Talk:Judaism and sexuality

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Judaism Unassessed

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Translated from Hebrew Wikipedia --Midrashah (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess, and it would probably be best to delete it and start over again. Hznhr (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The entire first paragraph (excepting the first sentence, that I fixed) on Homosexuality makes no sense. Of course the prohibition on lesbianism is not from the same source as the prohibition on male relations. Much of the article is unreferenced. The part of emission should start with the prohibition against arousing the libido, which is the source prohibition, then go to directly causing emission. Should this be RfD'd?

P.S. I disagree with the banner. There is no list of references, just some external links.Mzk1 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Maimonides stated

We have a reliable source written by a professor from American Jewish University who stated what Maimonides has written. A direct reference to Maimonides' work is prohibited by WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See salso WP:BURDEN. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His work has been published by Jewish Publication Society. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have to distinguish an empiric-analytical claim about the texts written by Maimonides from a theological claim which would require assent from a community of faith. So, unless someone is prepared to affirm that this claim was made up (and prove it with reliable sources), Wikipedia defaults to keeping it per WP:VER. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-halakhic (non-Orthodox) Judaism

Thiss article reads like it was written by Shmuley Boteach (an Orthodox rabbi who has written on sexuality). It's all Orthodox. There are millions who call themselves Jews who reject halakha partially or totally. Our views deserve inclusion.

On the same topic, there are quite a few people who by religious law are unquestionably Jews, who reject Judaism as a personal religion and would probably answer "no" if asked "are you a Jew?". Yet they are unquestionably of Jewish descent and culture, and halakhicly Jews no matter what they said or did. Among them are many sexual innovators and radicals: among others, Sigmund Freud, Magnus Hirschfeld, Wilhelm Reich, Ruth Westheimer (a Haganah sharpshooter), even Annie Sprinkle, Nina Hartley, Susan Block, Al Goldstein, Harry Reems, Jamie Gillis, Ron Jeremy, Philip Roth, Erica Jong, and we shouldn't forget Emma Goldman. (Who could forget her?) See "The Jewish Masters of Porn", http://jewishfaces.com/porn.html and Category:Jewish American pornographers. This is a simcha (joy), not a shonda (disgrace), and needs treatment somewhere. deisenbe (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with your first point, but you are wrong on the second, for the simple reason that this article is not about Jews and sexuality, but about Judaism and sexuality. Debresser (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead-in I wrote deleted by user:Debresser as "personal opinion"

In general, in contrast with Christianity, Judaism views sexuality positively, a gift from God that is by no means limited to reproduction. Celibacy is no virtue; there is an informal but strong expectation that a man, and especially a community leader, should have a wife. Lovemaking on the Sabbath is appropriate and commendable.
In Jewish law [originally said "Judaism"], sexuality is viewed as having both positive and negative potential...

deisenbe (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. And why did you decide to write about this here? By the way, I left that last sentence. Debresser (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which sentence did you leave?

The talk page is the WP designated place for discussions of an article and how to improve it. deisenbe (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I left the sentence "...sexuality is viewed as having both positive and negative potential...", contrary to your post above that says I removed it.

So discuss! You just posted a statement. Debresser (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You removed everything that I wrote. The words you quote are not by me and antedate my edit.

As far as discussion, I've said all I care to as of now. I'm not going to go over with you what I wrote sentence by sentence. The WP concept is that _others_ might add to the discussion. deisenbe (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another reversion by user:debresser (he is imposing here his own view, Haredi Judaism; he identifies as Haredi on his user page)

The paragraph that begins "In Judaism" I changed to "In Jewish law", which is all the section goes on to talk about. Judaism and Jewish law are not the same thing. Rabbis from previous centuries, or millenia, do not have the sole authority to say what Judaism is or what Judaism's view of sexuality is. In my opinion, anyway. deisenbe (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you have it. Your opinion is correct, and mine is just religious POV. Thank you for clarifying that. I'd like to refer you to Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks in this regards. It is interesting how quick editors are to ascribe the fact that I disagree with them to me being religious. Actually, that fits well with the present anti-religion climate in America.

The truth is, your edit was plain wrong. Jewish law doesn't have a view of sexuality. It is precisely Judaism that has a view of sexuality. "Judaism" is a lot more than just "Jewish law". Debresser (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm influenced, I guess, by the alleged anti-religious climate in America. Touché.

I couldn't agree more that Judaism is more than Jewish law. I'm not sure we mean the same thing by Jewish law. I would say the Shulchan Aruch contains Jewish law. deisenbe (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. By the way, I had a look at your userpage, and your website (now on the Wayback machine). It seems you could also be accused of having a strong personal POV that shall remain unnamed. So let's do without all that and just try to edit, applying the Wikipedia pillar of WP:CONSENSUS. Debresser (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine with me if you name my alleged personal POV. You already referred to it. I _want_ my Web site on the Wayback machine. Are you trying to frighten or humiliate me? You might follow your own advice about Avoiding personal remarks. deisenbe (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite. I am saying that we should not pay attention to perceived personal points of view, and just discuss the matter at hand as objectively as we can. Debresser (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of lack of neutral POV

As long as this article goes on to talk about the view of Judaism and ONLY quotes Jewish law as the sum total of Judaism, it does not have neutral POV. This is not a neutral POV sentence, from the intro:

Sexuality is the subject of many narratives and laws in the Tanakh and rabbinic literature.

It implies that Judaism's views on the topic are known by looking at the Tanakh and rabbinic literature, AND NOTHING MORE. I call that not neutral. deisenbe (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example of lack of neutral POV:

The traditional view is that the Torah forbids all anal intercourse between two males, and this is the view of Orthodoxy; there are other modern views that disagree. The source of this prohibition is a verse from the Book of Leviticus: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination." (Leviticus, 18:22). However, Rashi interpreted the matter as only prohibiting anal sexual acts between two men (and not other sexual acts between them), as he stated: "As one would penetrate a blue-brush into a receiver." But other authoritative commentators of the Torah see all sexual acts between two males to be included within the ban on "sperm in vain".[citation needed] The Jewish sages added additional barriers to this ban, and forbid males to put themselves in any situation that might lead to such an offense. For example: Chazal prohibited two single males from sleeping under the same blanket.[citation needed]

Seven words, "there are other modern views that disagree", are all the space that is given to non-Orthodox views. Who holds these views, and what they are, is ignored, with a reference to another article. And information is found there. But the rest of the paragraph - 150 words - is all about the Orthodox view. And it isn't true that 150 words for the Orthodox and 7 words for everybody else fairly represents the interests of Jews. That isn't the proportions of Orthodox versus non-Orthodox people within the Jewish community. deisenbe (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What modern views are you referring to that are part of Judaism? There are a few references and external links to non-Orthodox views as well. What more do you want? Please note that Judaism has been what you call Orthodox about ten times longer than that non-Orthodoxy exists. I mean, you must give the various opinions their rightful do. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you look at the article Homosexuality and Judaism, non-Orthodox views (including Conservative) are given 2700 words, and Orthodox is given 2500. I counted them using WordPerfect. That's a better balance.

You're correct that Judaism has been "what I call Orthodox" (what do you call it?) much longer than non-Orthodoxy. I'm not sure if it's ten times, but it's a big discrepancy. But that's talking about the PAST. This article is, or should be, as I see it, about Judaism in the PRESENT, not as it was centuries ago.

The article is not "The History of Judaism and Sexuality".

FYI, although you may know this already, the term "Orthodoxy" was not applied to Judaism until the nineteenth century (though what is called Orthodoxy of course existed before). In the United States in the nineteenth century, Reform Judaism was far and away the predominant form of Judaism. I don't know about other countries. In the United States, Orthodoxy did not have a significant presence until the arrival of the Ashkenazi from central Europe toward the end of the nineteenth century. deisenbe (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the fact that Judaism is the sum-total of its history and present, I think that even without the title of this article being "History of Judaism and sexuality" this article should not overly stress modern points of view. You seem to want to turn this article into into "Jews and sexuality", and that is also wrong: this article is about the point of view of Judaism as a religion, not about the points of view of Jews. Debresser (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Judaism and sexuality. But what is Judaism?

Debresser, you're absolutely right I strongly believe there should be an article on Jews and sexuality. The fascinating topic definitely merits an article (and this one isn't it, as you correctly pointed out). I do not have the knowledge to write it. I could perhaps write (assemble reliable sources) for "Jews and sexuality in the United States", but don't think that would be a valid stand-alone article (and it would be a lot of work, and I've got plenty of other things, arguably more important things, to work on).

But THIS article is about Judaism and sexuality. I think there's pretty much a consensus about what "sexuality" is. Not about how people should ideally behave sexually, but about what human sexuality is.

My concern is "what Judaism is this article discussing"? Jews by anyone's definition disagree about what Judaism is. It could perhaps be:

The Judaism of King David, who is the greatest hero of Jewish history, whose star is the icon of Jews/Judaism and is on the Israeli flag. The Tanach supplies the names of eight wives of David, and if memory serves also says he had as many other wives/female sexual partners as he wanted. Some Jews argue that in addition, David's love for Jonathan was sexual, which the Tanach does not say, at least not openly. Other Jews argue that it wasn't and the Tanakh doesn't even imply it was. A topic for debate by those more learned than I. But the question is "what was the Judaism of King David, or of his day?" Or are we to argue that King David did not practice Judaism, or that his version of Judaism has been declared passé, invalid. But by who? (Maimonides? Because the Atemple was destroyed?)
Judaism as defined by the Sanhedrin
Judaism as defined by the Shulchan Aruch
Halakhic Judaism. But then there is more than one version of halakha, isn't there. At least the WP article says so. Ashkenazic halacha, Sephardic halakha, Mizrahi halakha, etc.
Halacha as defined by the chief rabbinate of Israel in 2015
Judaism as defined by the very numerous Reform Jews
Judaism as it is defined by the Progressive Movement in Israel?

Perhaps you could add to this list. The Rebbe's version of Judaism? My point is that whatever your personal belief is that's fine, that's between you and ha-Shem. But as an editor of Wikipedia you have to take a neutral POV. The point I'm making is that by privileging halakhic Judiasm as the sum total of what Judaism is (please correct me if that's not precisely right), you are not displaying a neutral POV.

A principle of WP that I much admire is "assume the best". So I'm assuming that this had not occurred to you, you thought you HAD a neutral POV. That the idea that someone might say "I'm a Jew, you agree I am, or assume for the sake of argument I am, but I don't think Judaism and halacha (correct me again if I haven't got it precisely right) are the same thing". You're right and I'm wrong? According to whom? And what gives he/she/them the right to make that decision? Gee, this is getting philosophical. I guess that's good.

What I will ask of you is similarly to assume the best of me, that I believe it is my responsibility as a Jew and as a WP editor to raise this question. And not attribute it to my own sexual behavior, or interests, which, whatever their vices or their virtues, are totally irrelevant. deisenbe (talk)

All: I'm inclined to think that the balance in the other article is (qualitatively) reasonable. But if that's to be done here, someone has to write it. It's not something I have enough expertise to write. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made this a subsection of the previous section, since I think it is really a continuation of it. As to the question itself, I do not think we need an article "Jews and sexuality", in the sense that we do not need to know the opinion of every Jews dead or alive on the subject of sexuality. That is the what I had in mind. Debresser (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St Aquinas

Surely he knows more about Christian beliefs than a Jewish rabbi right? I'll just have to find a secondary source that states his statements.112.211.214.39 (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, please. Issue one I have with this edit is that it uses a primary source. That is not recommended on Wikipedia. Another issue is that Thomas of Aquinas was a church philosopher, but he didn't invent the idea, and there exist other views on the issue. Lastly, the simpler we keep the statement, the better it is IMHO. After all, this article is not about Christianity. Debresser (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never had any intention of attacking anyone, I just asserted that a Christian saint would know more about his religion than someone who is not a member of that particular religion ( in this case a Jew); it is a reasonable assertion, right?112.211.214.39 (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there exist other views on the issue, shouldn't we just put "certain christian views" instead of "Christianity."112.211.214.39 (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: I am not weighing in on the Personal Attacks issue, but the content. If you don't want to fully discuss the issue of original sin, which I agree might be off-topic for this article, you may not want to raise the issue at all. It is not enough to offer one rabbi's interpretation of original sin and sexuality. The way it is written is not WP:NPOV because it states an opinion as a fact. The doctrine of original sin is largely unrelated to sexuality, my copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia (Nihil obstat and Imprimatur) says original sin was a sin of pride, disobedience and ingratitude. Reading sexuality into original sin is controversial because it implicitly places blames on Eve for Adam's sin - under the doctrine both Adam and Eve share blame for the original sin, which is nothing more then the fall from grace. It more broadly discusses "the rebellion of man's lower appetites against reason and will" - but interpreting this as "does not view sex favorably" without any detailed discussion reinforces widely believed misconceptions that are harmful, sexist and doctrinally inaccurate - unless you want to discuss the controversy please remove it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System So you'd propose to remove "due to a belief that it has been contaminated by original sin"? Debresser (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to this line The basic Jewish positive attitude towards sex and sexuality within marriage is opposed to the Christian theory of original sin, which does not view sex favorably. sourced only to Rabbi Gold, I don't see the "contaminated by" line in the current article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this version, in which the sentence reads "The basic Jewish positive attitude towards sex and sexuality within marriage is opposed to Christianity, which does not view sex favorably, due to a belief that it has been contaminated by original sin." In that version the "original sin" part is conveniently located at the end of the sentence and can easily be removed, leaving "The basic Jewish positive attitude towards sex and sexuality within marriage is opposed to Christianity". Because that fact is IMHO relevant and important, and shouldn't be left out. Debresser (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is not in the source, and you would need more then one source for it even if it was. There are several different theological schools of Christianity, so there is no way for that statement to be factually accurate or anything other then promoting one religious belief over another, which is not what we do here on Wikipedia - it is irrelevant and undue - I am removing it. You seem to also be consistently chastised for promoting one school of Judaism over others as the truth. You should consider using attribution and being clear about the theological doctrine and its development within certain sects, and noting places where doctrine converges, instead of adding material to the encyclopedia that is inaccurate. In the future, you should certainly avoid SYNTH comparisons of two separate religions which each have their own differing views within the religion. Since you self-identify as a rabbi, this does not appear to be a good faith mistake, and if you did indeed add this content then I will caution you that it is not acceptable to push your own religious views by denigrating other religions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Please do not edit the page while this is being actively discussed. That is rude, and ignores the Wikipedia pillar of WP:CONSENSUS.

As to your claim of WP:SYNTH. The first part of the sentence is in the article, and I event quoted it in the reference template. The second part isn't, which is why I asked you here if that is the part you would remove. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discussion, there are multiple editors who disagree with you about sourcing whose complaints you have either ignored or characterized as "personal attacks against religious jews" - this statement is not adequately sourced and it references "Christianity" by someone who is not clearly not qualified to discuss Christian doctrine - a Rabbi is not necessarily an expert in New Testament scholarship or Christian doctrine. There is no consensus here to justify inclusion, there is only your unwillingness to accept that this statement is not sufficiently sourced or WP:NPOV even though it has been pointed out by more than one editor. Some of the comments may have been personal attacks, but the original complaint - that this source is not a good scholarly source about Christian theology is valid. Perhaps this is what you interpreted as a personal attack, but it is clear from the quote which does not identify which Christian doctrine it is referring to or even which Christianity it is referring to - or which Judaism. Any genuine discussion would bring new sources to bear on the issue, and you have not done that. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example your statement below Since virtually all denominations of Christianity have "an issue" with sex, see original sin - is POV and OR. That is not a consensus discussion, for a consensus discussion you need sources. If you have better sources then this quote, which you are cherry picking to insert your own POV into the article then I am willing to discuss balancing. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)To the contrary. The text is on purpose general, because the statement is true for basically all of Judaism and all of Christianity.

Why you assume that rabbis can not be knowledgeable about Christianity, or in more general term, certain areas of other religions, is something I don't understand. Possibly more an expression of some prejudice of yours than of anything else.

You are wrong. A talkpage is not an article. I do not have to source everything I say here.

And you are 180 degrees wrong about something else: I happen to be the one who sourced this statement to begin with, after it was in the article for a long tie, but without a source. Debresser (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbis are experts in a different field - being an Old Testament scholar requires knowledge of Hebrew and sometimes even older forms of writing. I had a professor in college who was knowledgeable about cuneiform and other ancient writing systems that I don't even know the name of ... Christianity is no less demanding. Usually experts specialize in one field or another. I have never encountered a Bible Scholar who was specialized in both fields. The is not prejudice, it is a fact - these are separate areas of study. Again, I think you should be careful that your expertise does not become disruptive, or lead you to cast aspersions about other editors. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had such a teacher too, in school. I agree with you. Still, anyone can do research, and you don't have to be a professor in Christianity to research a fairly limited area like "religion and sexuality". According to your logic, only a Christian would be able qualified to make any statement about "Christianity and sexuality", only a Muslim about "Islam and sexuality", only a Buddhist about "Buddhism and sexuality", and no interfaith discipline like "religion and sexuality" could ever exist. That is obviously not true. Debresser (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added three more sources. The last one is especially interesting, mainly because of the suggestive title. Sit on that! You will of course say that the opinions of Christian can not be used, where he compares with Judaism, since he is not an expert in Judaism. I have already show that argument to be futile and leading nowhere. Debresser (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chritianity vs. Catholicism

I'm the one who made the change to Catholicism, I've restored it, and I'm going to defend it. To identify the Catholic (including St. Thomas) tradition with the Christian tradition is just as wrong as identifying Orthodox Judaism with Judaism. If you go back, sure, there are some versions of Protestanism, like Calvinism, that were pretty sex-hostile. But Martin Luther was (marital) sex-positive. A growing number of Protestant denominations support or perform gay marriage. None has the Catholic church's blanket prohibition of birth control devices or medicines. None has Catholicism's prohibition of divorce. Many are supportive of abortion, which Catholicism views as murder.

The article is, from its title, not about the history of these questions, except as background. It's about the present.

If this is reverted again I plan to request outside intervention. deisenbe (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since virtually all denominations of Christianity have "an issue" with sex, see original sin and Religion_and_sexuality#Christianity, the previous, stable version should be preferred.

Adding a primary source is never a good idea, especially when that source is from the Middle Ages. All the more so, since the source is indeed Catholic, so can shed no light on the issue in other Christian denominations. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that "virtually all Christian denominations have an 'issue' with sex". Not today. deisenbe (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theology tends to change only slowly. As it should, by the way. So I have to seriously doubt the implication that the theory of original sin has changed much recently. If you can show me wrong, I'd be interesting in reading up about the subject. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deisenbe

This discussion is closed. It should not have been started here. Please do not restore it. John (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Once again you're equating religion with theology. That theology changes slowly, is irrelevant. Religions can change quickly. The "theory of original sin" hasn't changed much, but that's not the point. The point is that it is nowhere as widespread as it used to be.

I don't know if this is typical of a Haredi rabbi (not of some types of rabbis, for sure), but you constantly look at written sources from long ago, and all but ignore what is going on today. Lack of neutral POV.

Like when you accused me of an ad hominem attack, then went on to make a more inflammatory one yourself. Against me.

Your claim that I should not have restored Catholicism because of talk page discussion is self-serving. The opposition is from you and only you. No one on the talk page supports you. You're the one being disruptive. deisenbe (talk)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I will consider reporting you for persistent personal attacks on me as a rabbi. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Judaism and sexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus"

Debresser claims to have seen a consensus here that says we shouldn't go into the details of the Christian view s on sexuality because this is not a Christian article, but I don't see the consensus he speaks of. Where is it? 112.211.214.39 (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]