedia articles, and are IMO unlikely to survive VfD if made into Wikipedia articles. I don't want to start an edit war over this, so I'm asking everyone who regularly follows this page to voice their opinion as to which kind of links we should have: blue links to Bible books, or red links to Bible verses? --Angr 07:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Most of those who wanted John 20:16 kept thought it was acceptable to have articles on all Bible verses. I have since completed a number articles of verses that are of minimal notability and there has so far been no question of deleting them. Moreover this article is an ideal one to link to individual verses for it contains only a very brief summary of how each of these passages have been interpreted. A more detailed exegesis would be of great use to readers. - SimonP 14:05, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Verses themselves seem like a bit detailed a subject for Wikipedia, but you're entirely right that it needs to be covered. Plus, the vision of Wikipedia is primarily as a big whole which anybody can find any information on. Some stuff needs to be consolidated, however: Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are largely the same passage, and it would be a waste of breath to cover this stuff twice. Again, I have the desire to do subpages... Christian views of Levitical Homosexuality Law seems too awkward as a Wikipedia article, compared to Christian views of homosexuality/Leviticus. However, as a newbie, I don't really feel empowered to break the rules this early in the game. In any case, an encyclopedia is not a Biblical commentary engine, and we should not expect it to become one. Please revert the links back to their more useful form: at the very least, don't link them to passages that don't exist yet over the book links that do. Drostie 04:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The articles on the individual books have little or no information related to the individual passages quoted, linking to them thus does nto greatly help the reader. I do like the idea of the articles you proposed, and a verse by verse approach can coexist quite amicably with articles wider in scope. - SimonP 04:56, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * The articles on the individual books have some information, which is better than having a dead link. When these pages come about, perhaps we can link directly to them. Until then, there's no reason to give people less information over more. As far as the verse-by-verse approach, again, an encyclopedia is an inappropriate place for that, just like how a job interview is an inappropriate place for pink polka dots, whether they can coexist or not. Drostie 05:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's been a week since I asked the regular readers of this page to give their opinion on the difference of opinion between SimonP and me, and the only person who did was Drostie who said having some information (i.e. links to existant articles) is better than having a dead link. So I've restored the links to Bible books. As Drostie said, once there are articles about specific verses, we can link to them then. --Angr 00:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The links to the books provide essentially no information of use to readers of the article. If red links offend you then I encourage you to write articles to make them blue. Removing the verse links will, however, make it less likely for such articles to be written. - SimonP 00:39, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not Angr's responsibility to clean up after a mess which you have made, and are continuing to make. Again, when these articles exist, it will be prudent to link to them. The Sodom and Gomorrah link is a good example of this. In addition, the Levitical interpretation of homosexuality will also have to be discussed in an article that will probably come soon. While I applaud your ambition, the idea that this handful of passages will be complete soon is lacking. As far as increasing the likelihood of those articles getting written, we must recognize that we have two goals: One is perhaps to expand Wikipedia, but the other, and far more pressing, is to be of use to the reader. Do you have a legitimate use for these dead links, or can we end the revert war and leave them as books until the passage links come about? Drostie 05:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Drostie. I'd also like to point out that the fact that the existing articles on Bible verses survived VfD is irrelevant. There still are no articles on the verses quoted at this page. And although the articles on the books may not have information on the specific verses we're interested in, they will still give the reader some information on the contexts those verses are found in, and are therefore more useful than red links. Granted, there's nothing wrong with red links in articles per se, but there is definitely something wrong with editing an article so as to replace blue links with red ones! Your argument that removing the verse links will make it less likely for such articles to be written is specious, SimonP, since you are probably the only person who would ever write such articles, and you're not likely to forget. --Angr 07:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This may be a stupid question but why not link to the actual verses on Wikisource until their is an article on them - that way the reader who would likely want to see what these versus say could easily get to them in context like Leviticus 18:22 Trödel| talk 15:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that doesn't help either, because we give the text in-line already. --Chris Drostie 03:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I read that before I posted - I was thinking that if you want to have the links in there linking to the source - rather than the desciption would allow you to see the verse in context - something that should normally be done with many quotes. Maybe something like Leviticus [Leviticus 18|18:22]] for the new one on the specific chapter. or Matthew 15:19-20 Trödel| talk 23:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Presentation of interpretations
I thought the sections on the interpretation, pro and anti, of the versus was very intersting. However, it would have been easier to follow if each quoted section was followed by both views, rather than one section for each view. In other words something like this:
 * Leviticus 18:22

''You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. ''

Anti-acceptance Pro-acceptance --GeorgeOrr 00:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * God condemns sexual relations between men
 * A literal translation of the work might be rendered as "And, with a man, you shall not sleep the beddings of a woman; it is toebeh." Toebeh is an idolatry sin, not a sexual sin (which would be zimmah). The passage refers to some orgiastic practice in pagan Temples, not homosexuality.


 * This passage itself has a lot of surrounding evidence open to examination, and will need to be elaborated. I agree, though; rebuttals should be put inline somehow with their original data. One problem barring me from doing that is that, whenever I've done it and previewed it, the repetition of Pro-acceptance / Anti-acceptance just looks ugly. I'm thinking that we should give a reasoned rebuttal point that's two bullets in. Maybe it'll work out; maybe it won't. --Chris Drostie 14:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Leviticus 18
There is now an article on Leviticus 18, at, oddly enough, Leviticus 18. Feel free to contribute and stuff.

--Chris Drostie 21:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That Darn Image (Dispute)
Okay, so there's currently an image on the page which shows Jesus and John. Some nameless IP address is insisting on not entering talk and discussing, but rather just changing the page to whatever suits their whim -- at first deleting it, and now adding a long long paragraph of extra data to it.

So, can we get some consensus on the topic? Here are what I see as the main issues.


 * 1) The current paragraph is not NPOV. It makes its own judgment call that the image is a parental relationship. If this is scholarly consensus, then that's ok, but this leads me here:
 * 2) No source is being cited on that matter. As far as I can tell, it's just an IP address's opinion.
 * 3) * I'd concede that if this is a 14th century woodcut, the chance of it being romantically sexual is low. But then again, Canterbury Tales is quite anti-church, and likewise began in the 14th century -- which is why I want to see a source cited on this matter.
 * 4) While it is admittedly slightly dishonest on Amys's part to just say "beloved," it is far more dishonest for the nameless IP address to cite agape as "fatherly love," when the NT doesn't make an agape/eros distinction.
 * 5) The current posting by the IP address seems to be a reflexive, impulsive, and nonscholarly action. It seems like the IP address can't accept that most English speakers and textual commentators are intelligent enough to know that "beloved" doesn't have to mean "humping."
 * 6) While the IP address may not like it, the point of the woodcut's citation is valid: Men can have affection for other men, and there is Biblical precedent for that.
 * 7) The circumlocution does not necessarily have Biblical support. We see both philo and agape used to describe Jesus' relations with his disciples. In short, every Greek word for love that we see in the NT is used between Jesus and his followers. To suggest that this is only a "fatherly love" of agape ignores that there is personal love (phileo), and it ignores that erotic love never appears in the NT, so we don't even know that the writers had access to the distinction made between erotic love and other forms of love.
 * 8) The IP address has avoided coming into recent discussion to back up their points.
 * 9) The Septuagint uses agape in a completely different way from the IP addresses usage:
 * 10) * It does not have to be fatherly.
 * 11) ** Deut 6:5, "And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."
 * 12) * It can be used in the context of a relationship.
 * 13) ** Gen 29:32, "And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me."

My personal beliefs on where this should go:
 * I see the IP's point, but I think that Wikipedia users are intelligent enough to not confuse "beloved" with humping.
 * I think that the point made by the artwork, that the emotion of love is allowed between two males, is poignantly and succinctly carried out by the artwork.
 * I think that we should require an external citation before we allow, outside of the argumentation bullets, this argument. Has anyone ever argued that the NT writers were distinguishing between erotic love and other love? As far as I knew, this was unknown to textual critics, and only in apologetics does the postulate, "Yes, they were distinguising between the two," appear.

Please vote if you want to see the image:
 * Deleted
 * Kept with the current long paragraph
 * Kept with the original short line
 * Truncate the line even shorter, to "Jesus and his apostle John."

And please give your reason for that.

-- Chris Drostie 01:19, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't been involved in this debate, but my main concern would be over the copyright status of the image. For a photograph of a piece of art to be public domain the act of photography must add no artistic merit to the work.  Pictures of three dimensional objects so as this, where the angle, lighting, and setting all must be decided, are generally considered to be copyrighted by the photographer. - SimonP 04:11, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, am I the only that can't see the image on this page? I had to go to the Commons and look at the picture there to even figure out what the image is that all the fuss is about. Secondly, if the most widely held view (both among us and among Scholars) is that that sculpture does not depict a homosexual relationship, then quite frankly it doesn't belong on a page about Christian views of homosexuality. The page isn't called "Christian views of loving, nonsexual friendships between men". Without a long caption explaining that most people agree the relationship depicted is nonsexual, it's bound to be offensive or at least highly confusing to a lot of people to have that picture on this page. And with the caption the picture becomes irrelevant to the topic of the page. --Angr 06:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is to Drostie: To be brief and to the point, here's the issue concerning this image:

- As Angr pointed out above, this article deals with the current dispute over sodomy, not any and all types of "love" between men (I "love" my father and brother, but that doesn't make me homosexual). Similarly, the linguistic argument has nothing to do with whether "agape"/"agapao" refers 'only' to "fatherly love" (I never claimed it did), but rather, the point is simply that it is not the Greek word for sexual love - if the latter type of love had been meant, then the proper word for it would have been used (the reason why this word never appears in the NT is because it's never needed, not because the authors were unaware of the word's existence). Hence, no homosexual relationship is implied by the language, and certainly is not implied by an image of a child-like John resting his little head on the shoulders of a paternal-looking Jesus. To say that it shows approval for "love" between men ignores the obvious fact that it does not imply approval for the specific type of sexual love that this article deals with - there is no controversy over other types of love between men, after all, nor would Biblical approval of friendships, brotherly love, or father-son affection have any possible relevance to the issue of sodomy.

- Theologically, the few Christians who interpret this as a homosexual love affair would have to explain how Christ (God Incarnate) could possibly have a sexual interest in any of His own created spiritual offspring, whether male OR female. The people who claim that Christ was having an affair with Mary Magdalene are equally guilty of distorting both the language and theology, so this isn't limited to just a dispute over homosexuality.

- The current caption represents not only my own, but also Haiduc's revisions. No one but yourself has objected to the substance of the caption so far.

- Rather than bicker over this, however, I would point out that the main comment I was making with my caption was that this image, despite its inclusion in an article dealing with homosexuality, was clearly designed to more closely resemble a portrait of a father and son - John is practically half the size of Jesus, and has the features of a child. Unless you're saying that it represents a "man-and-boy" (pedophile) sexual relationship, then what relevance does it have to the issue which the article is about? 152.163.100.74 06:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not really know much about the image and I do not have the time to research it right now. But I believe whoever placed it there is using some scholars view that the image depicts a pederastic relationship, one between and adolscent and adult.  Pedophilia is before puberty and not relevant to the image.  Visit pederasty.  Pederastic relationships were very common in ancient Rome and Greece so I believe some scholars think perhaps Jesus just did what was common of the time period.  But once again I have not researched that specific image.  Apollomelos 13:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I'm not particularly partial in the debate; I was mostly devils-advocating. Here's a couple little notes of discussion:

SimonP, I would trust Wikimedia Commons to give us a public-domain picture.

Angr, you said, "if the most widely held view (both among us and among Scholars) is that that sculpture does not depict a homosexual relationship, then quite frankly it doesn't belong on a page about Christian views of homosexuality."

I agree with you, but there's no scholarly citation given to suggest that this isn't suggestive of homosexuality. Frankly, that's for artistic commentators, not for Biblical passages. You can make a case for pederasty, you can make a case for church dissent... I mean, it's simply not shown the intention of the art is meant to be a rendering of the word "agape." And to resolve situations like this in Wikipedia, theoretically, we're supposed to cite our sources, and there's no source cited for this... so is it meant to be heterosexual? We don't know. And that's what I'm criticizing the poster for.

It does make some sense that, if it's not sexual, it shouldn't clutter a page on homo sexual ity. With that said, some of the thoughts inherent in this artwork should be expressed. It should be noted somewhere in the article that, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, men can hug, men can kiss, men can touch each other's genitals, men's love for men can be more wonderful than men's love for women-- all of those have Biblical precedent.

If all we're debating is sodomy, shouldn't we put that up in the introduction to the section? Can't we kill half the article on that ground? I mean, analysis of whether homosexuality is a choice is rendered moot if all we care about is whether sodomy is committed...

I really don't think that this article concerns merely sodomy. There's a great deal more to a homosexual relationship than what homosexuals do in their bedsheets, and I think that we shouldn't be narrow-minded with this article.

There is also the fact that agape, philia, and eros are overlapping, not exclusive. A harlot is described in the Septuagint as pleading both for "eros" and "philia." I've simply never read a scholarly research paper concluding that agape must be completely separate from eros, and it's dishonest to say that that's a fact without citing a source.

Finally, I don't think that it makes sense to claim the authority of establishment against the first critic who criticises within two days of the addition. It just doesn't make sense to say "No one but yourself has objected to the substance of the caption so far" to the first person who objects with the substance of the caption two days after it's added. If it were two years, perhaps it would be concedable.

As far as my personal beliefs on the matter, I really wouldn't have a problem with that paragraph if there was a citation saying that this is what that woodcut was about. Frankly, I don't think that the father-son reference is clear in the woodcut, and your actions indicate that you don't either: If it were manifest, then why would a paragraph be necessary? But I agree that the suggestion that Christ had sexual relations with his apostles is too nonstandard for Wikipedia. However, it should be noted that philia and agape can both be held between two males, and that those both were held within Jesus' circle.

If you want to turn this article to be solely about sodomy, okay, but I think that much of the article should be revised if that's the case. If you want to talk about the entire homosexual relationship from a Christian viewpoint, then we should mention that philia and agape are fully all right between two men, and that there's considerable overlap between those two and eros. Either way, I'd like to see some consistency, honesty, and citation.

--Chris Drostie 21:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to reply to both Apollomelos and Drostie.

First, in response to Apollomelos's statement: "Pederastic relationships were very common in ancient Rome and Greece so I believe some scholars think perhaps Jesus just did what was common of the time period."

It wasn't common among the Jews, though: in fact it was forbidden.

In response to the following statements by Drostie:

" It should be noted somewhere in the article that, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, men can hug, men can kiss, men can touch each other's genitals, men's love for men can be more wonderful than men's love for women-- all of those have Biblical precedent."

Only if you take the passages out of context. Kissing was once (and still is in some societies) a formal greeting, like shaking someone's hand; similarly, the statement that David's "love" for Jonathan "surpassed the love of women" does not imply that there was any sexual dimension to their friendship; and so on.

Concerning the comment: "There is also the fact that agape, philia, and eros are overlapping, not exclusive. A harlot is described in the Septuagint as pleading both for "eros" and "philia." I've simply never read a scholarly research paper concluding that agape must be completely separate from eros, and it's dishonest to say that that's a fact without citing a source."

The point was that "agape" (and its verb form "agapao") does not imply the type of love which is specifically expressed by "eros", and should not be presented as if it does. If "eros" had been intended, they would have used it.

Concerning the comment: "However, it should be noted that philia and agape can both be held between two males, and that those both were held within Jesus' circle. "

"Philia" and "agape" can also exist between two brothers, two friends, a father and son, etc. What has that got to do with homosexuality? The debate within Christianity is over sodomy, since the revealed sources condemn it. "Love" - as in brotherly love or friendship, etc - is not condemned, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the debate over homosexuality in the Church. 205.188.116.74 05:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Apollomelos wrote: "Pederastic relationships were very common in ancient Rome and Greece". Actually, they were only common in Greece. The Romans made fun of the Greeks for having sex with pubescent boys.
 * Drostie wrote: "I agree with you, but there's no scholarly citation given to suggest that this isn't suggestive of homosexuality. Frankly, that's for artistic commentators, not for Biblical passages." I think the burden of proof is on those who would claim it is suggestive of homosexuality. Those who believe it is not suggestive of homosexuality have common sense on their side, and don't need a scholarly citation. --Angr 11:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not think calls to "common sense", which varies widely depending upon political colours, nationality, etc., or "offensiveness" are arguments that one can use on Wikipedia. Please see NPOV for more infomation. One could equally argue that a visibly loving and physically affectionate relationship between two men would appear, to common sense, to be homosexual. I agree that some citation is required on both sides to clarify the issue. --Axon 12:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I understand it, Wikipedia does not play "burden tennis." This is a scholarly resource, not a philosophical resource. If you're going to say that the Jesus-John relationship in an image is intended to be a father-son relationship, then you need to substantiate that. Moreover, if it is as clear as people are claiming, then why should the paragraph be there to explain it in the first place? And finally, the paragraph isn't justifying itself with an artistic source, but rather with the Bible.


 * I don't view the image as saying "sodomy is okay because Jesus ****ed his apostles." Far from it. The image strikes me foremost with the reaction, "Well, there's nothing really wrong with Jesus holding John that way." But if that's an okay practice for people -- hetero or homosexual -- then where does the dividing line form?


 * -- Chris Drostie 22:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The definition of homosexuality has come to mean something that does not necesarily require a sexual element. Just as a heterosexual, married couple could have a loving but non-sexual (i.e. celibate) relationship, one could also argue that a loving but non-sexual relationship between two individuals of the same gender is homosexual in the wider definition. Thus, lack of (apparent) sexual desire does not exclude the possibility of homosexuality.


 * Similarly, excluding the possibility of homosexuality through lack of "sodomy", or anal sex - the more neutral term - does not hold. A homosexual relationship may be lesbian, or may be male-gendered but the parties may not partcipate in anal sex. Conflating the sodomy and homosexuality does not do your argument any good.


 * Furthermore, this article is not just about the debate no homosexuality within the Church(es), but also about the wider debate on the relationship homosexuality and Christianity outside od fht Church. --Axon 12:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If I may intercede, a couple of comments. First, Angr's comment that pederasty was not common in Rome, evidenced by the fact that the Romans made fun of it does not take into consideration that the Greeks made fun of it too, and how. Evidence to date seems to indicate it was common in Rome, just not institutionalized. (Check out Martial for example.) However, both that argument as well as 205.108.116.74's argument that it was not common among the Jews, are besides the point.
 * This is a northern European work and should be seen in the context of its time and place. It seems of interest here because it is a non-normative representation of Jesus and John, in two ways:
 * John is unusually young.
 * The affection expressed is unusually realistic.
 * Thus it seems to be an artistic allusion to the pederastic model of homoerotic expression. Again, what Jesus did or not and to whom is immaterial. It seems to me appropriate to include the image as a debated image. And the present blurb seems largely to be a flight of fancy. Haiduc 13:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Responding to 205.188.116.74...

''Only if you take the passages out of context. Kissing was once (and still is in some societies) a formal greeting, like shaking someone's hand; similarly, the statement that David's "love" for Jonathan "surpassed the love of women" does not imply that there was any sexual dimension to their friendship; and so on.''


 * I don't see how this is taking the passages out of context. There is clearly nothing inherently wrong with kissing and hugging, and having more love with a man than with your wives. Which is what I was saying. Nobody who's versed in the material could ever call a man kissing another man "sinful," because there is no sin inherent to the act -- lots of men kiss other men. So we can conclude that these acts are not sinful. And I think that this is an important dimension of the debate, perhaps meriting another section on its own--and if we make a section for that, I would certainly want the image to be in parallel there, because that's where this image becomes important.

The point was that "agape" (and its verb form "agapao") does not imply the type of love which is specifically expressed by "eros", and should not be presented as if it does.


 * And my point, which you seem to have ignored, is that the difference between the two is cosmetic and indirect, quite like the differences between calling someone "prevaricater," "liar," "circumlocuter," "misleader," and "sophist." These words all have different connotations in some small ways, but the vast majority of the content of each word is shared. If I say someone is a sophist, then generally, "liar" or "misleader" would likewise be an adequate term, though it may not be the best one.


 * We see the same thing with "agape," "eros," and "philia." The greater substance of the three is the same, but there are some cosmetic points to be debated. The famous example is Peter responding to "Do you love me?" (agape) with "You know that I love you" (philia). These two are not mutually exclusive; you can reply to agape with philia; a harlot can say "let's philia and eros!"... they share tons of ground.

"Philia" and "agape" can also exist between two brothers, two friends, a father and son, etc. What has that got to do with homosexuality?


 * Because philia and agape also exist between two homosexuals, and an article reviewing all of the data should note that that's okay -- not just discard it. All the data. Not just sodomy. Which leads us to,

''The debate within Christianity is over sodomy, since the revealed sources condemn it. "Love" - as in brotherly love or friendship, etc - is not condemned, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the debate over homosexuality in the Church.''


 * First off, the NT is not so restrictive on love to say "brotherly love or friendship, etc." Phileo is not "brotherly love!" And the words themselves are not nearly as exclusive as you're trying to make them seem. Secondly, homosexuality has everything to do with emotions. If the debate is just about sodomy, should we put up a section entitled "Lesbianism" and just quote you as saying, "The debate within Christianity is over sodomy" ? The debate is far larger than that. Repent America did not appear in Philadelphia in order to merely protest "sodomy". The debate is larger than that.

--Chris Drostie 22:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to respond to several people here: Axon, Haiduc, and Drostie.

In response to Axon's comments that homosexuality doesn't need to include sexual desire:

As the term itself implies (thru the element "-sexuality") homosexuality does in fact involve at least sexual attraction or inclination. Concerning the comment that lesbians don't commit "sodomy": the term "sodomy" has long referred to any forbidden variety of sexual activity, not just anal sex (it was used that way by the medieval Church, for example). Likewise, to say that homosexuals can remain celibate sidesteps the point of dispute: there is no theological argument against celibate homosexuals, after all. Finally, the point isn't whether all homosexual relationships involve the actual commission of physical sex: as Angr rightly pointed out, if someone is going to allege that a given relation between two individuals was homosexual, then the burden of proof is on the person making the claim - otherwise literally every relation between two people could be put forward as "possibly" having had "secret" homosexual elements. The standard rule, on any subject, is that the burden of proof always rests on the person putting forward a proposition: you can't just make something up and then challenge your opponents to "prove a negative". So, with regard to the "beloved apostle", there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to prove that this was in fact a homosexual relationship: the language doesn't specifically imply anything of the sort, nor do any of the described actions indicate it.


 * Just because the term is formed from the word "sexual" does not mean that, through linguistic drift, it has not come to mean something different: I think there is an argument that "homosexual" has come to also mean a loving and affectionate relationship between same-sex individuals, not necesarily sexual in nature.


 * You are also working on something of a heterosexist bias: you cannot assume that individuals are heterosexual by default and then work from that basis. In that sense, you are asking me to prove a negative as much as you have been asked to prove a negative: I cannot prove an individual is not heterosexual anymore than you can prove an individual is not homosexual. However, I do not see how one can go from the above situation to the statement that an individual must then be heterosexual.


 * Finally, the dispute within the Church is not just about anal sex, but about any kind of homosexual relationship. Even a celibate but loving homosexual relationship can be seen as sinful by some religious members. Also, this article shouldn't just deal with the discussion within the Church, but with the wider discussion outside of the Church with the relationship between religion and homosexuality. For this reason, we should not focus purely on the religious definition of "homosexuality" (i.e. purely sexual) but the wider one (loving and/or sexual) when examining the evidence for fairness and balance. --Axon 09:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In response to Haiduc's statement: "Thus it seems to be an artistic allusion to the pederastic model of homoerotic expression."

This conclusion was based solely on the fact that John is "unusually young" and "the affection is unusually realistic" - although the affection shown merely consists of a child-like person resting his head on Jesus' shoulder, which is hardly "homoerotic". The fact that John is depicted as young does not imply pederasty, unless one chooses to see such an allusion in any depiction of a man and a boy. And once again, we have the theological issue of Christ's status as God Incarnate: one would have to argue that the Creator feels sexual desire for His own created "offspring".

Concerning Drostie's comment: "The image strikes me foremost with the reaction, "Well, there's nothing really wrong with Jesus holding John that way." But if that's an okay practice for people -- hetero or homosexual -- then where does the dividing line form?"

The image shows what looks like a man comforting a child - which no one on either side of the theological debate has argued against. The "dividing line" concerns romantic or sexual relationships and certain sex acts - which this image neither implies, nor indicates "approval" of.

Concerning Drostie's comment: "I don't see how this is taking the passages out of context. There is clearly nothing inherently wrong with kissing and hugging, and having more love with a man than with your wives. Which is what I was saying. Nobody who's versed in the material could ever call a man kissing another man "sinful," because there is no sin inherent to the act -- lots of men kiss other men."

Giving someone a kiss on the cheek (etc) as a greeting is not the same thing as romantic kissing, much less sodomy. You're taking things that have no relevance to the debate and using them to justify one position in that debate.

Concerning Drostie's comment: "And my point, which you seem to have ignored, is that the difference between the two is cosmetic and indirect, quite like the differences between calling someone "prevaricater," "liar," "circumlocuter," "misleader," and "sophist." "

No, "eros" refers specifically to romantic or sexual love, whereas the other two can be used for a wide variety of things. If "eros" had been specifically intended, then that word would have been used.

Concerning the comments: "Because philia and agape also exist between two homosexuals, and an article reviewing all of the data should note that that's okay -- not just discard it. All the data. Not just sodomy [....] homosexuality has everything to do with emotions. If the debate is just about sodomy, should we put up a section entitled "Lesbianism" and just quote you as saying, "The debate within Christianity is over sodomy" ? The debate is far larger than that. Repent America did not appear in Philadelphia in order to merely protest "sodomy". The debate is larger than that."

Firstly, as pointed out above, the word "sodomy" has long referred to more than just anal sex, and would include lesbian sex as well. Secondly: the dispute concerns sexual or romantic relationships between members of the same sex - "Repent America" was not protesting mere friendships. You keep trying to claim that any warm feelings between men in the Bible - whether friendships or whatnot - would somehow have relevance to the debate, although no one is arguing against friendships. 205.188.116.74 05:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * as Angr rightly pointed out, if someone is going to allege that a given relation between two individuals was homosexual, then the burden of proof is on the person making the claim - otherwise literally every relation between two people could be put forward as "possibly" having had "secret" homosexual elements.
 * Actually, I was just talking about the image under discussion, not any relationship.
 * You are also working on something of a heterosexist bias: you cannot assume that individuals are heterosexual by default and then work from that basis. In that sense, you are asking me to prove a negative as much as you have been asked to prove a negative: I cannot prove an individual is not heterosexual anymore than you can prove an individual is not homosexual.
 * No he's not, because he's not asserting that Jesus and John were heterosexuals either. He's merely asserting (and I agree with him) that the image under question does not suggest a homosexual relation between the two men depicted. And not everyone who is non-homosexual is by definition heterosexual.
 * --Angr 10:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I believe explicitly stated this when he said:
 * "...if someone is going to allege that a given relation between two individuals was homosexual then the burden of proof is on the person making the claim - otherwise literally every relation between two people could be put forward as "possibly" having had "secret" homosexual elements - otherwise literally every relation between two people could be put forward as "possibly" having had "secret" homosexual elements."
 * Here he is working on the assumption that a friendly and affectionate relationship between two males is de facto non-homosexual. Why should we assume this? And, as you stated, he is making the assertion that it is not a homosexual relationship depicted which again moves some of the burden of proof onto himself. Again, citations would be helpful here. --Axon 10:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No, he's not. He's working on the assumption that a friendly and affectionate relationship between two males is not proven to be homosexual and should not be assumed to be homosexual. And by making a negative assertion (that it is not a homosexual relationship depicted), he has clearly not moved any burden of proof to himself. What citations do you want? If Jones claims that Lao Tzu invented aluminum foil, and Smith says, "Um, actually there's no evidence to support that claim", does Smith then have to provide citations backing up his position? --Angr 11:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Your example does not carry over: there is no evidence that Lao Tzu invented aluminium foil and not even a suggestion of such evidence exists. There is evidence of homosexuality: if we take the wider definition of homosexuality - that of a loving, emotional bond between two individuals of the same sex - then the evidence is the same-sex affection which could indicate homosexuality. --Axon 12:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To reply to Axon:

Concerning the comment: "Just because the term is formed from the word "sexual" does not mean that, through linguistic drift, it has not come to mean something different: I think there is an argument that "homosexual" has come to also mean a loving and affectionate relationship between same-sex individuals, not necesarily sexual in nature."

Under that extended definition, a loving relationship between two brothers would have to be classed as "homosexual". If you're going to expand the definition until it includes virtually any form of affection of any kind, then you're inflating it beyond any possible relevance to the dispute.

Concerning the comment: "You are also working on something of a heterosexist bias: you cannot assume that individuals are heterosexual by default and then work from that basis. In that sense, you are asking me to prove a negative as much as you have been asked to prove a negative: I cannot prove an individual is not heterosexual anymore than you can prove an individual is not homosexual."

No, I am not claiming that Jesus had *any* sexuality whatsoever - on the contrary, I have argued that it would be surreal to say that God Himself is sexually attracted to any of His children, whether male or female. If you, on the other hand, want to make the claim that Christ was homosexual (or heterosexual, or any other theory on any subject, for that matter), then you, as the theorist, need to back it up with something substantial - which ties in with the next issue.

Concerning Axon's comment re: the sculpture: "There is evidence of homosexuality: if we take the wider definition of homosexuality - that of a loving, emotional bond between two individuals of the same sex - then the evidence is the same-sex affection which could indicate homosexuality. "

This only holds true using your revised definition, in which literally any form or degree of same-sex affection is now being classed as "homosexuality". Again, that could apply to any two friends, any father-son relation, etc, etc. You can't prove your points by successively redefining words until the definitions become so broad as to include virtually every relationship. The image in question merely shows some sort of affection between a person who looks like a child and another, much older-looking man who represents the Heavenly Father and Creator of the former: there is no evidence of anything except *some* type of affection.

Concerning the comment: "Finally, the dispute within the Church is not just about anal sex, but about any kind of homosexual relationship. Even a celibate but loving homosexual relationship can be seen as sinful by some religious members. Also, this article shouldn't just deal with the discussion within the Church, but with the wider discussion outside of the Church with the relationship between religion and homosexuality."

With regard to the first issue: I had said the dispute was about romantic attraction as well as sexual behavior, although it should be noted that the official position of all churches (that I know of) is that abstinence from sodomy is the only requirement: name one denomination which officially condemns even celibate people who merely have homosexual *tendencies*. Secondly: since this article is called "Christian views...." it deals only with the debate within Christianity. Again, let's not expand the discussion beyond the relevant debate. 64.12.116.74 05:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Relevance? Section on Choice
The last paragraph in the section on the issue of choice seems to have little relevance to the issue at hand. As opposed to describing any kind of christian view of the subject, as would be the point of the page, it seems to give a completely secular rebuttle to christian claims. I think that this would be valid and appropriate on a more general page on the subject of homosexuality, but I'm not sure what validity it has in an article discussing the christian viewpoint.

If it's argued that this is the viewpoint of some christian group, could the christian group please be identified as such? Otherwise it looks irrelevant to me, and is just a debate rebuttle. Rubuttles are good, but this article seems to have the purpose of explaining a specific point of view for reference, and isn't the place for debating the validity of that point of view. Fieari 23:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know if that's the official policy of any Christian denomination, but it's certainly the view of many gay-friendly Christians. I imagine if you asked any minister of the Metropolitan Community Church or any liberal minister of the United Church of Christ or United Church of Canada or any liberal Anglican/Episcopal priest what they thought of the view that gays and lesbians are called to celibacy, in most cases you'd get an answer similar to the last paragraph of the choice section. --Angr 06:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It really needs to be attributted, I think. My biggest problem with the paragraph is that it starts off with "A gay friendly responce..." which does not -necessarily- have any link to christianity. Indeed, much of the article describes how much of christianity is very gay-unfriendly. Now, I know that the unitarians are gay-friendly, but are they quoted with the exact view there? If so, it should be attributed to them. If not, could another responce be found? I'm looking for something specific. This article is for the purpose of describing in detail a specific position. Describing someone else's position in the middle of it is a little misleading and muddles the water. If you say "Ask any random XXX" could you find a SPECIFIC one? A quote? Can we be less general and find some instances? Fieari 01:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
This article has gotten more and more persuasive in its presentation over the last few weeks. I am not quite sure how to fix it but I added the POV check template because of this. In particular the edits from an anon last night were primarily persuasive in nature rather than encyclopedic - but there is some good information in them so I did not revert. Trödel| talk 13:24, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad to see that some discussion is ongoing - I apologize for not being able to participate - I fully intended to but some urgent work related matters have come up and I have to take a short (hopefully ending by this weekend - wikiholiday) - I removed the POV check since I don't think it is fair for me to insert it and not be around to answer questions about the details of why I think it has drifted into a persuasive pro-con essay. See you in a bit Trödel| talk 22:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you have any suggestions of bringing this article into line? Anything would be greatly appreciated.  I look forward to working together to bring about adequate resolution and overall better article.  And I added two of the images last night.  I had forgotten to sign in.  How are they persuasive?  I went to great lengths researching both of them in multiple books to verify everything that I added. Apollomelos 23:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * On the forgery: "Jesus said to the woman: "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." Through these words, he recognized her adultery as a sin. This passage is apparently a forgery that was not written by the author(s) of the gospel of John. It was written by an anonymous individual and later inserted after chapter 7 by an anonymous editor. The New International Version of the Bible has a footnote at this point stating: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53 - 8:11." Other manuscripts place it at the end of the Gospel of John. Still others insert it after Luke 21:38. The Jesus Seminar calls it a "floating" or "orphan" story.  The Fellows of the Seminar agreed that while "the words did not originate in their present form with Jesus, they nevertheless assigned the words and story to a special category of things they wish Jesus had said and done." The passage is apparently a traditional Christian story that found its way into various later manuscripts but was not part of the original writings by the author(s) of the Gospel of John."  Apollomelos 06:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * And all the other additions are based on textbooks, history books, and ancient sources. I can cite all of them down to the page number.  Apollomelos 06:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On whose authority is "raca" a derogatory term for an effeminate homosexual? According to the NRSV, it's an "obscure term of abuse". About John 7:53-8:11 it says, "This account, omitted in many ancient manuscripts, appears to be an authentic incident in Jesus' ministry, though not belonging originally to John's Gospel." --Angr 09:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * "What is "racha"? For a long time no one knew what "racha" (later altered to "raca") meant. The word occurred nowhere else in the Bible or other ancient literature, which no doubt is why King James's panel of translators left the word untranslated.  The Revised Standard Version, often a good translation, doesn't even try but translates the whole clause as "Whoever insults his brother he must answer for it in court"--providing no sense of what the insult might be. A coy footnote says that "raca" is "an obscure term of abuse."  Clearly "racha" was unfavorable, some sort of insult. The most prominent guess was that the word was related to the Hebrew word "reqa" meaning "empty," "empty-headed" or "brainless." That would make the insult parallel with "Thou fool" in the last clause of Matthew 5:22.  But in "The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality" published in 1990, in an article on the word "Racha," gay historian Joseph Wallfield, who wrote under the pen name Warren Johansson, revived a 1922 proposal by German philologist Friedrich Schulthess that "racha" should be equated with the Hebrew "rakh" meaning "soft" or "weak", a "weakling" or "effeminate person."  That would make "racha" equivalent to the Greek word "malakos," referring to a receptive partner ("passive" or "effeminate," according to the concepts of the time) in homosexual behavior, a term found in the Epistles attributed to Paul.  Johansson pointed out that the 1922 proposal received substantial support a dozen later in 1934 when an ancient Egyptian papyrus was published written in Greek in 257 B.C. containing the word "rachas" with a parallel text indicating that the word meant "kinaidos" or "faggot."" .  And John Boswell of Yale and Louis Crompton of Univeristy of Nebraska through Harvard University Press among others.  67.41.179.191 11:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apollomelos, we have been over this type of thing again and again, ad nauseam. As pointed out before and alluded to again by Angr (on one subject) above, all of these "theories" are typically based on either a) taking obscure words, interpreting them as one sees fit, then using that as the basis for a revisionist theory which contradicts all the plain, well-understood passages; b) declaring passages (such as the one on adultery) to be "forgeries" merely because they don't appear in some manuscripts (as is true of many passages), then using this to contradict all the clear denunciations of adultery throughout the Bible and other revealed writings; or c) citing fraudulent claims. It previously took some effort just to convince you and others that the Robert Lenz painting is not "ancient", as was claimed. You really don't want to rely on revisionist websites and authors (Boswell, etc) for viewpoints on this stuff. 152.163.100.130 04:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Although I do make the concession that Boswell’s research is based on sometimes thin evidence. The others I have cited are much more reputable, they cannot be dismissed as revisionists. Egyptian papyrus scrolls, King James I, and King Edward II for example are hardly liberal “revisionists”. And I do agree with you on the adultery thing; however I do not agree with you that Christianity views consensual egalitarian homosexuality to be a sin. Scholars have done excellent research into this field and have even noted that throughout the ages many have asserted than such Biblical characters Jonathan and David were homosexuals. I hope we can both use common sense and bring this article to an un-biased point of view. We have been successful in the past. On another point I would like to make is that I would prefer you to cite sources because I am interested and would to gain further knowledge. Thanks. Apollomelos 05:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * And if you can provide evidence that this British Library image is fraudulent I would like to see it. I am not using web sites any more after the image ordeal with the two martyrs.  All of my sources now are textbooks and books.  Apollomelos 05:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apollomelos: I would just briefly note that you cannot use isolated examples such as Edward II to determine what the accepted theology was during a given period - during Edward II's era, the standard theological books such as the "Summa Theologica" bluntly condemned sodomy as one of the worst of all sins, and books such as the "Scivias" relayed quotes from God bluntly condemning any sex between two men or between two women. To cite a few people such as Edward II to 'contradict' this would be analogous to citing pro-adultery people from that era, such as the 13th century group calling itself "the Spirit of Freedom", to claim that adultery was supported and encouraged by the "Church". Re: the icon from the British Museum showing David and Jonathan (if that's what you were referring to): it just shows two men lightly embracing, and does not show, much less represent approval of, same-gender sex or romance. Re: the difference between gay websites and books - since the websites are often based on the books, there isn't likely to be much difference in credibility. 205.188.116.133 05:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Counter-rebuttals?
The counter rebuttals are of low quality and are not NPOV-distributed. Mostly, they reiterate the original arguments without adding anything new. For example, one of the bulletpoints translates "arsenokoitai" as "male who has coitus with a male," which is strictly wrong: the preceding bulletpoint is much more accurate in translating it "bedsmen." The English word coitus is derived from a Latin concoction meaning "going together" (see the OED). It is unrelated to the Greek word "koitay", which does not mean "coitus," but rather "a couch; by extension, cohabitation; by implication, the male sperm:--bed, chambering, X conceive".

I think that we should delete the counter-rebuttals, and leave the rebuttals as-is. Failing that, I think we could move all of that section to Christian scriptural debates on homosexuality. In any case, I'd like to see more sources cited.

128.84.178.80 04:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Bible never speaks of sexuality in graphic detail
The section on Jonathon and David contains the following quote: I strongly disagree but don't want to remove it because I don't know of a rebuttal to replace it with. I believe this is a false statement. Consider Genesis 19: 30-38 (Lot and his Daughters), 38:9 (Onan), 2 Samuel 13 (Absolom and Tamar), etc. It might be possible to remove the section as the relationship between David and Jonathon was clearly a friendship similar to others throughout the Bible (Moses and Aaron, Elijah and Obadiah, Jesus and his disciples, Paul and other NT figures like Timothy, Philemon, or Titus) and perhaps less so could be interpreted homosexually.--Will2k 04:16, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Bible never speaks of sexuality in graphic detail even between people of the opposite gender other than mentioning children and the like.


 * The Bible is just as explicit with Jonathan and David compared to those others. "Love better than women." 63.224.248.30 17:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You will need to provide a more appropriate rebuttal on the main page then "sexuality in graphic detail". I'll leave it up for now pending an adjustment to the counter arguement or a rebuttal here. Otherwise, it will be removed entirely.--Will2k 20:27, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Will, you should not mark the removal of a paragraph as a "minor edit". (Nor the addition of one, such as your comment above.) Minor edits are things like fixing typos. --Angr/comhrá 05:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I have minor edits turned on by default. I meant to turn it off there.--Will2k 14:43, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Implications of new title
I just noticed that this article has been renamed from "Christian views of homosexuality" to "Homosecuality and Christianity," probably some time ago. However, it seems to still confine itself to the various Christian views of homosexuality. Should it not also cover the various homosexual views of Christianity? I think it might lead to a more well rounded article, and better cover some of what's going on this set of related debates. Wesley 16:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably an exercise in futility since there is no definite statement that can be made on the subject. Every paragraph would start "Some gay people think..."  The various views of GLBT folks on Christianity roughly match those of society at large; the only skewing is likely be a slightly higher percentage of reactionary dislike of religion generally or for specific highly intolerant denominations who are viewed as attacking gay people. While you can discuss the various Christian denominations that have an official institutional viewpoint or position that can documented, from the other direction you have millions of individual GLBT people who each have a differing opinion of Christianity based on hundreds of factors not just their sexuality. Autiger 18:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Missing "History" section
It seems to me that we should have a discussion of the history of resistance to church-imposed proscriptions of same-sex love. The pseudo-Byronian "Don Leon" comes to mind, as well as de Sade's comment that it is barbarian to kill another because their tastes differ from yours, as well (perhaps) as some underground Renaissance texts in favor of pederasty ("Alcibiade, fanciulllo a scuola", but I'll have to look at it again to make sure). If others have suggestions maybe we could gather them here before posting. Haiduc 11:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

205.188.117.137's edits
This last edit:

The millennial debate on sexuality is an issue centered on the interpretation of Christian writings both within and outside of the Bible. The meaning of these texts has been disputed by some theologians in recent decades, and the question of whether homosexuality is. ..

is based on a misunderstanding of the language. First, the "millennial" debate predates and will outlast Christianity, so his edit is both factually incorrect and over-restrictive. Second, it is not "disputed by some theologians" but it is indeed disputed by all who have joined the fray, whether pro or con. (Or, to play off the snide remark, pro-sodomy or pro-bigotry.) Haiduc 19:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit concerned about these additions quoted below too, in particular the part in bold;
 * "Such acts (as opposed to the persons themselves) were condemned in such important Christian writings as the "Summa Theologica", and in the revelations handed down to saints such as St. Hildegard von Bingen, whose book "Scivias" includes quotes from God condemning any sex between two men or between two women. Hence the traditional views on the subject, which are still adhered to by most denominations."


 * Includes 'quotes from God'? --Randolph 00:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Latest mess
Apollomelos: We have repeatedly gone through this very same process, over and over: after previous discussions had finally worked out a compromise, you wait a few weeks and then go in and make major POV changes, then revert all attempts to restore NPOV, then make a huge number of edits in order to make it difficult to make further restorations, then demand that any further edits should be done only after discussion - although the results of previous discussions had been nullified by yourself without bothering to discuss any of your proposed changes first. This isn't fooling anyone, and you do not "own" this article.

The new rebuttals section often distorts the conservative viewpoint - sometimes even confusing the matter beyond recognition by having it refer to "above" arguments which you had just moved to a new position farther below. The end result is a mess, and since discussing it won't do any good - any compromise we work out will inevitably be nullified by yourself after waiting a few weeks - there's no point in discussing it. Everyone can see that the article is being slanted toward one point of view, and the older version (which had been worked out over a long period of time by many editors) needs to be restored. 205.188.116.72 20:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Why is it you cannot actually cite examples? I will continue reverting until you do so.  You edits are POV, i.e. “homosexual temptation”.  We have been through this many times with you on more than one article.  It is always the Wikipedians such as Angr, Haiduc and I agree on a NPOV article then you and an army of anonymous ip addresses or new users edit the page and we revert for days until eventually many wikipedians give-up since the ip addresses are AOL rotating.  Before you revert I suggest you actually cite some examples and give reasons instead of vague statements with no basis in reality. Apollomelos 20:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I already alluded to an example, but here's a specific one: in the section on Sodom and Gomorrah, the conservative argument is now an arbitrarily-constructed hodgepodge which (among other problems) makes reference to two arguments which were originally included in the liberal rebuttal positioned directly above but which have now been moved downward - meaning that people have no idea what the conservative argument is referring to, with the result that it now makes very little sense. There were good reasons why this section used to be written as a series of counter-arguments - each of the many issues need to be dealt with in that fashion rather than gobbing everything together. 205.188.116.72 21:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Counter-arguments were a recent addition and could go on forever. It is better to combine them into either "homosexuality is a sin" view or "homosexuality is moral" view.  And readers can identify easily, the counter-arguments are what was confusing.  Look at the comparison between the two versions:

Sodom

 * The Story of Sodom and Gomorrah
 * God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality. Jude 7 explicitly says, "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion". Christ's statement quoted (i.e., "it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement") does not state that these cities were destroyed for inhospitality &mdash; that's an inference. Furthermore, since the argument has never been that these cities were exclusively homosexual, the second part of the above argument would not be relevant.
 * God appears to have destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their exceedingly grave sins (Gen 18:20), including attempted homosexual rape (Gen 19:5). In the earliest versions of the story their gravest sin was inhospitality, greed and contempt for the misfortuned. Ezekiel 16:49–50, ancient Jewish oral traditions and Christ's words: "it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement" (Matthew 10:15; Mark 6:11; Luke 10:12) Furthermore if the cities truely were homosexual they would not exist due to the lack of procreation, one can infer that if they did have homosexual intercourse the residents were bisexual which would make "sexual immorality" being promiscuous since the men would have had to had heterosexual intercourse and homosexual, meaning more than one partner, thus this passage is irrelevant when condemning monogamous homosexual relationships.

and


 * The Story of Sodom and Gomorrah
 * God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality. Jude 7 explicitly says, "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion".
 * God appears to have destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their exceedingly grave sins (Gen 18:20), including attempted homosexual rape (Gen 19:5). In the earliest versions of the story their gravest sin was inhospitality, greed and contempt for the misfortuned. Ezekiel 16:49–50, and Christ's words: "it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement" (Matthew 10:15; Mark 6:11; Luke 10:12) Furthermore if the cities truely were homosexual they would not exist due to the lack of procreation, one can infer that if they did have homosexual intercourse the residents were bisexual which would make "sexual immorality" being promiscuous since the men would have had to had heterosexual intercourse and homosexual, meaning more than one partner.
 * (Rebuttal) Christ's statement quoted above (i.e., "it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement") does not state that these cities were destroyed for inhospitality &mdash; that's an inference based on speculation, and cannot be used to contradict the clear language throughout the revealed body of doctrine which condemns sodomy - e.g., St. Hildegard's writings. Furthermore, since the argument has never been that these cities were "exclusively" homosexual - the Bible doesn't say what percentage of the population would fit that label, nor is such a statistic relevant here - the second part of the above argument is both irrelevant and specious.

Not only is your version more confusing it is POV. St. Hildegard has nothing to do with Sodom it is not on topic and your statements are factually incorrect the Bible states ALL the men of Sodom. Apollomelos 21:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You know better than to make these types of statements. For one thing, St. Hildegard's writings are perfectly relevant since they include quotes from God condemning all sex between two men or between two women. Concerning the new format: in excerpt you copied above, take a look at the way the conservative point of view is written - phrases such as "the second part of the above argument would not be relevant" are now rendered meaningless since you moved the argument in question to a different place. It's a garbled mess. 205.188.116.72 04:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to include St. Hildegard do so in its own section not one discussing Sodom. Sodom is for Sodom only, see topicality, and above can easily be changed to below - its not a mess.  Apollomelos 06:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The arguments presented in that section reflect the arguments that are made, regardless of whether you _personally_ believe they are relevant, correct, etc. You've been deleting entire blocks of text simply because you aren't personally convinced of the correctness of the arguments they present, which is not a valid reason to delete them; likewise, your previous reworking of the rebuttals had left only a stub for the conservative views while actually expanding the liberal arguments - the latter ended up being three or four times larger than the former, and you have censored any additions designed to correct that imbalance. Elsewhere in the article, you have misrepresented the conservative view by claiming that conservative opposition is allegedly based on a refusal to acknowledge the existance of a homosexual orientation, although the standard argument in fact has nothing in common with this (e.g., the orthodox Roman Catholic position is that people with a homosexual orientation should remain celibate). 152.163.100.67 07:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Sodom is for Sodom only. If you wish to discuss other passages make new sections. The Roman Catholics believe homosexual orientation is unnatural NOT natural, they refuse to admit its valid existence. Heterosexual orientation is the only natural one in their belief. Apollomelos 07:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The issue in that paragraph isn't whether it's considered natural, but rather whether its existence is acknowledged - two entirely different things. Most Christians do not believe that everyone is born exclusively heterosexual; rather, the view is that people should not give in to whatever impulses their bodies happen to produce.
 * Concerning the Sodom and Gomorrah section: since the liberal argument for that section brings up the wider issue of whether sodomy is sinful or not (rather than just focusing on these two cities themselves), the conservative argument had to provide a rebuttal to that. If it's off-topic, then so is the liberal section. 152.163.100.67 18:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The liberal argument in that section does not speak of whether it is natural. I need you to cite your sources and where Leviticus and that Saint specifically mention Sodom otherwise it cannot be in the section.  Also, where does the Bible say everyone is not naturally heterosexual?  I have never heard of that in my life. Apollomelos 21:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I said the liberal argument brings up the wider issue of whether sodomy is sinful or not, and therefore it is perfectly relevant for the conservative argument to address that same issue - hence the references to St. Hildegard's writings and Leviticus. As for the second issue you brought up - you're going to have to state the matter more clearly for people to understand what you're referring to. 205.188.116.72 21:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Let me add my two-cents. The homosexuality is moral argument in Sodom only uses Sodom as the basis.  The homosexuality is a sin in the section Sodom does not use Sodom as the basis instead it states "Leviticus said so".  Leviticus never mentioned Sodom.  When talking about Sodom in its sections only use Sodom as the basis, not "I cannot really explain Sodom so I am going to use another passage", we already have a section for Leviticus. Globeism 22:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Major problems with the edits of the new user and the AOL ip addresses' edits:
 * "do not condemn people who have homosexual attractions, but only those who give in to that temptation by committing" - POV line
 * "cannot be used to contradict the clear language throughout the revealed body of doctrine which condemns sodomy - e.g., St. Hildegard's writings." - if you are discussing Sodom how is this related? plus it is brazenly POV.
 * "Jesus was a Jew speaking to Jews, so they would all have understood sexual immorality to include homosexual behavior." POV
 * "homosexual lifestyle" what is this? is there a heterosexual lifestyle as well?
 * user deleted large blocks of text for no apparent reason at all other than to serve their POV
 * Sodomy refers to more than homosexuality - we should be clear "homosexual intercourse" and since some Christians believe Sodom was NOT homosexual "Sodomite" is also POV Apollomelos 21:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Millennial debate
I must admit I still don't understand what "millennial debate" is supposed to mean. Also, Haiduc just changed my version of the opening sentence with the justification that "Christianity didn't exist at the start of this debate". I don't really agree with that; while religious condemnation of homosexual behavior certainly predates Christianity, there has only been a debate (i.e. with someone actually bringing arguments in favor of tolerating homosexual behavior) for as long as the concept of "homosexual orientiation" has existed, about a century or so. So even if "millennial" meant "persisting from millennium to millennium" (which it doesn't), it still wouldn't be accurate since the debate itself is at most a hundred years old. --Angr/comhrá 05:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually non-Abrahamic cultures have had the concept of a homosexual orientation for quite some time. Plato makes reference to it. Apollomelos 06:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * He does? What does he say about it? --Angr/comhrá 07:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * See the discussion in his Symposium in which he postulates ur-beings made up of combinations of genders, later split up and forever looking for their complements. My attempt in the intro at putting the topic in historical perspective is a reference at this and other pre-Christian writings (such as the admonitions of rebbe Levi in the Old Testament) which philosophize or fulminate on the subject. Thus the debate pre-dates Christianity, and quite plausibly pre-dates history. We could postulate it is a universal constant driven by tribal antagonisms. Native peoples which enagage profusely in same-sex relations (such as the Papuans) also engage in similar debates, though in their case the discussion refers not to "wether or not" but "where to put it," each faction demeaning the other's customs as "dirty."


 * By the way, Apollomelos' discussion of ancient constructs vs. modern got me to thinking that we need to be clearer about the fact that most ancient homosexuality involved married macho men chasing after adolescent boys (a quasi-universal predilection till quite recently). I am not familiar with modern critical literature on the subject, but if it exists we should mine it for this aspect. [Welcome back, Apollomelos, I was wondering what became of you!] Haiduc 11:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Still, since the title of the article is Homosexuality and Christianity it seems that the opening sentence should be about that, and the discussion of things predating Christianity moved later in the article to a section on "antecedents of the debate" or something like that. It still seems to me that the homosexuality/Christianity debate, with one side saying "Sexual relations between members of the same sex are now and have always been immoral, for everyone, everywhere, no matter what";, and the other side saying "But some people have an intrinsic attraction to the same sex, which they did not choose, and forcing them to behave in a way contrary to that intrinsic attraction is unjust", is no more than a hundred years old. Even if Plato did have a concept of sexual orientation, did he ever use that concept to argue against the claim that homosexual behavior is immoral? And even if he did, it isn't relevant to this page, which is about Christianity, but would be relevant to the still red-linked Homosexuality and Greco-Roman Religion listed in the template. The same for the Papuans: as relevant as their tribal antagonisms may be for the article Religion and homosexuality, they're not relevant here. --Angr/comhrá 11:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Angr, your comment that:

It still seems to me that the homosexuality/Christianity debate [...] is no more than a hundred years old.
 * is very helpful here. I am not surprised, and I am sure that a lot of other people feel the same way. Because of that I thought it useful to put matters in a historical context, bringing in not only examples from one, or two, or four hundred years ago, but also pointing out that the Christian debate is not privileged somehow but is simply one facet of a societal dialogue that predates it and likely will outlive it. The aspect of the debate that you point out, which pits two different understandings of what is natural, IS indeed modern - but anti-dogmatic arguments are a lot older, and attack dogma from different angles. (As for the Papuans, no, they do not belong here, they were just a chatty way to illustrate that the matrix of discourse of which this article is a subset is a universal one.)
 * Now the question of where to put that information is strictly an editorial decision. I felt it belongs at the beginning, much as a discussion on Mt. Everest would best begin with an indication that it a peak of the Himalayas. Maybe we can get some other users to give their opinions on this. Haiduc 02:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm still left with the impression that what we have here is like an article on Mt. Everest that begins with a discussion of what mountains are and how they're formed, using Mt. Everest, Kilimanjaro, and Ararat as examples. --Angr/comhrá 06:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Sourcing
I will give this a few days to get sorted out. However, with an article as controversial as this one, I believe that all non-obvious statements should be sourced to a reputable body of work. If the reverts continue I will simply remove any non-sourced work until such a time that it is referenced in a MLA style manner. This will help remove misleading language and opinion from the article. Also, I think the structure should be clearer with a Traditional vs. Opposing setup. I am not even going to factor arguments on the talk page as a source. It must be clearly stated on the main page where the information is coming from. See you all in a few days. Cobalty 17:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy
I work with the Episcopal clergy and reading through this article I have noticed the I.P. addresses have added some statements that are false. "monogamous homosexual relations - both are condemned not only according to the plain meaning of Leviticus, but more bluntly in other revealed sources such as St. Hildegard's writings" None of the scriptures ever said anything about a monogamous homosexual relationship. Apollomelos's introduction stated it how it is. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. Globeism 21:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As explained before: St. Hildegard's writings contain quotes from God condemning _all_ forms of homosexual sex, as is also true of the plain meaning of the relevant Biblical passages - which do not make any exception for monogamous same-sex relations.
 * Nor can you use a disagreement over this single issue as an excuse to revert all of the other material added on other issues - this is just part of a repeated attempt to censor the opposing view. 205.188.116.72 22:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

You must state it condemns homosexual intercourse. Your current statement that it condemns monogamous homosexual relationships is false. And those two passages state nothing about Sodom. Add new sections and Leviticus already as a section. Please stay on topic as requested by the other users. If the title is Sodom - that is all I want to see - not something about Leviticus when we already have a section for that. I am reverting you. Globeism 22:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

A helpful tip would be think to yourself when you are in a section such as Sodom this: Does this passage say something about what I have wrote? If it has not - it does not belong. You cannot explain Leviticus in a sections meant to explain Sodom. Globeism 22:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Your latest revert (22:24, 11 May 2005) deleted the very citations which you and others had been asking for - while claiming (in your edit comments) that the revert was necessitated by a lack of source citations! In here, you claimed the revert was instead due to the Sodom issue, although you reverted all the material added on various subjects, not just the Sodom issue. This is flagrantly hypocritical.
 * As for the Sodom issue: I already explained many times that since the liberal argument brings up the very same general issue of sodomy which the conservative argument addresses, you cannot delete the one as "irrelevant" without also deleting the other. Again, this a double-standard being applied as an excuse to censor anything which presents the opposing view. 205.188.116.72 22:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I re-added your sources. On Sodom where is the "liberal" argument off-topic and not speaking of Sodom? Globeism 22:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I re-worded the Sodom section so that it should address some of your objections; but once again, the point was that since one of the liberal arguments hinges upon the general issue of whether the Divine Law makes meaningful distinctions between promiscuous versus monogamous homosexual sex, the conservative argument has to address this issue as well. The new wording should make this connection clearer. 205.188.116.72 23:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Your new introduction is not based on reality - it contains many lies. "concept of a homosexual orientation per se." - not per se -  they did NOT at all.  "modern studies implying a "sexual continuum" rather than a bipolar situation in which people are either entirely heterosexual or entirely homosexual." - these studies do not say this, the majority are bisexual and minorities are INDEED exclusive.  I would appreciate if you actually researched before editing. Globeism 00:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Another lie: "hinges upon the idea that God would make a distinction between promiscuous versus monogamous homosexual sex, which is contradicted by the fact that no such distinction is made either in Leviticus nor in other revealed sources such as St. Hildegard's writings" It is not that there was not a distinction it is that it NEVER mentions monogamous homosexuality. To make a distinction you would actually have to mention both forms. Globeism 00:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the quotes from God in (for instance) St. Hildegard's revelations state flatly that any sex between two men or between two women is sinful - period. It doesn't say that only promiscuous, non-monogamous homosexual sex is forbidden, but rather any homosexual sex whatsoever. If there were a meaningful distinction, then that would be clearly stated just as the distinction between adultery and married sex is clearly stated.
 * Concerning the other issue: my point about a "sexual continuum" simply expressed the very idea that you acknowledged - that people lie along different points of a spectrum. If it needs to be worded differently, then that's one thing; but to call it a "lie" is rather surprising, and unfair. 205.188.116.72 01:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

A further website of interest (to be added to External links)
Since the page is closed, I can't add this link myself to it, so I publish the link here, so it won't be lost even until then. Let's not forget to insert it if the page is opened again. I think this would be a precious link in this topic (besides, normally it is not available any more, only through Internet Archive).


 * Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Catholic Handbook

Unprotecting
No discussion since 15 May, article protected far too long. Unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reversion of 205.188.117.72 06/19/2005
Introduction:

Previous version -
 * Although the historically prevalent view among Christians was to regard homosexual intercourse as sinful, it is likewise true that they did not have the concept of a homosexual orientation per se. The belief in most previous societies was that all people could engage in either form of sex as they so chose, a view which some believe may be indicated by modern studies implying a "sexual continuum" rather than a bipolar situation in which people are either entirely heterosexual or entirely homosexual. Some Christians regard same-sex relationships as moral since the Bible does not specifically mention the issue of homosexual orientation. Those who believe homosexuality is sinful believe the passages condemning homosexual intercourse are relevant to all persons since everyone is called upon to abide by God's commandments and reject whatever sinful inclinations the flesh may produce.

Fallacies:


 * "most previous societies was that all people could engage" - No. Many socities always recognized those born sterile and such.
 * ""sexual continuum" rather than a bipolar situation in which people are either entirely heterosexual or entirely homosexual" - No. This is a reference to the Kinsey Report that suggests most people are bisexual and that, indeed, minorities are exclusive.
 * "Some Christians regard same-sex relationships as moral" - Needs to cite someone.

New (corrected) version -
 * Although the historically prevalent view among Christians was to regard homosexual intercourse as sinful, it is likewise true that they did not have the concept of a natural homosexual orientation. The belief in most previous societies was that most people were attracted to both genders, a view that has been confirmed by modern science, indicated by studies implying a "sexual continuum" with the majority of homo sapiens being bisexual to varying degrees and minorities being exclusively homosexual and heterosexual. Christians such as the Anglican Communion's leader, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, regard same-sex relationships as moral since the Bible does not mention a homosexual orientation, arguing that the denunciations, often under the presumption of it being unnatural are applicable to heterosexuals. Those who believe homosexuality is sinful believe the passages condemning same-sex intercourse are relevant to all, often equating all homosexuality as unnatural or intrinsically disordered, has argued by the Roman Catholic Church's leader, Pope Benedict XVI.

Biblical terminology:

Previous version -
 * The term most often associated with homosexuals in the bible is “arsenokoitai” (greek: "αρσενοκοίτες", literally "they who have coitus with men" ). However, as mentioned above in the section "Opposed to homosexual acts", conservatives argue that Paul chose this word deliberately as based on the Greek version of the Levitical prohibition of male-to-male sex. St. John the faster, Patriarch of Constantinople (John IV, 582-595) makes the statement: "some men even commit the sin of arsenokoitai with their wives", which adds even more ambiguity to its supposed meaning, but would seem to indicate men indulging in sexual practices with their wives that would imitate male coital contact, possibly anal or oral sex. The elements that are present are both abduction and forced sexual encounter, so it may be rape that is most likely being condemned, although this theory completely ignores the significant literal meaning of arsenokoitai, which is quite literally and specifically "they who have coitus with men." (Gr. arsen = man, koitai = those who engage in coitus). Much of this argument goes to extremes, however, to seek justification for homosexual behavior in the Bible based on very nuanced reading of the text, and to an extent, reading between the lines of what the text actually says. If the text is to be read in its plain meaning, the alternative meanings given here are tenuous at best.

Fallacies:
 * term most often associated with homosexuals in the bible This presents it has matter of fact when there is contention and debate. Needs to be changed to alledged.
 * they who have coitus with men This is incorrect, it is male-bed. See a Greek dictionary.
 * deliberately as based on the Greek version of the Levitical prohibition of male-to-male sex Needs to drop the prohibition part because once again it presents it has fact. Many Christians disagree. Should simply state comparable to Leviticus 18 without wading into that argument since it is already covered elsewhere.
 * but would seem to indicate men indulging in sexual practices with their wives that would imitate male coital contact, possibly anal or oral sex This is an opinion of an editor, does not belong, esp. since others believe it indicates rape, at the least it is POV.
 * this theory completely ignores the significant literal meaning of arsenokoitai, which is quite literally and specifically "they who have coitus with men."'' Wrong definition see above.
 * Much of this argument goes to extremes, however, to seek justification for homosexual behavior in the Bible based on very nuanced reading of the text, and to an extent, reading between the lines of what the text actually says. If the text is to be read in its plain meaning, the alternative meanings given here are tenuous at best. This is blatant opinion of an editor. Does not belong and never will.

New (corrected) version -
 * The term most often alledged to be associated with homosexuals in the Bible...literally "male-bed"...However, as mentioned above in the section "Opposed to same-sex behavior", conservatives argue that Paul chose this word deliberately to be comparable to the Greek version of Leviticus 18.

Anglican:

Previos version -
 * The Anglican Communion is presently divided. In North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and southern Africa, most Anglican bishops view homosexuality as moral. Sentiment among laypeople tends to be more conservative. In the majority of Africa and the West Indies, homosexuality is considered sinful.

Fallacies:
 * Sentiment among laypeople tends to be more conservative. Oh? Says who? Did I miss the poll?

New (corrected) version -
 * The Anglican Communion is presently divided. In North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and southern Africa, most Anglican bishops view homosexuality as moral. In the majority of Africa and the West Indies, homosexuality is considered sinful.

From what I can infer from the above discussion histories is this editor is particularly nasty, confrontational and blatantly POV. I suggest strict scrutiny for all of the contributions.Goomchakra 19:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

UMC position
I clarified the position of the UMC, citing the denominational Book of Discipline, the official law of the Church. Anonymous user 207.224.198.170 changed it to something inaccurate, claiming that the position of the Church changed two weeks ago - - which isn't possible, since the position of the UMC can only be set by the General Conference, which last met in 2004 and will not meet again until 2008. The user also claimed that no homosexual clergy had been removed (untrue - - Beth Stroud was removed, then reinstated, though she did not accept the reinstatement, and is currently awaiting a decision from the Church Judicial Council in October). The user also claimed that the UMC position on same-sex marriage is unclear, which is also untrue, considering the Church's support of male-female ONLY marriage, as stated in the Discipline (which I cite in the article). So, to 207.224.198.170...please don't revert to the previous inaccuracies. Thanks...KHM03 1 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)

This article is a mess
Couple of changes that, baring any objections, I'd like to implement:

1)I'd like to replace the rambling rant under the "homosexuality and choice" section with a brief overview of how opinions on whether homosexuality is choice affect tolerance of homosexuality. We can link to other articles for the nitty gritty details on the debate over genetics vs. choice.

2)I'd like to replace the (mostly one sided)"issues of interpretation", "resistance to human rights and science", and "controversy over biblical terminology" sections with: one section chronicling, in detail, the traditional Christian view of homosexuality, another with dissenting Christian arguments in favour of homosexuality, and maybe a third chronicling fringe gay-bashing Christian viewpoints.

3)I'd like to move some of the nitty gritty in the overview section into the sections outlined above.

This sound okay to everyone? Wandering oojah 00:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

scientific findings
"scientific findings that it is natural for a minority of humans" Is there a source for the claim of "scientific findings" that homosexuality is "natural." Also, we would have to define natural. As far as I know, the causes of homosexuality are not really known yet. The nature/nurture debate is still going, yes? MPS 16:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversial picture
There seem to be definite questions over whether or not that image really is of the torture of a homosexual man. Is the picture accurate? If not, then its use without clarification violates WP:NPOV. Is Herrera Puga reliable? If not, then he certainly shouldn't be quoted in the caption of the picture, and in any case, he should not be quoted unless what he says is in the context of the torture of homosexual men. The image and caption were discussed on the talk page of Spanish Inquisition in March this year (first section, heading "Image of homosexual man" etc.). AnnH (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have so far seen nothing to indicate that the man in the picture was accused of sodomy. At this point it is of value to illustrate the methods of the Inquisition. It is currently being used for this purpose in a recognized text on the history of homosexuality and its persecution in Spain. I have no opinion on Puga. Haiduc 12:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if there's no indication that the man was accused of sodomy, what is that picture doing in the article? In particular, what is it doing at the top of the article, where one would expect to see only images of special relevance. If we're not sure that the picture is of a homosexual man, and we particularly want the picture to go in regardless, and there's a section lower down dealing with the persecution of homosexual people during the Spanish Inquisition, and we're sure that homosexual people were tortured in the way depicted there (even if the picture isn't actually of a homosexual man), then perhaps we could include it beside a section about how homosexual people were tortured (if they were). But I do question the positioning of it at the very top of an article which it may have no relevance to. AnnH (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on position, but since it is clear that 1. the Inquisition did this work in Spain 2. sodomites were victims, this man's sin is seems irrelevant. The picture would be identical regardless. The only question is do we illustrate or not. I would prefer a picture identified with sodomy and the Inquisition, but until one turns up this could take its place. Haiduc 12:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Haiduc, the thing is that this article isn't about the Spanish Inquisition in general - its treatment of Homosexuals (based on your first reply, it is conceivable that the SpIn did puruse sodomy in the latter years of its existence, when it had developed into a more general secret police - in the beginning it was strictly about heresy), this treatment is certainly part of the general history of Christianity and homosexuality but it is only a part of it. There's also a problem with all such pictures since none are accurate. They are rather works of art and portraying the black legend. Not that the SpIn wasn't horrendous in many ways, but a lot of stuff was added in this literature (hence my change to the caption). Tc, Str1977 20:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You are right, it seems to be here more for shock effect, as if any were needed. Let's can it and replace it with a specific one intended to show sodomites. I'll look for something appropriate. Haiduc 22:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have done a little research on this picture (which has now been removed anyway) and have posted my results here. —Laurence Boyce 18:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)