Talk:Christianity and homosexuality/Archive 6

Catholic Church
"the Roman Catholic Church and [...] do not sanction same-sex sexual relations."

- Christianity_and_homosexuality

This is an erroneous statement. In fact, shortly afterwards it is stated that "The Roman Catholic Church views any sex activity not related to procreation and not undertaken by a married couple as sinful. These views do not only concern homosexuality but any sexual activity that can not result in Reproduction."

Regards, RCarmine (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The user Binksternet reverted the edit without any valid reason and entirely disregarding the explanation I provided. A further related revert without explanation will be reported here.
 * Having re-read the section I noticed that the statement is in open contradiction with the rest of the paragraph, thus it can be updated by changing "do not sanction same-sex sexual relations" to "do not sanction same-sex sexual attraction in itself."
 * Regards, --RCarmine (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your edits brought together your own interpretation of catechism, violating the WP:SYNTH guideline. I cannot support your version. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Having read the sections of the Catechism on homosexuality, you realize how ridiculous it is to say that the Catholic Church does not sanction same-sex sexual relations (or any sexual relation outside of marriage).
 * As an example, CCC 2357 states rather clearly: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." As for the sanctions, you should know that violations to the Sixth Commandment on grave matter, with deliberate consent and full knowledge, constitute mortal sin and carry sanctions; heavier violations carry heavier sanctions, such as excommunications. --RCarmine (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While it had appeared to me that your edit was mostly moving content around, your explanation indicates that you don't understand WP:NOR. "Extramarital sexual activity is wrong" + "same-sex couples can't get married" != "same-sex sexual activity is wrong," here at WP; that's synthesis of different sources. It is easy to source the RCC's opposition to gays. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Roscelese, but such "ease" reflects a biased viewpoint. Your reference to my statement being original research is amusing to me because it is not the first time I hear it and because it reflects a clear lack of knowledge and understanding of the Catholic doctrine on this delicate topic. But I know I must provide clear, high-quality sources, and I will.


 * The fact is that the Catholic Church condemns and sanctions all sexual relations not orientated towards procreation, regardless of whether it is heterosexual or homosexual, regardless of whether it is masturbation or watching pornography. The only sexual relations that the Catholic Church does not sanction is the one between consenting spouses bound by sacramental marriage.
 * The statement that "the Catholic church does not sanction some kind of same-sex sexual relations" is therefore erroneous, and unless there is a direct quote saying this, from the Catechism or another official document. (which, by the way, and in all humbleness, I know you will not find) then this phrase is to be corrected.


 * Now let's get the facts straight:
 * the Catholic Church does not oppose gays or homosexuals, but "homosexual acts".
 * CCC 2357: "homosexual acts ... close the sexual act to the gift of life ... under no circumstance can they be approved."
 * CCC 2358: "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard (of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies) should be avoided."
 * CCC 2396: "Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices."
 * CCC 2351: "Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes."
 * "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour " (Joseph Card. Ratzinger, approved by Pope John Paul II, 2003, link)


 * Having gone over the official documents, it is clear that there are only two valid options: either we remove "and the Roman Catholic Church" from the list of churches that supposedly do not sanction same-sex sexual relations, or we specify that the Roman Catholic Church does not sanction same-sex attraction per se, but does sanction any sexual act outside of sacramental marriage.
 * Let's therefore wait and see which of these two options has the consensus. But there is no justification in maintaining the current erroneous and unsourced statement.
 * Regards, --RCarmine (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There you go! You provided a source which specifically discussed the RCC's opposition to homosexuality. Told you it was easy! Now, if you can find reliable sources that connect this stance to their stance on extramarital sex, you might add it (although the details would be better in other articles, not this article), but we can't just take your word for it that they're related. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, you keep misunderstanding based on your NNPOV. What I have provided are sources that discuss the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the Sixth Commandment, on sins against chastity, and show opposition to homosexual acts not per se but along with fornication (heterosexual sexual acts outside of sacramental marriage) and masturbation, defined as "sins gravely contrary to chastity". That is neither an opposition to homosexuality nor to heterosexuality, but to "sexual pleasure sought for itself, isolated from its procreative purpose".
 * Are you really asking me to provide a source stating that a "grave sin" aka "mortal sin" is something a Catholic should not do and that carries sanctions that can go from exclusion from reception of the Eucharist to - in the worst cases - excommunication?
 * Why am I required to provide a source for such a well-known, common-sense fact but the absurd, erroneous statement that "the Catholic Church does not sanction same-sex sexual relations" is exempt from this requirement?


 * Since I want to wrap up the discussion and show you that this is no "original research", here is a source that shows how they are related:
 * CCC 2391: "The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion."
 * This clearly condemns and sanctions sexual relations outside of the Sacrament of Matrimony, which is only valid between a consenting man and a consenting woman (cfr. CCC Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 7).
 * --RCarmine (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Just as a point of information, I believe the verb sanction is being misused. To the best of my knowledge, to sanction something is to approve it. This is a bit antithetical to the noun sanction, which is a penalty. But that's English for ya! BroWCarey (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Sanction is quite different as a noun than it is as a verb. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out! That changes the meaning quite a bit: as a verb, these churches, indeed, do not "sanction"...! I suggest we update the confusing "sanction" with "condemn", rephrasing as: "do not condemn same-sex sexual attraction in itself" (adding, of course, the above-mentioned soruces), and the remainder of the paragraph explains concisely what each church condemns. --RCarmine (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Kind of weasel-y photo
There is a photo of a Franscican holding a sign supporting gay marriage. Okay. Turns out he's not Catholic, but Episcopal, which is fine, but not the implication of the photo of course. Episcopals have homosexual bishops, so no big deal, right? But then, why the picture?

He looks like he might be standing on the front steps of an ornate church. When you blow it up, it turns out it is city hall. All quite obvious, IF you blow it up. And I'm not suggesting that it should be larger!

There's probably a name for this sort of thing in Wikipedia, but I haven't encountered it before. It seems devious IMO. Student7 (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see from the thumbnail that it says "City Hall" and see no reason why one would assume that it was a church. Many, many buildings - municipal institutions, libraries, museums, churches, synagogues, universities - have such columns and stairs. No problem disambiguating Franciscan. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why not have an openly gay Episcopal bishop together with his significant other? The photo is clearly to suggest Roman Catholic monastic support, which is doesn't. The question is: "Why is the photo there at all?" Student7 (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dunno, I'm not the one who added it. Maybe it was free, while no free image of a gay bishop and his partner could be found? I agree that the latter would be preferable if we could find one. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. There is a common awareness that the Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on religious orders and that they may be found in several Christian denominations. So this is not leading in any way. Likewise it was clear to me at first glance that this wasn't a church but a secular building - why would a monk protest outside his own church (unless he's Martin Luther I guess...)! But that's not to say that there aren't many Catholic monks anyway who wouldn't support same-sex marriage or civil union, as there are. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

My way or no way?
A phrase was removed that demonstrated that most Christian churches disapproved of same-sex relationships, which is an accurate statement. The editor said there was evidence that not 100% of everybody within the churches agreed, which, considering the size of the sample, 2 billion people, is to be expected.

To me, this is like saying that the University System of California teaches n% of all students of college age in California. It further teaches that the Theory of Relativity is valid. Including a small detail that no particle can move faster than light.

As it turns out, when I take a (reliable!) poll of students, it shows that y% (a substantial number BTW!) believe that they can move faster than light: there are wormholes and anyway Dark Matter itself is moving everything faster than light. QED.

It seems to me that both of these statements can be made. Faculty vs students. However, the deletion seems to say that only the poll of students matters; that what their professors teach is ignored (by some, anyway) and therefore cannot be reported in context with the number of students taught. This seems to me to be a way of presenting a one-sided view only. Student7 (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My main concern, as I said, is with the percentages. Firstly, their addition is original synthesis, since the cited sources don't talk about homosexuality. Secondly, it's misleading and POV to write that a church that includes X percent of the population views homosexuality as moral or immoral when many or most of the people in that X percent disagree. We cannot give a figure that purports to represent the views of a certain percentage of the population when that percentage holds diverse or opposite views. More broadly, "Christianity" obviously includes Christians, and I disagree that only official teachings of specific churches, rather than the views of Christians, are important. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Many citizens of Russia and the United States disagree with the policies expressed by their respective governments, but that does not take from the relative importance of declarations by such "Great Powers" vis-à-vis those of other countries, a relative importance that may and at least sometimes should be mentioned in Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article should certainly indicate the relative importance of the churches that have made declarations on the subject. No claim is made that the views of all who are members (and who, if they wish, can disaffiliate and cease to be members) agree with the declarations of their respective churches, as if membership statistics indicated views of individuals.  On the contrary, it is explicitly stated that not all members do agree with the declarations of the churches.  The statements in the article are not about views by people (as Roscelese's synthesis interprets them); they are about objectively sourced declarations by churches, churches of an objectively sourced importance.  The views of individuals can be dealt with elsewhere or added on the basis of reliable sources in the same context.  Esoglou (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone arguing that we should remove statements by churches. The argument is that you may not cite the number of Catholic (eg.) adherents as a reason for artificially inflating the importance of the Catholic Church's opposition to LGBT rights when many or most Catholics disagree with this opposition, because you may not falsely imply that someone holds a position they do not in fact hold. If you want to talk about the vast sums of money the church as an institution has poured into opposition to LGBT rights, that's another matter entirely, but if I remember correctly it's your lot that so strongly opposes the whiff of a suggestion that the church's position is political. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Personalizing the discussion ("your lot") is indeed regrettable. Let's limit ourselves to the subject matter.  The Soviet Union and the United States declared their views on Jerusalem.  That did not necessarily mean that the majority of the people of the Soviet Union and of the United States shared respectively the declared views of the Soviet Union and of the United States.  But those were the declared views of the Soviet Union and of the United States.  Their position as major players in the world gave importance to whatever views they declared, whether on Jerusalem or on any other issue.  It would be wrong to gloss over the relative importance of the declared views of the Soviet Union and of the United States in comparison with those of other states.  A reference to their relative importance would not be "artificially inflating the importance" of their declared views.  The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church have declared their views on homosexual activity.  That does not necessarily mean that the majority of the membership of the Catholic Church and of the Eastern Orthodox Church share respectively the declared views of the Catholic Church and of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  But those are the declared views of the Catholic Church and of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Their position as major players in the religious world gives importance to whatever views they declare on homosexual activity or on any other issue.  It is wrong of you to gloss over the relative importance of the declared views of the Catholic Church and of the Eastern Orthodox Church in comparison with those of other denominations.  A reference to their relative importance is not, in spite of what you claim, "artificially inflating the importance" of their declared views.  I don't see anyone arguing here that all Catholics and all Eastern Orthodox share a particular view on homosexual activity. Esoglou (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We also don't write, when talking about the views of the USSR and USA on Jerusalem, that they represent X percent of the world's population. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Their importance did not come from the size of their population (other countries had a higher population) but from their military might. The importance of the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church comes not from military might but from the size of their membership.  I would have thought that this was obvious.  Esoglou (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm not the one who chose to make a bad analogy when faced with an argument I couldn't refute. The reader presumably knows the Catholic and Orthodox churches are large, so the argument that we need to tell them that is very weak. Citing the number of members in a list of official positions is a fairly transparent attempt to claim that the membership supports this position when it does not - if, as you argue, it doesn't matter that many or most Catholics disagree with the church's position because what's important is the official position, you shouldn't need to provide the statistic. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm not the one who can't recognize a valid analogy or who fails to see that it isn't just of matter of being large but of having a membership larger than all other Christian denominations combined. A question of relativity.  The relative size of the cited churches is the basis of the importance that must be attributed to their declared position.  If you hadn't for some reason excised the statement that not all support their church's view, the baselessness of your synthesizing interpretation that size means unanimity would be even more evident.  Esoglou (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Look again. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You want to exclude from this article about Christianity and homosexuality all mention of the documented fact that over 60% of Christians are affiliated to just two out of the churches that declare homosexual activity to be wrong. Not a contribution towards making an NPOV article.  Quite the contrary.  Esoglou (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. Right now, we have a small number of large churches documented that support chastity. We have a rather extended list of "Tiny Churches with Very Few Members", and "Small Church with Just One Building", that disagrees with chastity. This seems WP:UNDUE considering the volume (literally billions) on the one side with the small number on the other (millions at most). Student7 (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We've already talked about reasons including the list of denominations in the lede is a bad idea, and POV was not one of them. Neither you nor Esoglou are attempting to address the fact that your preferred version of the article would misrepresent the views of thousands or millions of people in an attempt to paint Christianity as an anti-gay religion; you just keep repeating that a church has many members as though this weren't exactly my point - that these members don't support the church's position and can't be cited as proof of that position's acceptance in the population. If we want to talk about influence, without misrepresenting anyone or engaging in original research, let's do what I said - talk about the churches' influence in passing anti-gay laws or blocking pro-gay laws, or (eg.) blocking UN statements condemning criminalization of homosexuality. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Roscelese dear, you have presented no reason why the proportion of Christians affiliated to those two churches should not be mentioned along with a statement that not all the members agree with the teaching. Curiously, you removed that clarifying statement, which eliminated the possibility of interpreting church membership as implying full acceptance of church teaching.  In reality, if you want the article to state that not all church members support church teaching, it is up to you yourself to insert the statement.  But to help you, I will insert it.  I leave it to you to insert whatever you want about the influence of Christian churches on civil legislation and United Nations declarations in this field.  It would be regrettable if your mention of this were intended as a means to dissuade me from talking of the appropriateness of mentioning the proportion of Christians affiliated to just two of the Christian denominations that consider homosexual activity sinful.  I therefore refuse to interpret your words in that way.  Esoglou (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You've had this problem before, where you're so very blinded by your agenda that you can no longer read, and it seems that you're having that problem again where you repeatedly make the false claim that I removed the statement that not everyone agrees with their denomination's position. I have once again removed the original research, as well as the BLP violations you added in calling people cafeteria Catholics because they disagree with you. It would be a shame if you end up topic-banned from homosexuality as well as from abortion. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop attributing bad faith to another editor. Discuss the edit, not the editor.
 * The statement that you removed, as I already mentioned, was "Not all members of a denomination necessarily support their church's views on homosexuality", a statement whose presence prevented any unprejudiced reader from concluding that the fact that 62% of Christians are members of two churches that declare homosexual activity immoral means that the same 62% of Christians support the view that homosexual activity is immoral. You did remove it, didn't you?
 * Please specify the original research that you accuse me of putting in the article. The highly pertinent statement about the 62% of Christians who are members of the first two churches mentioned is not original research, is it?  The examples given of theologians and organizations that dissent from those churches on the question of homosexuality is not original research, is it?  What is the original research that you claim to see?
 * "The term cafeteria Catholicism is applied to Catholics who dissent from Roman Catholic doctrinal or moral teaching. Examples include Catholics who dissent from Church teaching in regards to ... the moral status of homosexuality."  It seems to me that giving a link to that article when speaking of Catholics who declare their dissent from Church teaching regarding the moral status of homosexuality is not at all a violation of BLP.  I would certainly not insist on keeping the link, but the claim that it violates BLP is, pardon the expression, nonsense.
 * Please restrain your desire to tie me up. Esoglou (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would strongly recommend that you cease posting sexual innuendos about me at once. This was the immediate cause of your last topic ban, and while your editing is not exactly productive, it's still a shame to see people sanctioned.
 * As for the content of your comment - you posted the link to the diff, so you should be able to look at the diff and see that I did not remove the sentence in question. I will not respond to further comments that claim that I removed this content, although I will continue reverting the insertion of original research without consensus and the insertion of pejorative language about BLP subjects you disagree with. Shape up. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have asked for a ruling on whether the edit you reverted and intend to keep reverting was original research. Esoglou (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my mistake in thinking you had removed the sentence in question. I see now that you moved it, not removed it.  Esoglou (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * How about including information from polls about what christians think? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And rm all mention of churches supporting one position or the other? Student7 (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not from the body, but as I said, we've talked about why removing it from the lede would be beneficial. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The removal of the estimates of church population percentage was a good removal, per WP:SYNTH. That material misrepresented the churches as having a monolithic view among all of the members, which is false. Esoglou, you called Roscelese "dear" which was patronizing. When you got the expected sharp reply you complained about bad faith. Your subsequent comment about "tie me up" was way out of line. It was already clear from your patronizing tone that you wish to demean Roscelese, take her down a peg and so raise your own status. I would have to say the stratagem backfired. Please keep a respectful tone. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Undid revision by User:184.43.112.235 Used a six year old public opinion poll as "proof" that acceptance of homosexuality is a minority position in Christianity, that LGBT-affirming people are less likely to attend church, and affirming churches show the greatest loss of membership. Further, that user added membership figures for major denominations, once again implying that the full membership is in agreement with official church position.BroWCarey (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not that an opinion poll isn't a reliable source for opinions - however, the IP's utter failure to point us towards any polls means that the claims can't be verified and are inadmissible. (I suspect that if we did find a poll, which I don't think especially likely, it would be something like "Episcopalians losing members" rather than "Gays make people leave churches," and thus synthesis.) The statistics are, as I've said before, unsuitable. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As a baptised Catholic I disagree with the current Church teaching on homosexuality and left the Church. Yet, I'm probably included in the headcount for the Catholic church which tries to show that churches with positions against homosexuality are doing well. That's why figures such as this are meaningless and misleading. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Jesus and Homosexuality
Recently I attempted to make the following edit to the "Homosexuality in the Bible" section.

Passages like one in Leviticus prohibiting "lying with mankind as with womankind" and like the story of Sodom and Gomorrah have been popularly interpreted as condemning homosexuality, as have several Pauline passages and the teachings of Jesus[30].

http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=38461

The author of the article is Daniel Akin who is the president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and prominent leader in the Southern Baptist Convention. What made this article of interest was its emphasis on applying the teachings of Jesus to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Many have argued that Jesus had nothing to say about the matter. I thought that wiki readers might be interested in hearing Daniel Akins traditional Christian interpretation of this matter.

While I appreciate Dominus wanting to making his changes in good faith, I would like to appeal his removal of my edit. Please weigh in on this issue and help us decide if wiki readers would be better informed by Akin's thoughts and my edit. Toverton28 (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You appear to have spammed this information into six articles. I think that it gives Akins too much weight relative to his importance on the topic.
 * Also: I couldn't help but notice that Akins uses a passage from the Gospels to talk about homosexuality, but that passage is about the Pharisees asking Jesus whether it was okay for a man to divorce his wife. The Pharisees did not ask him about gay men, gay sex, or gay marriage. I am certain that Akins was reading too much into Jesus's answer. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Bink, but I think you are missing the main point. The question is not "Do we agree with Akin" but "Does Akin's position represent a large group of Christians/evangelicals?"  I believe the answer is yes.  Akin is a president of a very large seminary, so I doubt either one of us could hold our own going toe to toe with him in theological debate.  Again, I still believe the wiki reader would be enriched by hearing his perspective.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverton28 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We need an independent reliable source that says that Akin's specific opinion on this matter is significant and representative. We cannot conclude that it is simply because of his position in the church. That would be OR. Also, whether the reader would be "enriched" by such information is not a criterion for adding material to WP articles. It's totally irrelevant. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As the president of a seminary, Akin is a RS as a representative of Christian interpretation of the Bible. I see no reason why his edit here should have been reverted, though the fact that it was added to several articles is unsettling. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of Akin seems tenuous. It is a fact that none of Jesus's views on homosexuality are recorded in the Gospels. It strikes me as odd that we should then include the personal thoughts of Akins (not particularly notable in my view) that Jesus actually meant something else whenever he said something. Better that Akins views are presented in a more relevant article - eg southen Baptist views on homosexuality or some sort. I'm not personally impressed by his theology.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Akin's interpretation of the NT on this point is definitely a minority one. What's needed is a more general (and more scholarly) work on the subject. PiCo (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * On a quick look at the section "Homo and the Bible", it seems to me that there's a serious lack of scholarly sources underpinning the artcile (or maybe just this section). For example, the first sentence of the section says: "The Bible refers to homosexuality several times". In fact there are scholars who would argue that it never refers to homosexuality at all - that verse from Leviticus, for example, doesn't actually talk about mankind and womankind, and the story about Sodom was probably about hospitality rather than sex. Just saying - needs sources. PiCo (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverts
Mann Jess is attempting to start an edit war by demanding to bury my edits in the talk page. He requests a section in the talk page for him to explain his issues with my edits. Here it is. Here, he can explain why he's reverting my edits. As it is, it looks like he's trying to engage in page ownershp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eris Lover (talk • contribs) 03:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits
In this edit, Eris Lover made substantial revisions to the article, including the removal of large swaths of sourced content. I'd like those changes discussed first before being implemented, instead of edit warred into the article. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not remove any sources.  I was very careful not to do so. One, where those sources were in the intro and in the body of the article, I simply cleaned up the intro so that it is more of a proper summary of the article.  Two, where those sources were in the intro, but not in the body, I moved them to the body so as to make a proper summary of the intro. -Eris Lover (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There are 119 sources in this version of the page. After your edits, there are 118. What problem are you attempting to solve with your edits? You really need to not edit war to instate your changes. I'd highly suggest you remove them while we discuss.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * YOU are the one who started the edit war. If you have a problem with my edits, it is not appropriate to just repeatedly revert them.  The appropriate course of action is to bring your concerns to the talk page so that we can reach a consensus.  THEN we can agree as to what to do next.  Now, which reference do you believe I left out?  I'd be very happy to check and if it is actually gone and deserves to be returned, to do so.  It is not my intention at this point (as I've not yet had the time to evaluate sources) to remove any references.  That having been said, the original intro was a complete mess.  Also, the section you have an issue with was disorganized (bouncing back and forth between different pov with no flow).  This issues are what I'm currently working on. -Eris Lover (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've created a spreadsheet to compare the two sets of references, found the missing reference, and restored it to the article. See?  Once you -communicate- what your complaint is, a solution can be reached.-Eris Lover (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Eris, your account is about 20 days old, and you have a total of 34 edits to the site... only 1 of which is outside of this page. Welcome to the site, but please accept that you are new, and there are ways of doing things that you may not be privy to yet. Lecturing tenured editors on their editing habits, (while edit warring to get your content inserted into an article, no less), is probably not the best approach. I'm giving you advice because I'd like you to do well here, but what you're doing now is not acceptable behavior and would likely result in issues on a higher traffic article.
 * You've removed over 1500 characters from the article, and completely uprooted the entire lead. Changes such as that should be discussed first before being implemented. You've removed mention that Christianity has a traditional opposition to homosexuality from the lead, which our sources document quite frequently. You've removed mention of marriage and the divergent set of views from the lead; again, this is documented heavily in sources, and should be summed up in the opening. You've removed substantial content on the bible and homosexuality, including a summary indicating historical interpretation on the matter. That's sourceable content and should be returned. These are just the first couple issues that pop out while viewing your changes, all within the first few paragraphs.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to get into a ridiculous chest-beating contest with you. The fact is that you should have posted your issues on the talk page so that we could discuss them.  Instead, you repeatedly reverted the article without discussing your issues.  Once you did mention your issue on the talk page, the issue got resolved in a positive manner.  In the future, please keep that in mind and bring your issues up in the talk page rather than jumping immediately to repeated reversions.  You will find that it avoids creating a hostile environment and more quickly reaches a positive conclusion.  As for removing 1500 words, that's not a real issue.  The quality of the article is based not on it's length, but on it's content.  Whether Christianity has a traditional opposition to homosexuality is up for debate with many notable scholars disagreeing with you.  The intro is not a good place to provide a pov slant on that debate (no place is, but especially not the intro).  The stuff you have an issue with was moved to the appropriate section and consolidated.  If you have a -specific- issue, state what that is and we can work towards a positive resolution. -Eris Lover (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Eris, I've got to tell you that I think Jess has the right of it here. It is true that in general terms a new editor can come, make edits, and others need to then adapt. But when a new and inexperienced editor comes, completely redirects a long-standing, well-sourced article, and removes perspectives that do not appear inherently incorrect on their face, that editor needs to expect to be reverted and to have to make his/her case on the talk page before implementing.
 * Having worked on edits with Jess in the past (and from opposite sides), I suspect Jess is not personally unsympathetic to your POV. But she is very dedicated to making sure the right thing happens here and making sure edits are justified.  And, in fact, does a great job with it.  So I suggest that you stop, take a breath, and start laying out your case here for everyone to evaluate. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * She may mean well, but she did not provide an explanation of her revert without having to fight her for it. This is in direct violation of the policy on reverting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REVEXP#Explain_reverts  Also, there is no requirement that I can find that says that I must post things in talk pages before making edits.  If there is one, please direct me to it.  It seems to violate the BRD methodology. -Eris Lover (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Her first revert gave summary reasoning, and at that point she immediately requested consultation on the talk page. That is exactly BRD.  Once we've gotten to D you do have to explain your edits before making them.  Eris, look around you:  you have 4-5 more experienced editors reverting your continued insistence on your version.  If you have any hope to make your version stick, I suggest you start defending it here and now on the talk page.  If you don't, you'll be blocked and will have no chance to defend your version.  If you do, you'll have a chance.  StevenJ81 (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see the justification for many of the edits which appear to remove sourced content for little reason etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look at the references count at the bottom of the page, you will see that the same number of references are used. In fact, the same references are used.  This is because referenced content wasn't removed, but organized.-Eris Lover (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You misread what I said. I said you removed sourced content, I did not say you removed sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There are some negative and some positive aspects to the recent edits, and we should see if there's anything we can keep. For instance, as I've said in the past, the lede really does not call for a list of denominations on either side, and we could elaborate a little more on the Bible issue (without making this The Bible and homosexuality, which is a separate article). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. The lead is way too long, and that's probably a good part to trim.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the above comments, I trimmed the lead by moving the list of churches down to its own section. I simply copy/pasted, so I would bet there is some overlap and redundancy we will need to cut out. However, the lead is much slimmer now, which I think is an improvement. I'd be happy to discuss if anyone has any objections, of course. I did make a few very minor changes. For instance, I changed "condemn male homosexual behavior" to "condemn homosexual behavior". Do our sources make a distinction? If they do, we might want to discuss how churches make a distinction between male/female homosexuality. I'm not sure the lead is a great place to go into detail, however. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Re male homosexuality, it depends on what we're talking about - the biblical verses one cites are almost all in reference to men only, but denominations that condemn usually condemn equally. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Traditional View
Whatever is "traditional" is highly debatable. Different church denominations and, even, churches have different takes on what is "traditional". The word is -highly- pov. I'm saying this as an anthropologist who has studied enough critical theory of history to know what I'm talking about. ANY claim that some particular view is "traditional" should be sourced and should identify who exactly holds that view to be "traditional". Any particular claim that some particular view is "traditional" should be balanced by alternative views which are asserted by other parties to be "traditional" as well. The intro is NOT a place for this debate to be explored in depth. -Eris Lover (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Reversion Policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_revert_due_to_%22no_consensus%22 specifies that "no consensus" is NOT a valid reason to revert. How about you all start abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Do you think you can do that? If not, you shouldn't be editing. -Eris Lover (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't see how this is a contribution towards improving this article. Is there a specific part of the article you want to discuss? HiLo48 (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Work on the article should be done in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. THIS is how to improve an article and it has EVERYTHING to do with improving the article.  There are a bunch of edit ninjas who are controlling the page in contradiction to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The existence of these edit ninjas is a critical issue and prevents constructive collaboration (and, therefore, prevents the article from being improved).  Since the article, itself, cannot be improved, at least identifying the problem (WHY it cannot be improved) in the talk pages (so that anyone who reads the article might be able to read about the problem) provides the necessary meta-data to contextualize the article as a bunch of bullshit.Eris Lover (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I still cannot see how that is a contribution towards improving this article. Is there a specific part of the article you want to discuss? HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Whenever I read a Wikipedia article, particularly one on a social issue, I, also, read the talk page to see if any issues inhibiting the quality of the page have been identified. As for discussing any particular part of the page, there's a lot wrong with this article.  As per Wikipedia guidelines, I will fix those issues in my edits.  If there's any concerns you have with my edits, discuss your concerns in the talk page instead of reverting.  I'm happy to collaborate with you if you stick to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.-Eris Lover (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of polls
After the recent re-arrangement of content brought the American opinion polls to my attention, I removed them. They are geographically specific in a way that doesn't necessarily generalize to the whole world, which is an issue, but mostly they're just not recent enough. Public opinion on homosexuality and LGBT rights has changed rapidly in the past decade; if we're going to include opinion polling, let's use very recent polls (and hopefully find ones from plenty of countries). In any case, we do not really need polls to tell us "some Christians are accepting and some are not" - that's really a qualitative statement, not a quantitative one. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Missing: Belgium and France
I addad United Protestant Church of France and the United Protestant Church in Belgium Both are LGBT-friendly churches, which allowed blessing of same-sex marriages. Timotagksor (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Radio France: French Protestant church authorises gay marriages, May 2015
 * Holebi: Verenigde Protestantse Kerk staat inzegening homohuwelijk toe

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 one external links on Christianity and homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120403034634/http://www.eauk.org/resources/publications/upload/Homosexuality.pdf to http://www.eauk.org/resources/publications/upload/Homosexuality.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130309092659/http://oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=26 to http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=26
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090425181001/http://www.united-church.ca:80/humanrights/equal/chronology to http://www.united-church.ca/humanrights/equal/chronology#1988
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060722092332/http://www.moravianseminary.edu:80/FaithOrder/STHomosexuality1st.html to http://www.moravianseminary.edu/FaithOrder/STHomosexuality1st.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150513214029/http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/marriage_and_family/marriage.aspx to http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/marriage_and_family/marriage.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928093136/http://exodus.to/content/view/313/87/ to http://exodus.to/content/view/313/87/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100327064315/http://www.euroforumlgbtchristians.eu:80/home/home.asp to http://www.euroforumlgbtchristians.eu/home/home.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Changes
Shouldn't the titles for the Critical and Favourable Views sections be switched or at least adjusted? The Critical (judging severely and finding fault) section in fact doesn't find fault but supports what Biblical passages say in regards to homosexual acts. It is the Favourable Views section which lists theologians and perspectives that judge and find fault with Biblical passages. Seems like an inconsistency to me! 人族 (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No, it is obvious that the headings refer to views critical of and favorable to homosexuality. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I see a core difference in perspective has been exposed in this discussion: what is it people are favorable to?! The terms "critical" and "favorable" can be understood as critical/favorable toward the Bible, or critical/favorable toward homosexuality. I suggest we use neutral terms and try something like "Views that find the Bible compatible with homosexuality" and "Views that find the Bible incompatible with homosexuality". I'm sure somebody can come up with simpler labels, but you see my goal. What better labels can you suggest?Pete unseth (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point of changing anything; it seems to me like only an incredibly trivial minority of people, if any ("can be understood"? do you mean "can" if you want to deliberately misread, or "might actually be misunderstood"), would misunderstand these headings. The current terminology is clear, neutral, and does not beg the question of which views are more "correct." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree that only a minority might understand the text differently than the previous editor assumes. But there is a very simple fix, for both clarity and neutrality: What about "Views critical of homosexuality" and "Views supportive of homosexuality"? Clearer. Certainly shorter than my first try. Pete unseth (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No real problem with it. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Is the focus of this article Christianity, homosexuality, or the area of overlap though? I'm just wondering if the phrasing Views Critical\Favourable of Homosexuality might shift the focus to homosexuality. How about a hybrid of proposals - Biblical Views Critical of Homosxuality versus Biblical Interpretations Supportive of Homosexuality? Odds are this won't end the debate but maybe it'll engender some other suggestions. 人族 (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Bible is far from the only topic in this article. In fact, we have another article about that. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a distinction between Christianity and homosexuality, and the Bible and homosexuality? ..... Hmm found that page. I guess I can see how the distinction's working. There is an element of overlap though. Just skimming between the two, why is it that the evangelical and fundamentalist approach is seen as interpreting rather than face value understanding, whereas those supportive of homosexuality are challenging traditional positions and understandings, and proposing mistranslated passages? I'm probably in the minority but there seems to be a weighting difference in this article. Pretty sure I come from the opposite side to Roscelese though. 人族 (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course there's a distinction between Christianity and homosexuality, and the Bible and homosexuality. But I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're saying with the rest of your comment. Are you proposing that the anti-gay position be presented as fact while the other position be presented as interpretation? Both are interpretations. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Seeking to put some historical perspective into the intro
The introduction does not show how views on homosexuality within church groups have changed during different eras. The second paragraph mentions the "twentieth and twenty-first centuries", but it does not show what a big change this represents from the past. I tried to fix this earlier, with "though historically all branches have Christianity have held to a simple position that rejected homosexuality. Beginning in the late 20th century..." My edit was reverted for lack of a source, and I acknowledge that. I still feel that the intro needs some way of showing that some of the views expressed in the past couple decades are quite different from the historic position of various branches of Christianity. How should the intro indicate that many of the present voices are expressing a significant change (assuming we can find sources)? Pete unseth (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * How about simply inserting the word modern in the first sentence? Something like "within modern Christianity there are a variety of views on the issues of sexual orientation and homosexuality". Would that suit? And you could probably tweak the second sentence to note that that's the historical position. It's probably only within the last few decades that any churches have embraced homosexuality after all. If there were any studies done on the treatment of homosexuality by Christianity over the centuries I guess a new section could be started but that'd be such a specialised field I'm skeptical any literature would be found. 人族 (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There has been some research into church attitudes toward homosexuality in the distant past. John Boswell's book "Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe" presents a good case for the widespread existence of same-sex marriages in the church until around the 11th-13th centuries in western Europe, later in eastern Europe. A 1990's interview with a Russian Orthodox priest in Moscow indicated that there is knowledge, but official denial, that the Orthodox churches used to perform such marriages. The priest indicated that as late as the 19th century, some areas, for example Albania, still saw such marriages happening. I'm not offering this information to say that the article should necessarily be rewritten to reflect that, but that we should be careful about making blanket statements that suggest that prior to modern times Christianity was always, uniformly, anti-gay. Some research suggest that anti-homosexual attitudes in Christianity didn't surface until after the Moors, who were Muslims, began to occupy portions of western Europe, exposing Christians to the teachings of the Koran, such as the link between Sodom and homosexuality. Such ideas were later incorporated into vernacular translations of the Bible. (For example, there is no word in the Hebrew and Greek texts of scripture that translates as sodomite, yet that word appears in most translations of the Bible.) Just some food for thought. BroWCarey (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In regard to the recent edit with references about anti-homosexual sentiment from Tertullian and St. John Chrysostom: It's worth mentioning that most of what is passed off as anti-gay sentiment from Christian writings of the period is actually anti-pederasty. Condemnation of pederasty should not be understood as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality. The rest of the writings can all be traced back to confusion regarding the writing of a Greek philosopher who had written a scathing denunciation of Athenian society years earlier. In order to drive home his point, the writer never once referred to Athens by name, but instead, called it Sodom. His readers would have understood the reference, and certainly would have recognized Athens from the description in the article. Later Christian readers did not, and assumed it was actually a description of life in Sodom. (It never occurred to them that a Greek philosopher, who lived well over a thousand years after Sodom was destroyed, and whose only knowledge of it would have come from Jewish sources, specifically the Tanakh and the Mishnah, would not have been privy to some previously unknown intelligence on life in Sodom.) But even if what they read had been about Sodom, the Christian readers ignored the main point, which was about a decadent society, and focused instead on the mention of pederasty, which the original author only mentioned in passing, and did not see as an issue or problem. This is why people like John Chrysostom wrote about the men of Sodom lusting after boys. Nothing in scripture suggests that, nor does the Mishnah. It also bears mentioning that these early writings did not gain wide acceptance in Christianity at the time. (Not to mention modern translations of them are flawed. Most contain the word sodomy... which did not exist at the time those documents were originally written. These translations are very misleading.) Not sure if any of this needs to be reflected in the article or not, but the most recent edit, which includes only references with no actual quotes or easily-verified material, may be misleading. Thoughts? BroWCarey (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I will post quotes today. Pete unseth (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have just inserted the quotations from the early writers, as requested. The comments just above, by BroWCarey, are interesting to read, but not ready to be included in the article. Lots of research, but without even the name of the Greek philosopher. I am not saying that there have never been any who called themselves Christian who supported same-sex relations, but I am inserting documented quotes from the early days that rejected this. I am very open to having my contribution reformatted. I trust we can all continue editing this article amicably, following both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines. Pete unseth (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There's actually an indication in one of the quotes that there were some back then who disagreed with the now "traditional" understanding of what Paul wrote to the Romans. The quote "Those who interpret this differently do not understand the force of the argument." I did find the original Latin text online. That line is Quod quidam aliter interpretantur, non perspicientes vim dicti, which I translate as "Those who would interpret it otherwise, do not see the force of what is being said." Whether or not Ambrosiaster's observation was correct, the fact that he made it is evidence enough that there was disagreement even then as to what Paul meant.BroWCarey (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You'll need to clarify which quote etc you're referring to. As best I can figure out you're referring to a commentary on Romans 1. Even granting there's the "traditional" and other interpretations, without clear text about what the other entails we can't claim it proves anything specific. And as for the earlier point about anti-pederastry, exactly where is that prohibited in Scripture? Probably veering a little off topic, but as far as I can tell either pederastry is considered homosexuality, and thus precluded, or else is considered acceptable. I'm happy if someone can point out specific passages that preclude the practice, I'm just not aware of any. 人族 (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually quoted (pasted) the quote I was referring to... how could I clarify it better than that? Yes, it was a quote in regard to Romans from Ambrosiaster. Pederasty, in and of itself, is not prohibited in scripture. The problem with pederasty that early writers had specifically was how it functioned in the Roman Empire. In the Greco-Roman world, a man would have a wife, but would also be involved in a temporary physical relationship with an adolescent male. This was incompatible with Christianity, if for no other reason, because Christians are not supposed to be involved in "temporary" intimate relationships. The Greeks and Romans believed that being involved with an adult man was a normal part of a boy's education, but that physical aspect of the relationship ended when the boy reached adulthood. Both the Greeks and Romans disapproved of exclusive homosexuality. (They also disapproved of exclusive heterosexuality, for that matter.) Their creation story led them to believe all people were inherently incomplete, and the only way to restore wholeness was to be intimate with both sexes. For males, this was accomplished with pederasty. Women, on the other hand, were allowed only one husband, and were not to be intimate with other men. They were, however, permitted, and expected, to be intimate with other women. Again, the Greeks and Romans taught this was normal. This was the situation that was extant in Rome in the first century, and it is what Paul was writing about in Romans 1. He called it an error (πλανη), because it was "against nature." Some early Christians, particularly those who read and wrote in Latin, evidently made the same error that many make today, that is, assuming that by "nature," Paul was referring to the creation, the natural order of the world. That's because both the English and Latin words for nature carry such meanings. But the Greek word φυσις doesn't have as many shades of meaning as the Latin and English equivalents. It refers, rather, to a person's (or thing's) own inherent nature. So the alternate interpretation found today, and undoubtedly in the early centuries, was that Paul was talking about people for whom intimacy with members of the same sex was unnatural... in other words, heterosexuals, since most of the people doing so in his time would have been heterosexuals doing what their religion and society expected them to do. Does this make sense? BroWCarey (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am the one who called for putting some historical perspective into the intro. The material I added was so much, I moved it down into the body of the article. Sadly, only now have I realized that there is an article titled History of Christianity and homosexuality. Instead of putting so much material into this article, I should have referred readers to that article. So, I plan to reduce what I posted here and refer readers to the history article. The two articles have too much overlap, but I will reduce that a bit. I trust this is acceptable to as many as possible. Trying to discuss a difficult task gently. Pete unseth (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Uuuuugh, we have far too many articles on this subject. :(( –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * BroWCarey, I found a source giving the passage, but it's on a university professor's personal website. The site notes that subsequent editions provide the "traditional interpretation" but running the passage through Google, and bearing in mind how bad a machine translation is, I'm not seeing the argument that the passage supports a reading of unnatural heterosexual relations rather than the "traditional reading" of opposing homosexual ones. And given the site contains a lot on "Gay and Lesbian Studies", and that the chap teaches a subject pertaining to that I'd have to say it looks biased - he found exactly what he was looking for irrespective of what the text actually said. And that ignores the question of how mainstream this particular author was - an unknown author from roughly 370 AD. Also, regarding temporary relationships, why? Where are they banned? If you're going with alternative interpretations then the only bit that springs to mind is fornication, but that merely prohibits consorting with prostitutes (fornicārī). Since pederasty isn't prostitution that'd be irrelevant.


 * And let's see if I grasp BroWCarey's point correctly. You're claiming that rather than nature referring to Creation it's referring to sexual nature? I'm not sure that actually supports your position. After stating that God gave them over to their lusts and impurities, and the mutual dishonouring of their bodies it then progresses to the first passage illustrating the shameful\vile passions - namely having exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature. How does a lesbian engaging in a heterosexual marriage dishonour herself with shameful passions? Oh, and by the way, assuming φύσιν does indeed refer to sexual nature, what's Romans 11:24 about, the sexual nature of olive trees? :-) 人族 (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It's been a while... is the passage to which you are referring, 人族, Romans 2:26-27? I wouldn't put too much faith in a machine translation. They are notoriously bad, regardless of the language. The meaning of the passage is going to focus on the meaning of φυσις. I'm afraid you may have misunderstood my definition of the word. It does not inherently refer to sexual nature, but the innate nature of a person or thing. The point is that it does NOT refer to the whole of creation, the natural order of the entire world. Where it takes on a sexual nature is in the verses in Romans, since they are, in fact, about sex. If we look at the prior verses in the light of the history of the Greco-Roman religion, and how it impacted the sexual behavior of those who practiced it, it's easier to follow: For centuries, the Greeks, and then the Romans, had been living in a manner we would consider bisexual. With the men, it was limited to pederastic relationships, temporary in nature. With the women, it involved adult relationships, the length of which was not governed in any way. The religion itself was given to worshiping idols, and even the deities those idols represented were hardly divine in their qualities, but were more like spoiled children, capricious in nature. All in all, it amounted to worshiping things that had been created, rather than the Creator. In addition, for centuries, both the Greeks and Romans had had contact with the Jews, a source of knowledge of the one true God. And while the Greeks found the Jews fascinating at times, neither culture as a whole embraced the worship of the true God. They preferred to continue to worship their statues. Meanwhile, their sexual practices, which had originated as a religious duty, to restore the wholeness lost when the first human was split in two, had long since evolved, first into a simple social custom, and then, into an outlet for unbridled lust. So while originally, following this way of living would have been uncomfortable for most, in time, they had learned to overrule their own nature (sexual orientation), ignoring it. How? God gave them over to what they had already decided to do. The things they did were shameful, dishonorable, not because of the nature of the acts, but because of who was doing them. When someone engages in a form of sexual expression that is not in keeping with their own sexual nature, it can't help but be dishonorable and shameful. Everything about it is wrong, and it should feel wrong to the person who is doing it. But in the case of the Romans, it did not, because God have given them over to it. For a lesbian to be involved in a heterosexual relationship would amount to the same thing: it would be dishonorable to her because it is a total violation of her own φυσις, her own nature.
 * The Greco-Roman custom of sexuality does not exist today. In fact, it hasn't for centuries... the Samurai men had a similar pederastic custom, but that ended long ago. And the Samurai custom was not rooted in religion as the Greco-Roman custom had been. God had not "given them over" to anything. Nor has He done so today. Any person engaged in a sexual relationship contrary to their nature is going to know it, and is going to feel wrong, uncomfortable, and possibly even physically ill. This holds true whether it is a heterosexual in a homosexual relationship or a homosexual in a heterosexual relationship. That feeling of wrongness is a person's own innate nature telling them what is right or wrong FOR THEM. BroWCarey (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Christianity and homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225072042/http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304123934/http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225072042/http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Christianity and homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091213012353/http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008224923/http://neym.org/FUMworkweb/history.pdf to http://www.neym.org/FUMworkweb/history.pdf
 * Added tag to http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1728
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513181703/http://www.freemethodistchurch.org/Sections/About%20Us/Beliefs/Christian%20Life/Christian%20Conduct/Christian%20Conduct%203.htm to http://www.freemethodistchurch.org/Sections/About%20Us/Beliefs/Christian%20Life/Christian%20Conduct/Christian%20Conduct%203.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613093815/http://alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0%2C%2CPTID23682_CHID125044_CIID1620134%2C00.html to http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0%2C%2CPTID23682_CHID125044_CIID1620134%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008224923/http://neym.org/FUMworkweb/history.pdf to http://www.neym.org/FUMworkweb/history.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130623013409/http://exodusinternational.org/2013/06/i-am-sorry to http://exodusinternational.org/2013/06/i-am-sorry
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140522213615/http://wlsessays.net/files/BrugIsHomosexualityASin.pdf to http://wlsessays.net/files/BrugIsHomosexualityASin.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111009090019/http://www.hrmcc.org/Resources/StudyDocuments/bibleand.htm to http://www.hrmcc.org/Resources/StudyDocuments/bibleand.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111106041153/http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/282-spiritual-profile-of-homosexual-adults-provides-surprising-insights to http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/282-spiritual-profile-of-homosexual-adults-provides-surprising-insights
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090525055244/http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/07/18/ungay/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/07/18/ungay/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930014647/http://www.ecwr.org/index.php to http://www.ecwr.org/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090428103050/http://www.changingattitude.org.uk/home/home.asp to http://www.changingattitude.org.uk/home/home.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140522213615/http://wlsessays.net/files/BrugIsHomosexualityASin.pdf to http://wlsessays.net/files/BrugIsHomosexualityASin.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christianity and homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527195055/http://www.apacny.net/The%20Christian%20Case%20Against%20Same-Sex%20Marriage.pdf to http://www.apacny.net/The%20Christian%20Case%20Against%20Same-Sex%20Marriage.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christianity and homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903095043/http://www.affirmingapostolic.com/ to http://www.affirmingapostolic.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christianity and homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20021105000252/http%3A//www.leaderu.com/jhs/dallas.html to http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/dallas.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Move to Homosexuality in Christianity
How about renaming this article to "Homosexuality in Christianity" similar to "Homosexuality in Islam".--SharabSalam (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted the recent edit because the text was unclear and unsourced. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The "Nashville Statement"
The article mentions the "Nashville Statement", but does not tell us what positions the document takes. Somebody please explain this, or remove this sentence. Pete unseth (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Orthodox Church and homosexuality
I just completed a revision of this section, it now reads less pro-homosexual than it used to. I tried to bring it closer to the actual facts rather than wishful thinking. Nxavar (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty blatant admission of POV editing for what was a much milder change than I expected. 50% isn't a majority, but it's a pretty sizable dissent from a strict dogma that does insist on rejecting homosexuality, which I imagine was the intent of including the figure. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Title and focus mismatch
There is a mismatch between the focus of the current article content, and the title. At this moment, the entire content of the article is focused on the views or positions of Christianity on homosexuality, however the title is "Christianity and homosexuality".

If the title is correct, then why is there nothing in the article about the long history of Christianity regarding homosexuality? There is nothing about the sex abuse scandals. There is nothing about discrimination (the word discrimination occurs in the article twice; in both cases, in the positive context of how it should be avoided, because the Church is inclusive (i.e., "positions"), and nothing about the history involved. I think the reason for those omissions, is that the intended focus of the article is what the content currently is, namely, "Views of Christianity on homosexuality" (or, "Christian views on homosexuality", currently a redirect).

But that's not the current title. Per the article naming criteria, the title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. The current title fails to do that. If the content focus is correct, then the title is wrong. Either the title should be changed to Christian views on homosexuality, or, if the current title is kept, then the article needs to be tripled or quadrupled in size in order to accommodate the long history of Christianity regarding homosexual issues, including such disparate things as pink triangles during Nazi times, and meddling in Ugandan politics regarding laws on capital punishment. However, I doubt this is the intention of the current article.

If those things are not part of what the article is supposed to be about (and I'm pretty sure it's not) then per WP:PRECISION the article title must change to match the content. I would support a move to Christian views on homosexuality. Mathglot (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent revert
Regarding this edit and revert, originally made by User:Roscelese, the content being discussed is pretty clearly redundant to me. The change is also a significant improvement to grammar. &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 13:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Researches" is poor grammar
 * The first sentence is a run-on.
 * "the reception of the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality among [lgbt people] that identify as Roman Catholics" is the same thing as "the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality are [distressing] to LGBT Catholics."
 * The bottom change is simply linking the same article twice in succession.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2021 and 19 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nashea08.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaiguy02.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Lambeth 1.10
I think a brief one-paragraph summary of the Lambeth 1.10 controversy is WP:DUE here, as the Anglican Communion is a major Christian grouping and 1.10 has been a big part of the disagreement about homosexuality among the different Anglican churches. Perhaps User:Doug Weller can say why he thinks it's not needed/appropriate here? Also, I think Anglican and Lutheran should get their own sub-sections with hatnotes pointing to Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion and Homosexuality and Lutheranism. See this edit. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * no comment on that. Apologies for my mistaken revert, I just meant to restore the short description. Doug Weller  talk 17:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Dove and Cross. Stained-glass window at Church of Our Savior MCC (Metropolitan Community Church, Church), 2011 South Federal Hwy, Boynton Beach, Florida 33435, USA.jpg