Talk:Jackie Hill Perry

Stance on homosexuality section
The "Stance on Homosexuality" paragraph is a mess. First, it seems to me that this is a actually summary of her position on sexual fluidity, rather than homosexuality as such, and so I propose we change the headline accordingly and link to the article on sexual fluidity. And the sole source seems to be a Washington Times article, which by its own admission is biased. And without putting too fine a point on it, Ms. Hill-Perry, earnest though I am certain she is, seems to be making a point that science has been making for almost a century now: women's sexuality is fluid whereas men's sexuality is hard-wired. (Bailey, J. Michael; Vasey, Paul; Diamond, Lisa; Breedlove, S. Marc; Vilain, Eric; Epprecht, Marc (2016). "Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 17 (2): 45–101. doi:10.1177/1529100616637616. PMID 27113562.) This should be part of the article for balance.

I propose this be simplified. The sentence on social media should be struck; I don't see its relevance. We also need to fix the timeline; the article goes back and forth from this 2013 interview to critiques of it before returning to the article again. And putting the two quotations next to one another will better allow readers to view her (nuanced?) position that God both does and does not change desires. This should be followed by a summary of critiques of her stance, though drawn from a wider range of sources than The Washington Times. How does that sound? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: if there is to be a section about her stance on homosexuality, it should include her "Love Letter to Lesbian," in which she indicates that her belief that Romans 1:18-32 represents Paul's own position rather than his summary of discourse used by Hellenistic Jewish legalists (Porter, 1990; Stowers, 1997; McKnight, 2019). This is obviously key in that many expressions of Christianity believe that Paul is actively forbidding followers of Christ from using the rhetoric of Romans 1.18-32, that Paul identifies the discourse itself as prideful (See key difference between NRSV 2:2 vs. NIV 2:2 for example). That is to say, I am concerned that this article presents Ms. Hill-Perry as a kind of speaker for all of Christianity, tone-deaf to a considerable body of scholarship and theology on the topic from other Christian sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm in full support of improving this section. My concern is to ensure that these changes don't constitute original synthesis of sources.--3family6 (Talk to me &#124; See what I have done ) 03:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Metanoia2019, (I think I am right in directing this comment to you), that is quite an opinion you have. I’m sorry, I could not finish all of it, but I read enough to offer my thoughts. Clearly, you are displeased with many things in this article. Respectfully, I encourage you to complain less about it on her Talk page and make the edits you find necessary, as long as they are in keeping with Wikipedia policy. You have the right, as an editor, to make edits as you see fit as long as they conform to Wikipedia policy, so jump in and change what you think is necessary. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The "key difference" between Romans 2:2 in the NRSV and the NIV is that NRSV inserts two words "You say" at the beginning of the verse and makes the rest of the verse a quotation:
 * You say, ‘We know that God’s judgement on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.’
 * However, there is no support in the Greek original for this insertion, it is merely an opinion of the NRSV editors - which on a straightforward reading of Romans 1 and 2 I think we are entitled to ignore! 31.125.236.202 (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Podcast section
This description needs a source, and “They’re pretty great” is an opinion. 170.253.255.44 (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)