Talk:Homosexuality and religion

Christianity section
Not good! The Christianity section needs to state the following: The section doesn't need much more than that, because there is a main article. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 17:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC
 * 1) POVvy statements, such as the usual bias phrase "In accordance with the traditional values", the initial paragraph then claims "Christian denominations accepts homosexuals" and then goes on to explain that they don't accept "homosexual acts", which is clearly biased in favor of that kind of Christian bigottery on the loss of the homosexuals – what does it mean? "We're not going to excommunicate you if you abstain from being homosexuals" or?
 * 2) then the "general", "traditional" vs. "some", "other" word gaming plays against the "liberal Christians" and such,
 * 3) Fred Phelps, ignorable because condemned by all (other) Christians,
 * 4) lists of names not needed here.
 * Some Christians are negative, which are? Which denominations? Where? Why?
 * Some Christians are positive, which are? Which denominations? Where? Why?
 * I agree. I've tagged the section as needing a summary of the main article Homosexuality and Christianity.  --Alynna (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC

The Christian view of morality is a standard that doesn't change. Policial correctness changes constantly, but biblical doctrine doesn't. The cannon Christian view on homosexuality is that homosexuality it wrong. You claim that it is 'Christian bigotry in the loss of homosexuality.' At least in my own experience, 'bigotted' organizations have only 'pushed back' against homosexuals due to homosexual activism demanding people champion homosexual activity or be labeled as bigots. 'PC' organizations and products, such as CyberPatrol, have guidelines that label (for example) Christian organizations as bigots if they 'have a neutral or hostile view of homosexuality.' I hope this helps with maintaining neutrality of the document. Claiming 'clear Christian bigotry' shows a compromise on your half towards bias.

Section on Jainism needs edited for grammar and POV
Just... needs a lot of attention. "Some texts in Jainism have depicted of Eunuchs are born with genetic defects or due to social pressure." -- one of many examples of really bad grammar. POV is found throughout the second paragraph, in sentences like "For this liberalism and sense of realism, the masters of the organization deserve praise."

Traditional religions all condemn LGBTQ+
Generally all religions traditionally view what we would consider LGBTQ+ today as something undesirable. Sure, there are progressive sects and denominations, but the traditional view of nearly every religion on Earth regards LGBTQ+ as something negative and even sinful. 2601:98A:400:8910:992D:A09C:979B:6574 (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's just wrong. The majority of religions don't view homosexuality as negative. Hinduism, Buddhism, Hellenic Polytheism, Paganism, Humanism, Taoism and many more don't. It's almost exclusively Abrahamic religions that are so prejudiced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MianMianBaoBao (talk • contribs) 01:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like Dharmic Religions have pretty strong traditional segments which are against Homosexuality, and it's largely omitted. For example, the Hindu section does mention opposition to Homosexuality, but barely touches on it, spending more time talking about progressive segments in favor of it. 71.129.228.139 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

falun gong views on homosexuality
would it be Wikipedia:UNDUE to mention Falun Gong's views on Homosexuality?

link here directly to their views on homosexuality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachings_of_Falun_Gong#Controversies 98.59.80.64 (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01
— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)