Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality

RfC on the teaching section

There was a consensus for a "selective merge" from Catholic teaching on homosexuality to this article. Now that they have been merged, there is a dispute about which content from the merged article belongs here. A new sub page, Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality/teaching, has been created to work on the language and then move it into the main. Please consider helping in that effort. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Obviously I prefer the selectively merged consensus version, for the reasons explained above: it removes high levels of repetition, content that was unencyclopedic (levels of detail more suitable for a fansite, material aimed at pushing a non-neutral POV, quotes for the press that reflected no change of position or rhetoric, etc.), and a number of false or misleading statements. I don't think the version I linked is lacking anything valuable that was present in the article before the merge; it is more compliant with policy and much more readable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• The selective merge proposal had the most support, and to me it makes the most sense. Otherwise, the glaring faults of the source article would be carried here. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

"The church teaches that gay people are called to practice chastity." -seems superfluous. If you click on the link it says "Everyone is called to chastity." (I really couldn't figure out how to enter this on the newly created Talk page.) Manannan67 (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted the recent removal of the reference to the church's political activities against gay rights. It's a brief sentence in the history section which links to another article section (which itself summarizes a whole sourced article). This is also part of the church's history on this topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

There's no linkage, since the part that actually discusses actual political activity is five sections below it. It's just a single, context- and source-free statement, and even having sources wouldn't rescue it from lacking context where it's placed. At the beginning of "Political activity", it's redundant; maybe it would fit in the lede, but that's it. --Calton | Talk 02:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

"There's no linkage, since the part that actually discusses actual political activity is five sections below it" - That's why the removed sentence links to that section. It is a one-sentence summary of a larger section, which is not an unusual thing in WP articles. I mean, we could add five citations to their activity against gay rights in various countries, but just linking to a well-sourced section/article with a one-sentence summary seems fine to me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Calton on this, it is lacking context where it is placed, and there is no need for it to be there exactly. HelpfulPi (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Catholic Church and "homophilia"?

Someone could expand the article on love (without sex) between same sexes. If I understand it correctly, the Catholic Church has no issue with love, as long as the lovers keep their pants on, so to speak. Perhaps love in itself is not regarded as homosexuality? Is one homosexual if in love but not having sex? 2A02:AA1:1005:8678:E162:1956:E287:2029 (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. This position is not mainstream Catholicism, I think. But i just added a sentence about this under "Church teaching": Eve Tushnet, a gay Catholic herself, has argued that Catholic teaching accepts "non-sexual love" between same-sex partners. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 08:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

If one reads, and most importantly understands, the Catholic Church teachings, it is quite obvious that love is what Christianity is all about. Mainstream indeed. Homosexuality - the act of sex between people of the same sex, is not regarded as love by Catholic teachings. Eve Tushnet uses the word "partner". I am not certain that the Catholic Church would accept two people of the same sex as being partners, partners of what? Matrimony in the Catholic Church is basically a sacrament for couples that in principle can produce offspring (by themselves). Without the ability of reproduction there would not be any need for this sacrament. 2A02:AA1:1002:CF0E:B8E8:F19A:7772:2667 (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW, interesting article about Eve Tushnet, just too bad most of the sources are begging for a handout. 2A02:AA1:1002:CF0E:B8E8:F19A:7772:2667 (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Gays are not sinful

I thought of gays and hold that to be a gay is a natural law and is not against the natural laws so that they should not be considered sinful. Based on close observation of human nature and based on values intrinsic to human nature, I think about gays as follows.

There are a large number of gays among the people. The gays naturally like people of the same sex to the extent that there are many gays who would like to have sex, get married and have children with the people of the same sex. Their liking so is their values intrinsic to human nature.

Natural law is a system of law based on a close observation of human nature, and based on values intrinsic to human nature that can be deduced and applied independent of positive law (the enacted laws of a state or society). (This is according to the Wikipedia article on Natural law.)

Thus, my idea about the gays, which I wrote above, is a natural law, because it is based on a close observation of human nature, and based on values intrinsic to human nature that can be deduced and applied independent of positive law (the enacted laws of a state or society).

Thus, I think that to be a gay is a natural law and is not against the natural laws. Ruby2021 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)