Talk:Religion and heterosexuality

Untitled
I presume you are going to change the cut and paste content from Religion and homosexuality top reflect heterosexuality here.. yes? Lestatdelc 00:48, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that changes have already been made, if you see inappropriate content please edit, this is open source after all.Hyacinth 17:48, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I meant, edit, write, add, change, not blanket delete.Hyacinth 22:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Everything there was specific to same-sex sexuality. That was why I first posted here that I was hoping you were going to edit the cut and paste content form the Religion and homosexuality page. Lestatdelc 22:15, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. Sorry if I was short, I do understand your concern. Not everything was copied exactly. How about: &quot;Since the sexual revolution western different-sex sexuality has been almost completely divorced from precreation and other traditional and/or religious priorities.&quot; More importantly, I added new paragraphs that are better than the previous content, so, of course, no harm done.Hyacinth 22:22, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * There was only two small lines of text about opposite-gender sexuality, and one was in context to same-gender sexuality. What you quote above is good, though I would suggest perhaps using the term "opposite-gender sexuality" instead of "different-sex sexuality" since not only is it ungainly, it does not use the mildly exclusionary word "different" which implies a "normality" and also better fits with many views on gender and gender identity.Lestatdelc 22:45, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * I would encourage you to see: Style_guide and Naming_conventions and, if you wish, make (on the talk page?) the case for both opposite and gender over different and sex.
 * See the new WikiProject Sexology. Hyacinth 23:13, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

______

Good start at content from the previous cut and paste. I will see what I can add over the weekend. Lestatdelc 22:19, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Hyacinth 22:22, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * On a side note, how do you see the content here evolving? I would think this would be a place where many of the various proscriptions on same-gender sex and sexuality would be described and detailed. Your brief passages about sex during menses being a prime example. I also think that some aspects and broad stroke passages from sexual morality can be repurposed and edited to work here. Your thoughts? Lestatdelc 22:46, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't see this page lasting. People tend to freak when straightness is considered as anything but the ahistorical norm, others feel that such content is elsewhere (Religion and sexuality) and thus redundant, some feel its a POV anti-gay plot, some feel its an anti-straight plot. Other than that I have added about all I can think of, though I know this is actually a huge subject. Oh, one big issue we can cover is celibacy. We could create content by looking at List of sexology topicsHyacinth 23:05, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I understand your reticence about the longevity and no doubt the contentious nature this page may endure, but it is a worthwhile sub-set of the numerous already lengthy entries surrounding this. I concur that issues surrounding celibacy are rich areas to include and expand on. I would also thin that how sexuality and marriage and procreation all intersect with the various religious traditions and customs are important. If nothing else some urban legend de-bunking can be done here and made useful. For example, the urban legend that orthodox jews have sex through a hole in a sheet is urban legend. A page like this would be the ideal one in which such information can be addressed and real knowledge imparted. Lestatdelc 23:24, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Merger discussion
Please see Wikipedia talk:LGBT notice board for a discussion about merging and renaming some LGBT articles, including this one. -- Beland 03:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I merged with Religion and sexuality because it's more general than Religion and sexual orientation, and it's unclear which is what the reader was looking for. The two articles are cross-referenced, anyway. -- Beland 05:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)