Talk:Christianity and homosexuality

Archive 1 [1]: Archive 2 Oct 2005-Sept 2007

If I were to ask what I think was the motivation to make such a entry, I would say said motivation was intolerance.

Not just from the Christians, but those with an ant-Christian agenda as well.

Tolerance isn't attempting to prove the "other guy" wrong. Tolerance isn't also accepting the views of those that disagree with you.

Tolerance is how you treat the VERY people that you disagree with. No matter how wrong you think said person is.

Any Christians that believe homosexual sex is wrong then goes out and treats homosexuals any different than him or herself are being intolerant.

Any homosexual that also treats Christians badly or attempts to degrade them because of their religious beliefs are just as bad as the people they are slamming. Most don't realize this.

The whole "I am intolerant against intolerance" jibe is a cop-out. Either you are tolerant, or you are not. It seems a lot of people I have met that claim they are tolerant usually means "Tolerant to other people with similar beliefs"

For example, calling someone homophobic simply because they hold beliefs again homosexual sex is very bigoted and intolerant. It doesn't make said person any more homophobic than the next. You don't see people calling Christian heterophobic because they are against adultery as well do you? Of course not. This term was used to belittle those that had valid beliefs. It was FUD used to make people think that ANYONE that beliefs homosexual sex is immoral only believe so because they are hateful, or have a phobia. This is simply not true.

So what I am basically saying is, this whole article seems like there are "Two sides" trying to make intolerant comments about the other. They two are the SAME type of people. Most of the time the things we hate about others, are the very same things we see in ourselves that we dislike.

I suggest that the whole article gets scraped, and re-written in a less biased and bigoted way.

Again having religious beliefs against homosexual sex does not = bigotry or homophobia anymore than someone believing adultrey is wrong aren't bigots or heterophobic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.193.162 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hyperbole or needed modifiers?

In the following two sentence, I think modifiers not merely hyperbolic but warranted:

“...throughout the majority of Christian history....”

and

“However, there has been a minority of interpreters who have advanced a different understanding....”

“Vast majority” is required instead of merely “majority” as “majority" signifies merely more than 50% whereas any Christian approbation of homosexual behavior comes only in the 20th century. That means for 1900 years of its existence, Christianity has been unequivocally condemnatory of homosexual behavior. “Majority” does not signify this adequately.

“Small minority” is required instead of merely “minority” as “minority” signifies merely less than 50% whereas the number of Christian theologians and leaders who condone homosexuality is minuscule compared to the number of even only eminent Christian theologians and leaders who condemn it.LCP 20:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an accurate and specific accounting or study which shows that only a "minuscule" (what's a minuscule, anyway?) number of Christian theologians and leaders condone homosexuality? How do you define "small minority"? Those are questions which would need to be answered before reinserting that word. FCYTravis 04:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, finally someone points it out. In my own work I've noted that it's actually a slim majority who think the whole debate is irrelevant to the work of the church, and a slightly smaller majority who support full and equal participation for gay persons. Granted, this is made up mostly of clergy and theologians, and from an American context. Europe would be more pro-rights, Africa and Asia more anti, but the percentages are what we really need. These, however, would be hard to get and would also be constantly in flux. But, this is the sort of thing we really need in the intro. Not generic terms like those present there now. I wonder if there's a study in the AAR journal or something. MerricMaker 05:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MerricMaker that hard numbers would be best. However, I think FCYTravis has it backwards. Since for the vast majority of its history Christendom has been unequivocally condemnatory of homosexual behavior and the largest denomination of Christians (the Roman Catholic Church) currently condemns homosexual behavior as "disordered," it is those who suggest that the voices representing the untraditional view are worth noting that need to provide a reason as to why these voices warrant the weight they are given in the article. Currently, the article cites one historian (who also happens to be gay). In contrast to this single voice, in even only the early church the denunciation of homosexuality is seen in the Didache and the writings of Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Eusebius, St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine of Hippo, and in doctrinal sources such as the Apostolic Constitutions. This denunciation is consistent in later theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas, who denounced sodomy as second only to bestiality as the worst of all sexual sins, and Hildegard of Bingen, who condemned sexual relations between women as "perverted forms."

Consequently, the statement in the lead, that “some prominent theologians and Christian religious groups have espoused a wide variety of beliefs” is misleading. Would you disagree that “A few…” is a much better representation of the reality?

By the way, "minuscule" = very small (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/minuscule). Were you really unable to find the definition on line, or were you provoking me? I couldn't tell.LCP 20:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree that "a few" is a much better representation of reality, because you have presented no evidence to support your claim that it is reality. "Some" is a neutral word, which acknowledges that people have held this view, without in any way asserting knowledge of how many people have held the view. The word "few" asserts that only a "very small" number of Christian thinkers don't condemn homosexuality, and thus implicitly belittles the view. There's no evidence to support this, and Wikipedia cannot assert novel ideas. FCYTravis 20:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Perhaps adjectives are not the best way to communicate the idea I am struggling with. Here is the problem I am running into:

The ecclesiastical communities listed in the article that support homosexuality have a total of 6,345,000 members - United Church of Christ: 1,200,000 million; Methodist Church of Great Britain: 330,000; Moravian church: 825,000; United Church of Canada: 2,800,000 million; Quakers: 350,000 (which comprises Friends General Conference); Anglican Church of Canada: 800,000; Metropolitan Community Church: 40,000 (http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/metro_comm_church.html)

The churches and ecclesiastical communities listed in the article that condemn homosexual acts have a total of 1,277,966,000 members (taking the low figure for the Orthodox) - Catholic 1,114,966,000; Orthodox: 150,000,000 to 350,000,000; LDS 13,000,000.

This means that only about .4% (notice the decimal point) of all Christians belong to denominations that endorse homosexuality. If that isn’t a “very small” (i.e. “miniscule”) number, what is?

Your statistics leave out all of the churches that do not have clear positions on homosexuality one way or another or which are still actively debating the issue- most notably the Presbyterian, Episcoplian, ECLA branch of the Lutheran church, and United Methodist churches, plus many more. Put together, these churches comprise a very significant percentage of Christians in the United States. It is biased to pretend that their views are insignificant or a "tiny minority." Pianoguy (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, as evidence in the article itself, the idea that homosexuality is not sinful is new, held by only a handful of theologians and ecclesiastical leaders in only the very most recent history of Christianity. (And I hope that you will note that in the lead I am the one who added the adjective “prominent” to describe these theologians.)

The article does not clearly convey these facts that are evidenced in the article itself. To the contrary, it obscures these facts by giving equal weight to in the lead to pro-GLBT congregations. How do you propose this information be conveyed in the article?

LCP 22:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a new idea. Look at so-called, "Brotherings" in medieval France. There are also indications of Early Christian communities which fully endorsed same-sex relationship, but I've forgotten the source. MerricMaker 22:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Show me even a single fragment of text, and I’ll start to consider your assertion. As things stand, there are thousands of words penned by church fathers and doctors throughout history who explicitly condemn homosexual acts. In contrast, I do not know of even a single fragment of text that condones homosexual acts. I think you are confused about the idea of spiritual friendship. For a through treatment of the idea, see St. Alred’s “De Spirituali Amicitiâ” (“Spiritual Friendship”).LCP 23:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You're drawing on an old source. There have been more recent archaeological findings. Spiritual friends were not two men buried next to one another in the churchyard and listed in legal documents as one another's legal heir. That's a marriage. Try: http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070827/sc_livescience/gayunionssanctionedinmedievaleurope —Preceding unsigned comment added by MerricMaker (talk • contribs) 23:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but I think you are imposing too much of our modern, sex-obsessed ethos on the past. Note the last line of the article: "I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been. It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that." Check out Romantic friendship. As evidenced in Alred’s “Spiritual Friendship,” deep love does not necessarily mean sex. Jonathan loved David. That doesn’t mean he wanted to have sex with David. At the last supper, John laid his head upon Jesus’ chest. That didn’t indicate that he wanted to have sex with Jesus. We moderns have a difficult time understanding and expressing non-sexual love between men because we are deeply obsessed with sex and deeply homophobic. Consequently, whenever we see love between peers, we can’t help but think of homosexuality. Nevertheless, even if some couples in medieval France did engage in homosexual acts, that has little or nothing to do with the types of revolutions we are seeing in liberal Christian theology and the Christian organizations we are talking about in this article.LCP 00:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

" Jonathan loved David. That doesn’t mean he wanted to have sex with David." It doesn't mean that he DIDNT, either. "John laid his head upon Jesus’ chest. That didn’t indicate that he wanted to have sex with Jesus" but you cant prove that it doesnt mean that he DIDN'T want to.207.69.137.11 00:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course you would be correct IF homosexual acts weren’t considered by the Jews to be an abomination and IF Jesus himself hadn’t said that he didn’t come to abolish the law. Granted this context, it is a pretty good bet that if either David, or Jonathan, or John had man on man action in mind, we wouldn’t be reading about them. You are implying that my reasoning is fallacious, but you neglected to take context into account.LCP 00:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

FCYTravis seems to have no response to the problem of numbers I point out above. Does anyone else have any ideas of how to communicate the information?LCP 14:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Views vary even in early church

"However, the official doctrines and teachings about homosexuality and homosexual acts have varied throughout time and by religious group" - If you can show that St. Paul's views are exactly the same as St. Thomas Acquinus's view which are exactly the same as Hildegard von Bingen's which are exactly the same as the Orthodox Church's towards lesbianism and pedaresty and temple prositution and a 'fling' by two married men, then I will believe your claim that this sentance is inaccurate.207.69.137.10 23:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Doesn't the fact that they are not exactly the same support the claim? What is interesting isn't that they are identical but that they are all consistent. But I am not sure what that has to do with what you are saying. I find your comment confusing. Can you please elaborate?LCP 00:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

the fact that they are NOT THE SAME supports the statement that "the VARIED throughout time and by group". They may have been variations on a theme, but it has never been ONE CONSISTANT view on the subject.207.69.137.11 00:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You are making two statements. One has to do with if they are identical. The other with if they are consistent. And "not identical" does not mean "not consistent". In fact, the statements of Paul, Thomas, and Hildegard are absolutely consistent, albeit not identical. They are all based on the same (or at least complementary) philosophical systems. But I am still not sure what you are getting at. What is it you want to do?LCP 00:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that not every early theologian agreed with STA that homosexuality was second evil sin only to bestiality. There are plenty of other early theologians who consider things such as murder and idolotry to be sins # 1 & 2 and homosexuality down the scale of evil quite a bit. And STA I believe is only talking about male male sex, not female-female sex. And there are theologians whos condemnation of same sex acts is limited to anal intercourse, but they do not condem male-male oral sex. Or whatever. There are enough differences of the early church said about same sex acts, or didnt say and address that the statment that "the views differed through time and by sect" is a valid statment.207.69.137.11 00:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

“And there are theologians whos condemnation of same sex acts is limited to anal intercourse, but they do not condem male-male oral sex.” Really? Medieval theologians talk about male on male oral sex? Where? Regardless, I think the problem you are pointing out has do with how we define “homosexual act”, not whether or not views have changed. Regardless, I think you make an important point. However, the reason the statement was removed is that—in context—it implied that at various times in history theologians have thought favorably about homosexuality. And as much as we might wish it to be so, that is not the case. It is only in the 20th century that any Christian scholar of repute (or otherwise?) has said anything approbatory about homosexual acts. So, what would you think about creating a statement along the lines that different theologians throughout history have regarded homosexual acts with various levels of disapprobation?LCP 01:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"“And there are theologians whos condemnation of same sex acts is limited to anal intercourse, but they do not condem male-male oral sex.” Really? Medieval theologians talk about male on male oral sex? Where? " No, most don't that was the point. I would say " different theologians throughout history have regarded different homosexual acts with various levels of disapprobation" is a fairly neutral and factual way of stating the point.207.69.137.34 04:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are suggesting adding the sentence, that sounds good to me. Before you do, however, please be sure the rest of the article supports the claim. Does anyone else object?LCP 14:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge 'History of Homosexuality and Christianity' to this article

These two articles are about the same topic and there is no need for two articles. 207.69.137.28 02:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How bad would it be to just pick up both sections, dump them into a new "Controversy" section on this page, and then edit them as we move forward?LCP 00:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The Bible and homosexuality has much overlapping material also. Fremte 02:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with merging The Bible and homosexuality because the Bible is a text of many faiths, not just Christianity. But there has been no opposition to the merger of History of Christianity and homosexuality. How does one go about merging the articles? 207.69.137.36 04:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

History of Christianity and homosexuality is redundant and has some good references, but it also needs a major revision before almost anything could be from it could be included here. There is a tremendous amount of original research in the form of point/counterpoint. For example, the following statement lacks a ref:

In response to those such as John Boswell, who claim that the medieval Church did not condemn or prosecute people for sodomy until the 12th century, conservatives would point out that there are many doctrinal sources prior to that which do condemn sodomy, and Boswell's citation of harsher penalties from the 12th century onward reflects a general trend with regard to all ecclesiastic punishments, which gradually increased in severity over time for all offenses (though this does not explain how homosexuality was less harshly punished than e.g. hunting in the same time period).

How do we know that JB was responding to the particular claims made by “conservatives” in the paragraph that proceeded this one? We don't. I would propose History of Christianity and homosexuality for deletion.LCP 18:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

another option, would be to take the detailed historical information that is in this article and move it to History of Christianity and Homosexuality, and leave this article about 'current' views of various Christian denominations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.22 (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Since there was no disagreement to the option, I copied the history part of this article to the History of Homosexuality and Christianity article and the discussion of 'Conservative' vs. 'Liberal' to this article. I would like to begin condenseing the 'history' portions of this article and leave a 'See main article' tag. This article can then become an overview of current views with link to denomination specific list article.207.69.137.23 18:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The history section has been reduced. Now the main content needs to be addressed to bring into some semblance of a NPOV article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned about the duplication of information in this and the History sections. I think revision of the history section was done very well, but I still do not see any reason as to why history should have its own article. Thoughts anyone?LCP 20:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Time for Archive

This talk page is becoming excessively long - can someone archive the discussions that aren't currently active? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.22 (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

bible verses

Any other editor out there want to help get the Bible verses templated into links? If you don't know how to do it, here's an opportunity to learn and expand your WP editing repetoire. Leadwind 13:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

Realiseyourdignity, I could be wrong about this, so let me know: it seems we've lost an understanding of what a talk page is for. It's for discussion the article, not arguing or proving points about the topic addressed in the article. Am I making any sense? I added the tag to the top of the page to remind people, but I'm not sure if we quite get it. Perhaps I have just missed most of this conversation, but it doesn't look at all relevant to me. If you want to have a conversation, please use user talk pages, email, pretty much anything other than the talk page of this article. Realiseyourdignity, I (personally) would also appreciate more concise and direct language in making your point, and proper formatting for a talk page -- your current behaviour does seem rather distracting from whatever point you may be trying to make. Just a suggestion, and others are free to weigh in. Aepoutre 15:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't familiar with it, our original research policy might be helpful. We don't publish our own analysis of the available information (which your theory most definitely is), only facts that have been verified already by reliable sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

To whom is this addressed, FisherQueen? To me, or Realiseyourdignity? Sorry for not understanding. Aepoutre 15:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It was addressed, as a clarification of why these edits are unhelpful, to User:Realiseyourdignity. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Aepoutre 16:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes and sorry, my points are a long way from proven fact. I tried to move the comments to 'The Bible and Homosexuality' as this deals with Romans, but the move was not allowed. I cannot keep the article here in good faith and will try to delete both it and the original article. Sorry about that - Steve.Realiseyourdignity 07:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Justin R. Cannon

Justin Cannon is a young (born July 1984) gay Christian activist from California who has created an online ministry to promote his views on "inclusive orthodoxy." He may now be in seminary studying for the Episcopal priesthood in the Diocese of California (i.e., San Francisco). He was cited here as a "theologian" but in truth he is not a recognized theologian. He has no higher degrees (yet), is not (yet) ordained, and is not on any teaching faculty of theology to qualify as a theologian in the recognized sense. he is better understood as a gay Christian "activist" and I edited the paragraph about him to reflect this. This is not meant to disparage his intellect, achievements or views. Jm3106jr 15:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Individual Christians (minor)

I want to explain why I am striking the sentence at the end of the first section reading "individual Christians maintain a variety of views which may or may not correspond to the official position of their denomination." I am not contesting the truth of the statement, but it is unencyclopedaic- the article is not about individual viewpoints but about the viewpoints of denominations and of prominent theologians. It simply sounds unprofessional and doesn't seem to have much bearing on the article. I'm willing to hear alternate viewpoints as to why it may be a good idea to include the sentence, but for now I'm convinced it is superfluous. Pianoguy (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the article is "Homosexuality and Christianity" (not "Homosexuality and Christian Doctrines"). 'Christianity' would not only encompass official denominational doctrines/teachings, but also the beliefs/practices of individuals who consider themselves 'Christian'. Thus, some type acknowledgement that individuals' views/beliefs/relationship to the concept of 'homosexuality' may be at variance with an official doctrine about the issue should be made within the article. 144.15.255.227 (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the distinction between "Christanity" and "Christian Doctrines" is needlessly nitpicky- they're essentially the same. Wikipedia already has the tendency to splinter into far too many articles. We can't realistically write an article on what every individual Christian thinks about homosexuality, which is why we focus on the denominations and what prominent theologians have to say.

I'd feel better about including the statement in the article if it was backed up by some statistical figure. For example, my impression is that there is widespread dissent in the American Catholic church over the matter, so a sentence like "Although the Catholic church condemns male-male relations, nearly 25% of American Catholics do not take issue with civil unions and do not believe that homosexual sex is sinful [citation]." A statement like that sounds more professional and less bland. Pianoguy (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice job...

Thanks to whoever decided to obfuscate and confuse the introductory paragraph. It couldn't be more stilted and awkward. Sukiari (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to improve it. Pianoguy (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried about 100 times thus far. People just don't want to admit that the bible is unequivocally against male-male homosexuality. So they obfuscate and play sophomoric language tricks. Fine by me - I'm not a Christian anyway. Sukiari (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In order for you to pronounce something unequivocal you must have absolute proof. When one studies the actual text of scripture in its original language one immediately recognizes certain problems with the modern interpretation of the passages in question, most notably that they could have been presented, and most likely would have been presented in a clearer fashion by the author. In other words, they could have simply said homosexuality is a sin. Throughout the bible the admonitions against sin are very clear – don’t commit adultery – Don’t murder one another – Don’t lie – but when it comes to one thing alone it becomes obscure. The Greeks, Hebrews, Romans, and every culture on earth knew what homosexuals are. IF they had wanted to say that men who preferred the company of men were somehow evil then they would have stated this plainly, not twisting it into obfuscated passages like those mentioned. Next time, in promulgating your esoteric cogitations, or articulating your superficial sentimentalities and amicable, philosophical or psychological observations, beware of platitudinous ponderosity. Or as Oscar Wilde said, “ Oh don’t use big words, they mean so little”.--Phiddipus (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispute about NPOV

I removed a section explaining questioning the authority of the Bible as 'since there is no proof of authorship by a Supreme Being' saying that this isn't a NPOV - this was then reverted. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I really don't think this is NPOV. Many Orthodox Christians sincerely believe that there is proof of authorship of the Bible by a Supreme being. Can this be changed to 'rejecting the alleged proof of authorship by a Supreme Being?' Davidfraser (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted the modifier "scientific" to the above sentence; leaving the religious side of the question open, as it should... obviously, that's a matter for believers to debate amongst themselves. :) FCYTravis (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)