Talk:Leviticus 18

This is a useful article, which I've now linked from Christian views on homosexuality and placed in a category (a more specific one may be more appropriate, but it's a start). Rd232 16:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• I would vote for keeping this article. A lot of times people will claim that "The Bible says homosexuality is wrong" but not back it up in any way. In fact, this article is, literally, the first time I have ever seen the passages in question. Also, there is a pretty good (I assume? I really don't know the facts, but it sounds good.) summary of different groups' attitudes about this chapter. Ravenswood 23:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that there are more than 6 books dedicated to refuting the 'anti-homosexuality' aspects of these (and similar) Bible verses. It's possible that some contributors are trying to suppress this information, after realizing that a neutral exposition hurts their cause.

I'd call this Wikipedia:POV pushing by censorship (see Wikipedia:Gaming the system). Uncle Ed 17:17, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I can assure you that there are a hell of a lot more than 6 books dedicated to both sides of that (rather sterile) argument (I could cite you a bibliography of dozens of tedious monographs). In the end is more a matter of hermeneutics than exegesis. But, surely an encyclopaedia should be presenting neutral information (if there is such a thing post-modernity) without worrying about whose cause it hurts. My concern is that Leviticus 18 is not just about homosexuality (in fact it is/was the basis for the English common law of incest for centuries) - and it should not be allowed to become a battlefield solely for that debate - the sides of which can be and are recorded elsewhere. I'm afraid I'm not very sure what your point it - who are the 'some contributors' and what is 'their cause'? And what's up with your VfD summary? --Doc (?) 18:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

You've changed the subject rather smoothly. If you ever want to return to the points I was making, let me know. Uncle Ed 23:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not sure what your point is. That someone by insertion or supression is pushing a POV is always possible. This article was listed as a 'POV fork' and is far from being clean. Perhaps if you could be a little more specific? --Doc (?) 23:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 19:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Chart colours

The colours on the incest chart are difficult to see/compare on some monitors. Can we switch to as simple written chart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.127.157 (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Quoting NRSV

This article quotes the full NRSV text of Leviticus 18. The NRSV is copyright and quoting it is therefore against Wikipedia policy. Either the full text should be removed or a public domain text used instead, eg the King James Version, American Standard Version, Darby Translation, or Young’s Literal Translation (all on Bible Gateway site). Raycol 10:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel like quoting the entire text in the first place is very encyclopedic. If someone wants the actual text they can find it on a page specifically for that, for example, Wikisource. But the entire text is unnecessary and does not make the article better.Crito2161 03:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" is a a poor translation. Why was it selected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.224.133 (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Liberal" vs. "Conservative" & "Traditional" vs. "Modern", The Use of Emotive Words

Can we find better terms to describe these different viewpoints? The words currently being used are too emotive in context and can be misleading as not all politically conservative people are theologically conservative, and not all politically liberal people are theologically liberal. There is no mention in this article as to exactly what "liberal" and "conservative" are referring to. It is just roughly assumed, and that is bad, since there is a tendency for these words to be used in a laudatory or derogatory context.

The same with words like "modern" and "traditional". There are many on both sides of the issue who would say that theirs is really the "traditional" view in spite of what is the presently and commonly established viewpoint.69.87.160.8 20:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

heavily imbalanced

This article focuses almost entirely on only one verse, when there's a lot to be said about the marriage prohibitions, both from anthropological and historical points of view... AnonMoos (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia

I should explain why I added this to Category:Homophobia. This does not imply that the chapter is necessarily homophobic, especially as its meaning is debated. However, Leviticus 18 is one of the most heavily invoked biblical referenced to justify religiously-motivated homophobia. A great deal of discussion has gone into the criteria of categorizing an article as homophobic, and a FAQ is being drafted based on the conclusions of the European Union as well as the Yogyakarta Principles. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)