Jump to content

Talk:Christianity and homosexuality/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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)

Please remember that the "Presbyterian Church" is divided. The Presbyterian Church (USA) is considering the homosexual issue. The other Presbyterians who are not considering the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.225.252 (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2008 (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)


The Episcopal Church teaches homosexuality is not a sin?

I know the current Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has said that she does not think homosexuality is a sin.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060620/4264_New_Episcopal_Head_Says_Homosexuality_Not_a_Sin.htm

However I don't believe that is an official teaching of the Episcopal Church. I think that statement might need to be reworded to be more clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.74.52 (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The Anglican Communion as a whole understands homosexuality as incompatible with Scripture. The latest Lambeth Conference (1998) underscored the majority support for the traditional teaching of the church. The resolution supporting traditional human sexuality was adopted by a vote of 526 to 70 with 45 abstentions.

"while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex; cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;"Resolution I.10 Human Sexuality, d,e. http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-1-10.cfm


It is important to understand that Episcopal Church is a minority in the Anglican communion. The Anglican Church in Nigeria has 18 million members (May 2007)the Episcopal Church (USA) has about 2 million members. The Episcopal Church USA is not representative of the Anglican Communion as a whole: again the facts speak for themselves: 526-70 (45 abstentions) is not close.

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)

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)

Re "Activism against Christian policies"

I took a look at the references and also the way the section is written. Questions: 1. is the so-called activism about Christian policies or only against certain specific groups? 2. Is this section actually appropriate, parallel example: would we see as reasonable in an article about race: "Black activism against white policies". Not trying to be inflammatory, just trying to understand intent here. Maybe title it "Clashes with Some Christian Groups Where the Minority Group Has Come Out On Top" and rewrite? (sounds a little awkward). Fremte (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The conflict between sexual liberty and religious freedom is a real issue, and it will only get worse. The policies of these Christian groups are not atypical of conservative Christians. Reading from the Bible? promoting marriage as being between a man and a woman? not placing children in gay households? Believing that gay men could stop homosexual behavior? These aren't some extreme positions, but shared among most conservative Christians. They weren't causing harm to anyone, just stating their beliefs. It is these beliefs gay activism is attacking, which is much more essential to conservative Christianity than white policies is to Caucasians. By "white policies", do you mean racist policies against blacks? Being racist is not typical of whites, while these activities are typical of conservative Christians.
I like the way Feldblum put it: "It seemed to me the height of disingenuousness, absurdity, and indeed disrespect to tell someone it is okay to 'be' gay, but not necessarily okay to engage in gay sex. What do they think being gay means? I have the same reaction to courts and legislatures that blithely assume a religious person can easily disengage her religious belief and self-identity from her religious practice and religious behavior. What do they think being religious means?"[1] I could see it being changed to "Activism against conservative Christian beliefs" Joshuajohanson (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oddly enough, essentially all of the supposed "anti-Christian policies" were either nothing of the sort, or inflated wildly by use of biased sources (I note that almost all the sources were to noted right-wing/fundamentalist outlets such as WorldNetDaily.) For example, the human rights complaint against Craig Chandler's Web sites was ultimately sustained by the Alberta Human Rights Commission, and Chandler pulled the material from his Web sites - material that likened gays to pedophiles and drug dealers, and called gay rights activists "perverse, morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease." The source which alleged that European pastors had been imprisoned for speaking against gays... had zero reference to any actual cited examples of such an occurrence, which presumably would have been all over the media. The Canadian public school teacher was not fired, simply suspended for a month. FCYTravis (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for those who have responded to my questions on this. You are editting it in ways to answer my concerns. Fremte (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the following link that was recently added to the article. To prevent the article from becoming even more of a link farm, is there consensus that

meets the external link guidelines? If it does, does it supercede any of the current existing links? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I vote that is not removed because it succincly and clearly explains the vast majority of protestant and evangelical Christian point of view on Homosexuality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.225.252 (talk)

Please share your comments below:

Please place the evangelical link back. It adds balance. At least 75% of these external links support the "liberal approach." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.225.252 (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I placed it back..we definitely need balance here. 90% of Christian Churches do not affirm homosexual behavior, so why should these links portray the opposite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.225.252 (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

very few of the links are actually about 'christianity and homosexuality' and most should probably be removed and placed in the articles about specific demoninations and homosexuality. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed all the external links from the article and placed them below. I have flagged the ones that appear to be obviously denomination specific and tagged with my vote to remove. Please review and add comments. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The evangelical Christian approach represents 70% of American Protestants. This is NOT specific to any denomination. Denomination specific would mean the official position of a given denomination. This is an independent article that succinctly characterizes the bulk of Protestant Christendom. There is not even mention of denomination or link to a denomination.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.225.252 (talk • contribs) -->
remove The site contains little that is not already discussed in the article or in History of Christianity and homosexuality or in The Bible and homosexuality. Therefore while my initial opinion was erronious because it was based only on the name of the site, I still do not think it should be included. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)The title of this article is "Homosexuality and Christianity." This article carries a Christian perspective to these 2 issues. It is relevant and summarizes the beliefs of the vast majority of Protestant Christians. It discusses far more than Biblical passages.
I still don't think it meets WP:EL. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I vote to remove this article. It is from an opently atheistic model!-This article is about Homosexuality and Christianity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.225.252 (talk • contribs) -->
An openly Atheisitc source could still provide reliable content about "Homosexuality and Christianity". This site however, does not appear to meet WP:EL criteria - it is essentially a blog. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

small but growing number of Evangelical Churches in the U.S. and abroad,

Here is a statement that must be erased because it has no supporting documentation. Could you please tell us which "evangelical" denomination in the US is "open" to affirming homosexual behavior. Remember, the "Evangelical" Lutheran Church is NOT an evangelical church by any standard. It is a liberal denomination. The conservative counterpart is the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. In the Europe, the word "evangelical" is not used in the same sense as in the US. Evangelical is a title, for ex. in Germany which simply distinguishes it from the Roman Catholic Church. In short, there are no evangelical churches which affirm homosexual behavior.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.225.252 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I also erased "evangelical" in a "majority of evangelical protestant churches" since a majority of Protestant churches do not affirm homosexual behavior...not simply evangelical churches... We need to be clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.225.252 (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This article portrays an inaccurate view of the Church's relationship to Homosexual Behavior

According to Wikipedia's own stats less than 1% of all Christian churches affirm homosexual behavior. This article gives the impression that the Church is in schism over this issue. For example you have the "Liberal View" and the "Conservative View." This gives the impression that the Church is evenly divided. The "Liberal" view comprises less than 1%. The "Conservative View" 99%. Objectively there is a tiny minority of Churches that affirm this behavior. It should also be noted that "evangelicals" are not the only Protestants to view homosexual behavior as sinful: the vast majority of Protestant churches do. (By wikipedia's own stats.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcline67 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source and so the basis of your statement is not necessarily valid. (Although various articles within Wikipedia should not outright contradict each other - were you referring to a specific article?)
The current article is the result of a POV forking articles and vandalism and information transfer and re-merging of new data, so it is likely that the current content and structure may not be the optimal scholarly organization and presentation. Do you have suggestion for a better way to approach the article so it presents a neutral point of view?
(Also, Wikipedia discussions add new topics at the bottom of the page - I have moved it.)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply. An objective presentation of facts reads better in an encyclopedic article. I think it should be stated that the vast majority of churches, Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant maintain that homosexual behavior is sinful, however there is a minority voice that has challenged this consensus. I think it is imprecise to state that "evangelicals" are the protestant faction to hold to the traditional view. Remember: The Pres. Church USA, MCC, and Episcopalian church (USA) Canadian Protestants, etc. represent a tiny fraction of the church's population globally, esp. when considering the Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Baptists Church's and the 1000's of other Christian denominations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.225.252 (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There is simply no way you can claim that a "tiny minority" of Christians are open and affirming to homosexuality. If you will read the article, you can see a list of several denominations, many of which are quite large, which are at least discussing this issue. The Anglican Communion is the second largest body of Christians in the world behind the Roman Catholic Church, and many of its provinces support homosexuality. The UCC is the oldest Protestant church in the U.S., descended from the churches founded by the Pilgrims, and they are completely affirming of homosexuality. The ELCA branch of the Lutheran Church, the Methodist Church (the largest branch of Protestantism in the U.S), and the Presbyterian Church USA are all discussing whether there might be a context where homosexuality might be acceptable. These are some of the largest Protestant denominations in the world. Increasingly, the Christians who are in the minority are those who believe that there isn't any grey areas with this issue. Pianoguy (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments: A "Tiny" minority in the sense that there are 635 denominations in the USA with less than a dozen that support homosexual behavior.

You are leaving out a lot of facts in an effort to support your position. What you say is fundamentally true, however, the position of the American Church is divided at best. While it is true that the majority of Christian churches are opposed to homsexuality, to issue a blankent statment such as "vast majority" or "tiny minority" is disingenuous at best, and misleading at worst. To take just one example, the United Methodist Church is one of the largest denominations in American Protestantism, and its position on homosexuality is very conflicted, with some churches supporting and some churches opposing. If somebody were to come and say, "The UMC opposes homosexuality" it would be an incredibly misleading statement at best, and would completely gloss over the dailogue that is going on in the denomination. The same goes for many other denominations, including the Anglican Communion-Pianoguy (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In term of your facts: The Anglican Communion voted in its 1997 Lambeth Conference overwhelmingly that homosexuality was sinful-526 to 70 with 45 abstentions. (see below) The Western block is a minority-the African church a majority. The African and Asian bishops are overwhelmingly against homosexual behavior. The Anglican Communion is not represented by Gene Robinson. You may be confusing the Anglican Communion with the Episcopalian Church (USA)-which is fairly liberal in view.

Again, to suggest that the Anglican Communion is united in its opposition to the behavior of the Episcopal Church is simply misleading. It is true that the African and Asian bishops are in the majority, but to dismiss the views of the Western Church as a "tiny minority" is silly- the American Episcopal Church is the single largest province in the Anglican Communion, and the Church of England, which is the head branch, tends towards more liberal views on the subject. The church's position is divided at the very best.Pianoguy (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

On a global scale there is a tiny minority that affirm homosexual behavior. It is true that several denominations that you have listed are discussing the issue, but to state that there are 2 relatively equal opinions is not supported by facts.

Yes, which is why the article says that the majority of Christians oppose homosexuality, which is true. But to say that the minority is "tiny" or insignificant is equally misleading as to present the viewpoints as equal. The issue is a major sticking point for nearly every denomination, with the exception of the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Churches.Pianoguy (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/fastfacts/fast_facts.html#denom http://www.worldchristiandatabase.org/wcd/about/denominationlist.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.224.224 (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Anglican Commune Final Resolution: Lambeth 1997: The Final Resolution: A number of resolutions were debated on AUG-5, including one by a group of West African bishops that "homosexuality is a sin which could only be adopted by the church if it wanted to commit evangelical suicide." The compromise resolution submitted by the Conference's Section Group One was considered by the full contingent of bishops. They debated for two hours, exposing a major divide between conservative African and Asian bishops in conflict with liberals from Europe and North America. The resolution was toughened by conservative African bishops who inserted text declaring that homosexuality is against Biblical law. It was accepted by a vote of 526 to 70 with 45 abstentions. Some excerpts from the resolution are: bullet The church rejects "homosexual practice as incompatible with the Scripture." bullet Homophobia, defined as the "irrational fear of homosexuality," was condemned. bullet "In view of the teaching of the Scripture...abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage." bullet The conference "cannot advise the legitimizing or blessing of same-sex unions or ordaining of those involved in same-sex unions." bullet "We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual people. We wish to assure them we are all loved by God." bullet The conference asks "primates and the Anglican consultative Council to establish a mean of monitoring the work done on the subject of human sexuality in the [Anglican] communion and to share statements and resources among us." http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-1-10.cfm

This resolution is over 10 years old, there has been quite a bit of discussion on this issue since this time. The Communion is tremendously divided on this issue, to suggest that there is consensus is misleading.Pianoguy (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sooo...... how can the two of you come together with a statement/s that you both agree with and is supported by reliable sources? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My intention is simple encyclopedic accuracy. I believe the facts demonstrate that the vast majority of Christian churches, both Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant consider homosexuality, "incompatible with Scripture." There is however a small minority (I say small because mintority without small can mean 49%)of Protestant churches that are debating the issue. Factually, it is important to note that it is not merely "evangelical" churches, Catholic and Orthodox that hold the traditional view, but on a global scale-the vast majority of all churches: Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. If one were to consider simply the Western Church, by itself-then another case could be made for the Protestant Church, however, the center of gravity has departed from the West to the East and Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcline67 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Smcline67. The above analysis though, is analysis and would need to come from some sort of reliable source. Is there a way to word that isnt making any analysis or is there some source that we can quote? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over terminology

The issue as I see it is perfectly simple. The term 'gay' is commonly understood to suggest a favourable view of homosexuality. This is why many homosexuals insist on using the term to describe themselves. That makes it inappropriate to a neutral article. Furthermore, the term is colloquial. A serious article should maintain a more formal tone. Skoojal (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The term 'African-American' was popularized by the modern ****** rights movement. How non-neutral can anything get? Why would ******* insist on calling themselves 'African-American' if the term didn't suggest a favourable view of *******?
The term 'Jew' was popularized by the modern **** rights movement. How non-neutral can anything get? Why would ***** insist on calling themselves 'Jews' if the term didn't suggest a favorable view of *****?
See what fun that argument can be? Yes, gay and lesbian are preferred both because they are less clinical and more specific. We generally describe people as they describe themselves. The majority of reliable sources use them. They are the commonly used and accepted gender identity terms for men and women of homosexual orientations. See Associated Press style, among others.
Thus, we use them. You need to demonstrate why we should consider a less specific and incorrect word the appropriate one to use. FCYTravis (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Describing people as they describe themselves is not appropriate to a neutral article - people are not and cannot be neutral about themselves. Skoojal (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have not seen any references to show that the term "gay" is anything but descriptive. It is neutral, except when said as an adjective in negative evalution of something, i.e., "that's so gay", meaning, it is bad or not liked. "Gay" is the commonly used term, so it should be used. Homosexual is a clinical term. I would like gay to the term "person" and homosexual to the term "human being". One is typical, another is formal. --Fremte (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't see you providing any references to support your claims either. 'Gay' is obviously a political, value-laden term. The term 'homosexual' is used about as commonly as 'gay', and if it's clinical, so what? That's what makes it appropriate to a formal, neutral encyclopedia entry. Skoojal (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This remains an issue wherein the terminology on articles should only be changed through consensus. It appears that current consensus on wikipedia is not in favor of replacing "gay" and "lesbian" with "homosexual." Consider building consensus prior to making such changes on articles.Kukini háblame aquí 01:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How precisely do you think I should build consensus? It sounds like a great idea, but it's not clear how, in your view, I should do it. Skoojal (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You should probably start WP:MOS#Identity. Until you have shown that consensus exists for a change, or there is some violation of policy, "the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself; Wikipedia should use them too. " It is pretty clear that the most common name is not 'homosexual'. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a clear violation of policy. Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality says that 'Terminology must be neutral.' 'Gay' and 'lesbian' are not neutral terms, since they suggest a favourable view of homosexuality. I know that that section says that terms that a group does not accept for itself are not acceptable, but it needs pointing out that there is no consensus among homosexuals about what terms they should and shouldn't use for themselves. Despite attempts to pretend otherwise, many homosexuals do use the word 'homosexual' to describe themselves and their group, particularly in contexts where neutrality is expected. Skoojal (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we should stop treating Gays as if they were some sort of psychological disorder. Using such a clinical term as homosexual makes it sound like a disease. Should we start refering to heterosexuals as such; how about manic depressives, how about caucasians. Its just stupid. gays want to be called gay. Let them be gay.--Phiddipus (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The word 'homosexual' does not suggest that sexual attraction to the same sex is a disorder; the idea that it does is misinformed. Nor do all 'gays' necessarily want to be called that. Some are very clear that they don't. Skoojal (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It will be pretty easy to find reliable sources that hold a different point of view. So I would ask that you provide sources supporting your point of view first, if you are able to find them. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, it will be very difficult to find reliable sources that hold a different point of view, because it simply is not true that the word 'homosexual' suggests that attraction to the same sex is a disorder. See for instance this article by Jim Burroway http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/06/1942, which explains how the words 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual' were introduced by sex reformers who were supportive of people attracted to the same sex. As for some homosexuals not wanting to be called 'gay' see for example Joseph Nicolosi's writings on 'non-gay homosexuals' (excerpted from here http://www.narth.com/docs/repair.html). Skoojal (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Boxturtle is completly unqualified as a WP Reliable Source (no blogs). And for you to use NARTH publication as representation source for LGBT is laughably POV Pushing. Try again. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Burroway was simply mentioning some well known facts. Do you have any proof that a single word of his post was wrong? With a little more trouble, I could certainly find better sources, but you won't be able to find a single thing to support your claims, because they are wrong. As for NARTH not being a reliable source, this judgment is a matter of your POV. There is no doubt that Nicolosi is right that some homosexuals do not wish to be called 'gays.' Skoojal (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Boxturtle is not a reliable source. It doesnt matter whether I think (or you think) what he writes is 'true'.
And yes there are a small small handful of people who do not want to be called 'gay'. You cannot use that small minority to speak for the rest of the community. The vast majority of members of the group will choose 'gay' or 'lesbian' or some form of 'GLBT' - For example nearly every sizable community in the US holds a 'Lesbian and Gay Pride' event - there is not one community that I know of that hold 'homosexual pride' events. It is not a name that members of the group choose in any sizable number. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It matters a good deal whether you or I think that what Burroway (and large numbers of other people) says is true, because we are both wikipedia editors and the correctness or not of those claims affects our judgments about what should go in articles. Your assertion that someone who uses the word 'homosexual' is thereby implying that attraction to the same sex is a disorder is factually wrong. Skoojal (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
In terms of being a reliable source, no it does not matter what any WP editor thinks. What we think and self publish is original research and not allowed on Wikipedia. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Read what I wrote again and think it over. I wasn't refering to Burroway in particular. I was talking about the scholarly consensus about the introduction of the word 'homosexual', a consensus showing that your claims are mistaken. Skoojal (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You are talking about terminology from 140 years ago. If we were to find a time machine and take Wikipedia back ~ 140 years, I would probably be agreeing with you about it being appropriate usage. But we are in 2008 and so we use terminology as appropriate for today. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This discussion appears to be going nowhere. I've pointed out that the appropriate term to use for people attracted to the same sex depends on the context. You agreed that "there are certain times where 'homosexual' is the most or a more appropriate term to use", but you weren't specific. Could you please explain which times you mean and why this isn't one of them? Skoojal (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not the greatest source but http://www.answers.com/topic/gay it was the second google hit.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a fascinating article, and one that does not provide good support for your mistaken claim that the word 'homosexual' suggests that attraction to the same sex is a disorder. The word 'homosexual' was used not only by those who thought that attraction to the same sex was a disorder, but also by those who contested that judgment. Do you think that when Evelyn Hooker, for instance, wrote about the adjustment of overt homosexuals, she was implying that homosexuality was a disorder? Skoojal (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not say anything about the connotation of 'homosexual' with disorders/being a clinical term. (Other editors have, and while I agree with them, I will let them find sources to back that portion of evidence to try to convince you.). I am saying that WP manual of style says use the term that the group uses for itself, and by overwhelming majorities the group does NOT use 'homosexual'. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You did seem to be implying that using the word 'homosexual' indicates that one considers attraction to the same sex to be a disorder. Others may also believe this. However, this is not the case. As for the group not using the term 'homosexual', this is an assertion. It may be correct, but it's unproven. The question is one of context, as I've pointed out above. Homosexuals frequently refer to themselves and other gays as 'homosexuals' in scholarly and academic discussion and when neutrality is expected. Skoojal (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there are certain times where 'homosexual' is the most or a more appropriate term to use - however, it is NOT appropriate to wholesale change gay>homosexual in all wikipedia articles. For wikipedia purposes, most of the time GLBT will be the most appropriate term. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out that it is not appropriate to wholesale change gay to homosexual in all wikipedia articles. You're quite right about this. Doing it has never been my intention, however, as I've pointed out on the conversion therapy talk page. As for 'GLBT', I find that term ridiculous. I would never use it to describe myself, and nor, despite the urgings of a few PC activists, would the majority of gay people. And in fact, it isn't the most commonly used term in wikipedia articles. Skoojal (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a 'scholarly source' – ‘The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association’ p 67 “The terms lesbians and gay men are preferable to homosexual when referring to specific groups.” TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume that's an accurate quote. Why, though, must the APA's opinion over-ride any other considerations? Skoojal (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It is the Wikipedia MOS that overules other considerations. The APA is just a reliable source that backs up that 'gay and lesbian' is not inherrently POV and refutes your claim that the terms are not used in 'scholarly work'.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Saying that the APA is reliable is like saying that NARTH is unreliable - it's an opinion. Furthermore, the manual said that the terms 'gay' and 'lesbian' are preferable, not that they are not POV. As for 'gay' and 'lesbian' not being used in scholarly work, I didn't say that. I wrote, "Homosexuals frequently refer to themselves and other gays as 'homosexuals' in scholarly and academic discussion" - frequently does not mean always. It depends on the context. For most articles I still think homosexual is better. Skoojal (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The Publication Manual of the APA is certainly a reliable source as Wikipedia uses the term, and considering that American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Education Association have all issued precautionary statements against "reparative therapy" - the basic premise of NARTH - leaves NARTH standing at close to a WP:FRINGE view if not a completee WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Reliable source or not, the fact remains that the manual apparently does not say what you implied it did. Your main argument as I understand it is that terms that a group does not accept for itself should not be used - my answer is that many people attracted to the same sex do accept the term 'homosexual' in some circumstances, eg, for use in neutral encyclopedia articles (or for that matter any other situation where some degree of neutrality is thought desirable). Skoojal (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
My point is not exactly what you have said- my point is that we follow the WP MOS that says that we use the name for groups that they use for themselves. The overwhelming circumstantial evidence in the US and I believe most of the English speaking world, that the term this group uses for itself is some variation of 'lesbian and gay'. I have shown also that that term is not, as you stated, inherrently POV. I have also shown that the term is, contrary to what you have stated, used in scholarly work. The only point that has not yet been backed by a reliable source is my claim about 'the most frequently used term used by gays/lesbians for themselves', but before I spend any time to actually verify that claim, I would ask that you provide one source that claims that the word 'homosexual' is the most common term. The burden is upon you to show why in any particular instance the word 'homosexual' should be used instead of the term generally used by the group to describe itself.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You are once again misrepresenting what I wrote. I have already pointed out that I did not say that the terms 'gay' and 'lesbian' are not used in scholarly work. I said it depended on the context, and that same-sex attracted people do, in fact, commonly accept the term homosexual in some contexts, which ought to make it appropriate for articles like this. And again, your quote from APA manual said and proved nothing about POV. Skoojal (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
As for my case for homosexual and against gay, I'll state it over again. Here's the relevant quote from Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, 'Terminology must be neutral. Derogatory terms are not to be tolerated in a category name under any circumstances, and should be added to the list of speedy deletion criteria. Note that neutral terminology is not necessarily the most common term — a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders.' Gay is not neutral. Gay is political and suggests a positive view of homosexuality. Homosexual is neutral because it's neither positive nor negative, and it can be used because same-sex attracted people do accept this term among others. Note that the page does not say that the most common term must be used. Skoojal (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You can keep making this silly argument over and over again as much as you want. It doesn't make it any more valid. "Gay" and "lesbian" are neutral terms for the sexual identities of homosexually-oriented men and women, respectively. They are the preferred terms used by the Associated Press, among others in the professional publishing industry. You have yet to produce any sort of rationale as to why we should consider your argument the correct one. You just keep repeating "gay isn't neutral" as if somehow that's an undisputed fact. FCYTravis (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
FCYTravis, I am honestly not sure what you mean by 'neutral.' If you mean that 'gay' and 'lesbian' are somehow better or should be used instead of homosexual, then I can understand what you mean even though I don't agree. But neutral? How can any term associated with a particular (favourable) point of view about sexual attraction to the same sex be neutral? Skoojal (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
"Gay" and "lesbian" are the standard, accepted and widely-used English-language gender-specific terms for homosexual men and women. They are the preferred usage of the Associated Press, among othe major publishing groups. Whether or not you think they're "associated with a particular (favourable) point of view" is irrelevant. You've cited no sources to support your assertions - you simply keep saying that they're "favourable" as if that's supposed to mean something. "African-American" is "non-neutral" in someone's point of view, too, and they'd probably like us to go back to using "Negro" or something. Doesn't mean we're ever going to do it. You have failed to provide any evidence that any mainstream point of view considers "gay" and "lesbian" to be non-neutral terminology - and, in fact, we have several sources (APA, AP) which say the opposite - that gay and lesbian are the preferred, neutral terminology. Thus, we have only your bald assertions and opinions to go by. We do not edit Wikipedia based on your personal opinions, no matter how strongly held. FCYTravis (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Behavior or Sex?

Part of the introduction reads, 'Throughout the majority of Christian history most theologians and Christian denominations have viewed homosexual behavior as immoral or sinful...' I intend to change 'behavior' to 'sex'. The article should not use euphemisms - the behavior being referred to is sex, and thus sex is the word that should be used. Skoojal (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Sexual activity between men" is probably the most accurate and neutral language. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Why? There is no reason to use the expression 'sexual activity.' It means the same thing as sex. Skoojal (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Behavior is more inclusive than sex. Homosexual passionate kissing is not sex, but it is a homosexual behavior and is generally viewed as immoral. Most denominations include women in that, so between men is inaccurate.Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Joshuajohanson, as I pointed out to you, the word 'sex' can mean a lot of different things. If it can cover behavior such as, for instance, anilingus (and it does) it can also cover kissing. Skoojal (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
So we need to use the wording that most accurately reflects what the sources say. Are the sources condeming 'behaviour' and what exactly are the sourced meaning when they use 'behavior'? Are they talking about the 'receptive partner' in intercourse? then we need to accurately reflect that. What we say needs to be based on the sources. 'Homosexual sex' conveys the impression that one or more of the partners is 'homosexual' - are the sources talking only about that and not discussing what happens when two 'heterosexual' men are involved? I am not overly familiar with the exact sources being used in this article, but in general my impression is that "sexual activity between men" is the way to most accurately describe what most of the sources are talking about. In some cases the sources may be specifically talking about other meanings, and we would need to clarify at those times. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
My objection to this remains that 'sexual activity' and 'sex' logically mean the same thing. Skoojal (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The phrasing "sexual activity between men (or people of the same gender)" is different than "homosexual sex". The later requires (or strongly implies) some type of 'homosexual identity/orientation' of the participant; and so the former is preferred as the descriptive phrasing in most contexts where a person's 'orientation/identity' is not involved/known/of direct concern issue. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
'Homosexual sex' means that two people of the same sex are having sex. That's all. It doesn't necessarily suggest anything about identity. Skoojal (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Conflicts section

This whole section strikes me as failing NPOV in its framing and content. E.g., Christians and Christian groups that disagree with homosexual activity have been targets of gay activism or have been officially reprimanded for acting in accordance with those views. That's a very Matt Barber-esque way of framing the issue. Here's another way: "State and federal laws in various countries often prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. Local and national LGBT rights organizations, or local law enforcement, occasionally bring actions against people, often religious conservatives, whom they believe are violating these anti-discrimination laws." Many of the items in the list are POV for the same reason. Fireplace (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record: Matt Barber works for Concerned Women for America: [2]--Bhuck (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:soooooo ... why did you remove the NPOV template if you are so sure the section fails? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I added the NPOV template to the section. Fireplace (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
And what about discrimination against religious beliefs? What good is believing homosexual behavior is immoral if you can't express that opinion, act in accordance with that opinion, or seek help for refraining from homosexual behavior. What does it mean to be a conservative Christian? Saying you can believe homosexual sex is immoral but you can't act on it is like saying it's alright to be gay as long as you don't act on it. Hence the conflict. I am trying to hard to put both the religious and the sexual rights on the same playing field. There are some examples where the law favored gay rights (shutting down the adoption services) and some where the law favors religious rights (acquitting Swedish pastors who preach against homosexuality). Can you please explain how treating gay rights and religious rights equally is POV? Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Except that very often the conflicts are related not to speech, but to actions. Freedom of speech is a broadly-accepted right. I will defend to my death someone's right to speak against gays and lesbians. They are hateful homophobes, but their rights must be protected too - else my rights may be next. "They came for the socialists, and I did not speak up because I was not a socialist."
But an adoption agency which accepts government contracts and is thus funded by taxpayer money has no right to discriminate on any grounds, religious or otherwise. FCYTravis (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know the details in all of the cases, but I don't know of any of them that have spoken out against gays and lesbians. Most of them seemed to have just spoken out against homosexual behavior. So I don't know if any of them fall under your definition of a hateful homophobe. Regardless of what you believe is right, some places like England have prosecuted people for their speech while other places like Sweden have protected those rights. By homosexual behavior, I don't mean to try to sound clinical, but I think there is a lot more to homosexual behavior than same-sex relationships.
Saying an adoption agency has no right to discriminate is false. Even in Massachusetts, adoption agencies can discriminate against other behaviors, such as a criminal record or even a person who is not married. The question is whether discriminating against people who choose to enter a same-sex relationship is valid or not. Besides Massachusetts and England, most places say that is valid.
I would venture that that isn't up to us to decide. They say history is written by the victors. Should we follow the same policy? Those mean Catholics who didn't respect gay rights and won't let gays adopt creating a harmful environment for those poor gays who can't adopt. What about those mean gay right activists who didn't respect religious freedoms and accused Mormons of being anti-gay creating a harmful environment for those poor Mormon students? We cannot favor the freedom to choose to participate in gay sex over the freedom to condone gay sex. The responses from the courts have been varied, protecting religious freedoms in some cases and gay rights in others. Maybe once the culture war is over we can rewrite this section favoring the victor, but not now. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you're wrong. The vast majority of U.S. states permit gay and lesbians to adopt children - only three states explicitly prohibit it, and of those, two prohibit adoption by gay couples only. Florida is the sole state in the union which bars gay/lesbian individuals from adopting. FCYTravis (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
By asserting that "criminal behavior" is anything like one's sexual orientation, you're once again exposing your homophobic POV. There is a rational basis for considering that someone convicted of unlawful acts may not be the most suitable parent, thus such sorting survives equal protection challenges. There is no such rational basis for believing that a gay/lesbian person/couple would not be suitable parents. Ergo, there is no allowable reason to deny said people the equal protection of the law. The Fourteenth Amendment is such a helpful little document. Its drafters knew what they were doing.
But that's OK. Like I said, I'll defend to my death your right to be that way. :)
And by the way, the so-called "culture war" is really just a few rear-guard skirmishes. Sodomy laws are gone forever, the biggest state in the Union just legalized same-sex marriage and young people, by a three-to-one margin, support either same-sex marriage or civil union laws. The forces of hate and evil are losing, just as they did in the 1860s when men fought and died to end slavery, just as they did in the 1910s when women went to jail for the right to vote, and just as they did in the 1950s and 60s when men and women of all colors and creeds marched (and were shot down) in the streets to break the death grip of Jim Crow. I am a devout believer in the founding ideals of our nation, and the future of freedom in America has never been brighter. FCYTravis (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to relate sexual behavior to criminal behavior any more than relating being single to criminal behavior. Both were used in my analogy. I just said they could discriminate based on behaviors. Criminal behavior was a poor example. I apologize. However, allowing gay adoptions is different than forcing gay adoptions. Catholic Charities can still discriminate against people in a homosexual relationship in most states. I do not think I am homophobic. You apparently think I am. You have exposed your close-mindedness by asserting that the conservative side to the argument has no rational base. The first step in an argument is trying to see the other side, and it doesn't seem like you have done that very well. You have also mischaracterized my beliefs, but no matter. My only point is, regardless of your personal beliefs, the two sides should be presented neutrally. You cannot favor sexual liberty over religious liberty. Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that Catholic Charities in this case was taking government money. They had a government contract to place these children. That makes all the difference, and I don't know why you can't see that. If you take government money, you must abide by the government's rules. It's no longer a freedom of religion issue. You can't enter a voluntary agreement with the government and then disregard the government's rules because they conflict with your religious beliefs.
Catholic Charities had a choice - abide by the government contract and continue receiving money, or end the contract and cease receiving money. You cannot use taxpayer dollars to promote a discriminatory point of view. They chose the latter. Good for them - if their principles are that strongly held, that was the right call. But don't pretend it's somehow "evil gays discriminating against religious freedom." There is no religious freedom to get taxpayer money.
Nor is there a right to arbitrarily discriminate when offering a public service. The Catholic Charities held themselves out as a public adoption agency. To do so, they must have a license from the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care. The state has a right to impose reasonable conditions on the holding of that license. A prohibition on discrimination for reasons of race, sex, color, creed, age, national origin or sexual orientation is certainly a generally "reasonable" condition.
To say that Catholic Charities should be allowed to discriminate against one group in a public service because of their religious beliefs is to invite mass discrimination in public services. Just imagine this - "I'm a member of the Ku Klux Klan, whose religious beliefs say blacks are mud people. Therefore, I have the religious right to ban blacks from staying in the hotel I own." Ludicrous, right? Well, yes. If you open a business to the public, you generally cannot lawfully prohibit an entire class of people from patronizing your business. That's the essence of civil rights laws. The Catholic Charities held itself out to the public as an adoption business. FCYTravis (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindented) It had nothing to do with the fact the Catholic Charities took taxpayer dollars. The article was very clear that they still would have to close even if they didn't take the taxpayer dollars. They also did not discriminate against sexual orientation. They discriminated on marital status, which is a choice. They only placed children in homes of a man and a woman. They didn't place them in homes of two men, two women, or even single men or single women. I don't think we should say it's the "evil gays discriminating against religious freedom" anymore than we should say it's the "evil Christians discriminating against sexual freedoms." I don't think there is anything wrong with having a homosexual orientation. Nor do I don't think all people who are involved in homosexual behavior are inherently evil, nor do they all discriminate against Christians. For that matter, I don't think all Christians discriminate against gays. Since the beginning I have advocated neutrality in this issue. I don't think sentences like "many Christians choose to express their Christianity by refusing to give the appearance of condoning such relationships" is neutral anymore than I think "many gay and lesbian people choose to express their gay identity by refusing to give the appearance of condoning such beliefs" is neutral. I never said gays are evil.

So let's get to the point. I want to work towards removing the tags. What part of the section needs to be changed in order to remove those tags, besides the sentences I mentioned above? Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't think comparing the Catholic Church to the Ku Klux Klan is a fair comparison. Their religious beliefs discriminate against a group of people based on a characteristic they did not choose, their race. The Catholic Church does not discriminate on who can adopt based on sexual orientation, an unchosen characteristic, but rather on sexual behavior, a chosen characteristic. They only thing I think they discriminate based solely on sexual orientation is ordination of priests. I think that was an unfortunate decision, but fortunately they are the only Christian church to do so.
Even if you were to argue that gay sex was somehow inherent in being gay, sexual orientation is not the same thing as race. Sexual orientation is a product of nature and nurture and develops across the lifetime of a person, as a opposed to race, which is innate and fixed. You can't compare the two. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You're wrong. It is a fair comparison to anyone who considers civil rights to be important. Sexual orientation is not chosen - it is innate. I can and will compare the two, and millions of other Americans are doing the same. They believe in civil rights for all Americans, regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or religion (or lack thereof). One has the right not to like me. Nobody has the right to deny people like me the ability to eat in their restaurant. If you're a public business, you don't have the right to arbitrarily discriminate against a group of people. That's fundamental law in the United States.
Your religious beliefs do not give you the right to deny a public service to anyone whom you choose. The Catholic Charities is not akin to a religious bookstore - it was holding itself out as a public adoption agency which admittedly had no problem allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children, multiple times. You cannot simply choose to start discriminating.
Your "marital status" assertion is flat-out false. The agency placed kids with gay and lesbian adoptive parents several times, before deciding that it had to bow to the wishes of fundamentalists in the Vatican. There is no evidence that gay and lesbian parents are any better or worse than straight parents. Ergo, there is no rational basis for allowing a public agency to arbitrarily decide it doesn't want a certain group of people to adopt children.
Like I said, the "culture war" is just about over, and y'all lost. FCYTravis (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I never said sexual orientation was a choice. In fact, I specifically referred to it as "an unchosen characteristic". What I said was that sexual orientation is not innate. Read up on the literature. In 2000, the American Psychiatric Association published a fact sheet which said: "Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime."[3] Your assertion that sexual orientation is innate goes directly against statements by all major medical associations.
Regardless, I don't think sexual orientation is chosen. I don't think gays are any worse than straights in any way. I also never said gays make bad parents. I know quite a few gay men who are wonderful fathers and husbands, who are loving and faithful to their wives. You seem to inseparably connect sexual orientation with sexual behavior. The same fact sheet makes very clear "Some individuals may identify themselves as gay lesbian or bisexual without engaging in any sexual activity." To discriminate based on life choices is a completely different issue than discriminating based on sexual orientation.
I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm just asking you to be a bit more open-minded and try to see this issue from the conservative point of view. Categorically dismissing our arguments as having no rational basis is not a neutral point of view. I think the conservative Christians have the same pig-headness in trying to see things from the point of view of people in same-sex relationships. One of the reasons I wanted to work on this section is that both sides can see the conflicts that arise with an extremely conservative stance and an extremely liberal stance. Understanding and moderation is the key. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you're running smack-dab into reality here. Dismissing discriminatory laws as not meeting a rational basis test is the neutral point of view. The courts of the United States are consistently holding that there is no rational basis for permitting governmental discrimination against gays and lesbians. See Lawrence v. Texas, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, Romer v. Evans, In re Marriage Cases, et al. That you might see that as so-called "judicial activism" is neither here nor there. It is the law. FCYTravis (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Look. I do not think I can or should be a representative for conservatives here. All I'm asking is that their view should be represented fairly and equally. For arguments sake, let's say you are right, and the majority of the US who disagrees with homosexual activity are actually hateful homophobes, the Catholic Church is comparable to Ku Klux Klan, and you and people who think like you are the only holders of rationality and the APA has no rational basis for saying "Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime." Still, I would argue that we should present the facts neutrally and let the facts speak for themselves. Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Problematic sentence

Currently, there is a sentence in the article which states: "While some Christians see no conflict between their religious identity and a positive view of homosexual relationships, and some gay people see no conflict between their gay identity and being celibate or entering a heterosexual relationships, this is not always the case."

This does not seem to be true. Which gay people are being described who see no conflict between their gay identity and entering heterosexual relationships? People who enter heterosexual relationships as part of the ex-gay movement do see a conflict with their gay identity in a way that is certainly not true for Christians who take a positive view of homosexual relationships.--Bhuck (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all gays who enter in heterosexual relationships are ex-gay. According to the Family Pride Coalition, a full 20% of gays are heterosexually married.[4] That is nowhere near the number of ex-gays out there. But I see your point. A better way to state it might be that they have successfully synthesized a gay identity with a celibate or heterosexual lifestyle. By calling it synthesis, it shows that there were two conflicting identities that needed to be resolved. The references I decided to use were not ex-gays, but people who still identify as gay. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see that we need to consider chronology here in both directions--at what point did heterosexually married gay people accept their gay identity and at what point did they enter into a heterosexual marriage? And we need to consider that either of these things can stop--one could stop accepting one's gay identity, or one could leave a heterosexual marriage. While you mention the statistic that 20% of gays are heterosexually married, this does not show that these gays see no conflict between their heterosexual marriage and their gay identity. Just as with the ex-gay case (in which the acceptance of the homosexual identity could be seriously questioned), so could the case of heterosexually married gays be questioned (how do we know they are not considering a divorce? how do we know that they have accepted their gay identity?). I see no evidence whatsoever for a synthesis.--Bhuck (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The survey I cited didn't go into details, so that would be speculation. The man from the news story said "I'm as certain of my gayness as I am of my sex," but yet he is a "happily married man for more than 25 years".[5] I don't know how many of the 20% are considering divorce versus how many are happily married, but I do know quite a few, both personally and from news stories, who are both gay and happily married. The Gay Christian Mixed Orientation Group[6], and the Women of Worth[7] are two groups dedicated to Christian gays married to members of the opposite gender. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Prosecution of religiously-motivated anti-gay rhetoric under hate speech laws

Prosecution of religiously-motivated anti-gay rhetoric under hate speech laws is not a NPOV title. There are stories, like that of Åke Green, where the court rules in favor of the freedom of speech. I realize in some places like England they have abolished the freedom of speech, but that isn't the case everywhere. Also, I don't think the speech was necessarily anti-gay, just against gay sex. Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to alternative headings -- but the issue should not be framed in a way that presents LGBT rights as in opposition to free speech rights (that would fail NPOV in the same way that "Conflicts between Christian speech and the right to be free from intimidation and harassment" would; -- many US states and western countries have hate speech laws, and courts uphold or strike them down as being (in)consistent with free speech on a case-by-case basis). A description of the arguments for and against hate speech laws is probably better placed on the hate speech page. Fireplace (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with most hate speech laws. I just don't think teaching against homosexual behavior is hate speech anymore than teaching against exgays should be hate speech. How about "Conflicts with speech". That way we don't use the loaded terms freedom of speech and hate speech. It will also include cases where speech was defended as well as prosecuted. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "Conflicts with speech" means. What is the thing that is conflicting with speech? What does it mean to "conflict with speech"? Fireplace (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
How about "Conflicts regarding speech against homosexual behavior"? Joshuajohanson (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The Kempling example does not really fit under any of these rubrics - his misconduct citation was from his professional association, not the government - The Supreme court said that charter rights dont apply. - no 'hate speech' laws involved anywhere. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That is not good because "homosexual behavior" is also a loaded term. Only one side of the debate uses this term. How many gay rights advocates have ever said "Oh, I'm sorry, I can't make that meeting on Thursday because I will be participating in homosexual behavior"? What exactly do we mean with this term? Is going to a gay film festival "homosexual behavior"? How about playing on a gay soccer team? If playing on a gay soccer team is not homosexual behavior, is it homosexual behavior to pat the person on the back who scored a goal? Is it homosexual behavior to tell that person he is cute? Or is that just free speech?--Bhuck (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"Application of freedom of speech and anti-harassment laws" ?
I'm fine with that one. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Article overall

Over the past month the editing of the article has focused on what is now the final third (+) of the article. As we step back and review the article overall - is this appropriate? is the rest of the article up to snuff? what would be the best next step to improve the article overall? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's problematic that about 25% of the article is taken up by the conflicts section -- a Matt Barber-esque list of examples of how "gay activists" are "oppressing" religious conservatives. This seems to fail NPOV and UNDUE (furthermore, many items in the list also fail NPOV and UNDUE individually). I think the section should either be condensed and perhaps replaced with prose, or (preferably) rewritten from the ground up with a framework that isn't so inherently NPOV. Fireplace (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it probably shouldn't take up 25% of the article. However, judging by the amount of interest it has sparked, I think it should be somewhere. Do you think it should be on a different article? One of the problems, since it is such a contentious section, is that it is hard to summarize. We can't just say the Catholic Charities closed due to a conflict over gay adotpion. We have to explain about the Massachusetts law and the Vatican edict and the past adoption and people protesting the decision and Romney's quote and so forth. I'm fine with a summary, but I don't want sexual right arguments to be favored over religious right arguments. That's one reason why it has been so verbose. I think the introduction is very convoluted and needs to be shortened. I tried to treat religious and sexual freedoms on a equal basis in the introduction, but it was greatly enlongated. Joshuajohanson (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, clearly there's encyclopedic content there that should exist somewhere. One possibility for a ground-up rewrite would involve section headings like "Religious conservatives and the courts" (summarizing both how some religious conservatives have used the courts in various countries to advance their agenda, and how some have been prosecuted under various anti-discrimination laws) and "Lobbying efforts of religious conservatives". Each could link to a separate article covering all the details. Fireplace (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there has been just as much lobbying efforts on the part of gay activists as well. Joshuajohanson (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course. The Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and others, are national LGBT-rights organizations with strong lobbying wings. There's a (current poorly-written) article at LGBT social movements relevant to them. The activities of LGBT organizations that are directly relevant to this article should also be talked about as well (e.g., outreach to gay Christians and allies, organizing religious leaders to advocate on behalf of LGBT-rights legislation, speaking out against religiously-motivated discriminatory behavior, etc.). Fireplace (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
My point is that there are two sides to every argument. When they were deciding the hate speech legislation in England, there was the gay rights group of Stonewall on one side and The Church of England and Roman Catholic Church on the other side. The end result was a give-and-take with hate law legislation passed, but water-downed. Calling it "Lobbying efforts of religious conservatives" makes it seem as if only the conservatives were lobbying against the gay activists. I do not want to split up the sections into anti-Christian and anti-gay based on who won the case. Plus I don't think many of these are lobbying efforts per say as much as individuals who have been come in conflict with the law.
One thing that I do think will bring more balance to the section is some of the examples that you mentioned. One reason this section seems so "Matt Barber-esque" is most of the examples are Christians coming under fire, and not so much gay activists coming under fire. Maybe including those example, as well as all those ignorant Christians who tote "God Hate Fags" signs would show more of the side of where the gays were being persecuted. I think that information would be useful and provide balance. The only thing is that I'm not too motivated to do stuff like that. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I agree that the quote is quite illustrative, but I think an introductory overview is not the place to be giving specific quotes with specific perspectives. In a more lengthy article, where that is the main subject, it would be fine, but the Conflicts section as a whole is only one aspect, and the opinion of one individual from a rather unique perspective is not sufficiently typical to warrant such lengthy quoting here. Also, the quote was part of a longer paragraph which included other, balancing material, and if the quote is restored, the balancing material should be restored as well, and we get even further away from our goal of succinctness and balancedness.--Bhuck (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't care about the exact quote. The problem I have is that the way it now reads, it seems as if Christians choose to believe gay sex is wrong. The studies I provided show that for some people that belief is more intrinsic than one's sexual identity, whereas the wording "who happen to believe" make it seem much more like a choice. The wording right now is biased against Christians. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Your last sentence proves exactly the point I am trying to make with the wording to which you are objecting: The wording is not biased against ALL Christians, just against some. You cannot define Christianity in a way that it excludes mainline churches, IntegrityUSA, the Metropolitan Community Church, etc. If the wording is biased, as you claim, then it is only biased against SOME Christians, and it is important to specify which Christians those are. That is what I am trying to do with "who happen to believe"...what makes someone a Southern Baptist rather than an Episcopalian? Is it genetic programming? Hardly. Should we write "those who believe the Holy Spirit is calling them to believe this set of beliefs rather than that set of beliefs, each of whose believers cite Holy Scripture as their source of inspiration?" That is a bit wordy and confusing for the topic at hand, I am afraid. How would you propose differentiating between these various groups of Christians, some of whom come into conflict and others of whom don't?--Bhuck (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so it's not biased against all Christians, just some. It still is biased. You can also it say it's not biased against all gays, just some. Some isn't a good word. I would say it is biased against MOST Christians and only a FEW gays, who believe gay sex is wrong. How about "Most Christians, including several gays, believe gay sex is wrong. This contradicts the belief of most gays, including several Christians, who believe gay sex is okay. This often leads to conflict between the two groups because it involves a topic that is so important to them. For some people their sexual identity is the most stable part of their identity, and for others, it is their religious identity." This puts both the religious identity and sexual identity on an equal playing field, while explaining that not all gays are for gay sex and not all Christians are against it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Theoretically, that would be kind of ok, but before it is really ok, it needs to take into consideration the following: 1) The number of gay Christians who believe that gay sex is wrong is quite probably considerably smaller than the number of gay Christians who believe that gay sex is not wrong (though I will grant you that this somewhat depends on the way you define "gay", and perhaps as well on how one defines "Christian", though the latter is perhaps clearer)--thus, using the same word "several" in both cases is misleading, as it implies that the numbers are roughly equivalent. 2) There are also straight Christians who do not believe that gay sex is wrong. While straight Christians who believe gay sex is wrong are included in "Most Christians", this other group of straight Christians is not represented in the phrase "Most gays, including several Christians". Indeed, the straight Christians who do not believe that gay sex is wrong are not motivated by their sexual identity at all, but solely by their religious identity, if either one is at play here.--Bhuck (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
What the problem is - is that we need to find sources that have already done this work so that we are not the ones making the analysis. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
How about "Most Christians and some gays believe gay sex is wrong. This contradicts the belief of most gays and some Christians who believe gay sex is okay. For some people their sexual identity is the most stable part of their identity, and for others, it is their religious identity." That would also include the non-Christian gays who are against gay sex. As far are sources are concerned, I think the article itself is source that most Christians are against gay sex. I have also provided references that some gays are against gay sex, but I guess we can't really determine how big of a number that is, which is why I used the word some, which is rather ambiguous. The sources for the second sentence were deleted, but were in what I originally wrote. Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that still does not address one of my main concerns. It does solve Problem 2, though, but at the unfortunate cost of making the side point that the set of Christians and the set of gays have a non-null intersection. Still, "most" and "some" used in this parallel construction mean that many readers will be likely to assume that the percentages we are talking about are roughly similar each time we say "most" and again are roughly similar each time we say "some", since we chose the same word to describe these relative sizes, and I believe that would be highly misleading. Also, we don't know if the percentage of Christians who believe gay sex is wrong is higher or lower than the percentage of non-Christians who believe this. If generally people tend to believe that gay sex is wrong, regardless of whether they are Christian or not, maybe Christianity is not at the root of this conflict to begin with. Similarly, I would surmise that the proportion of heterosexuals who do not believe gay sex is wrong is higher than the proportion of gays who do believe that gay sex is wrong. This is all a very speculative business for which we have very little data--perhaps we should simply leave out all references to any relative sizes of the various groups?--Bhuck (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay. How about this one? "There are people who believe gay sex is okay and there are people who are opposed to gay sex. There are people on both sides of the debate who identify themselves as Christian, gay or both. Many people see their beliefs about gay sex as an essential part of their identity, whether religious or sexual. This sometimes leads to conflict as people from both sides voice their beliefs, live in accordance with their beliefs, and/or try to impose their beliefs on other people." If this doesn't work, can you suggest something else? Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That is phrased in a sufficiently general way that I believe it to be true and not misleading. I wonder, though, whether it really helps the article along, whether it is particularly incisive or merely stating the obvious, and whether it addresses the concerns of other users, such as The Red Pen of Doom. What do other people think about this suggestion?--Bhuck (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not opposed enough to keep it out of the article, but I still would feel better if our use of 'some' and 'many' and other weasel words were kept to a minimum when they are not coming from sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity_and_homosexuality/Archive_2&oldid=1144742000"