Talk:Christianity and homosexuality/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

NPOV?

Seriously, this topic isn't really giving a fair picture of the debate / discussion concerning homosexuality and the church. It is a TINY TINY minority of denominations and Christians (worldwide and in the west) who believe that there is a serious question about the moral status of homosexual activity in light of Christian teachings. Overwhelmingly, mainstream Christianity's views vary from "hate the sin, but love the sinner" to well, "hate the sinner and the sin."

If you would like a good article to reference to, see the one regarding LGBT topics and Islam. Homosexuality was a tolerated, but not openly accepted activity for much of Islam's history. However, the general tolerance level among Muslims for it pre-20th century was far higher than that of mainstream Catholic and Protestant denominations for the last 2,000 years. This article gives the impression (simply based on the time and amount of text spent devoted to each topic) that there's a meaningful discussion / debate about the subject in mainstream Christianity. For better or worse, there simply isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.74.49 (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Your claims are quite false, but if you think you can contribute productively to the article using neutral and reliable sources, go ahead. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you substantiate why my claims are "quite false" (I like that phrasing - it makes you sound as though you are both intellectual and neutral) Look at the historical treatment of homosexuals and homosexuality by the Christian church. Look at the article on Islam that I mentioned. If anything, the church has leaned far too heavily historically on the "fire and brimstone" response to homosexuality. The pendulum is now swinging the other way, but it hasn't moved that far just yet.

"There is no meaningful discussion in mainstream Christianity" assumes, among other things, a) that Anglicanism and Lutheranism are figments of other people's imagination, instead of being large and influential denominations and b) that Christians are mindless sheep who are mentally incapable of disagreeing with the tenets set forth by their leaders. I don't think that badly of Christians, and I hope you don't either.

That said, this is not a forum for general discussion of Christianity and homosexuality. If you plan to improve the article, go ahead. If you're just here to vent your feelings about gays, there are plenty of right-wing sites for that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

NUMBERS

We should note that like 2.3-2.7 billion Christians are against homosexuality as it's a part of the sex/lust culture..you guys always want to make it about homosexuality, it's more about giving in to desires--a womanizer is as big a sinner as someone who commits homosexual acts. I don't know how many Christians are actually against it but I bet you can't provide documented proof of more than 30-50 million. 95-99% of Christians are, despite all being sinful hypocrites, against giving in to lust, including homosexual acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.157.245 (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

All Christians once believed the world was flat and that the Bible said it. The number of people who believed it didn't make it right. It doesn't matter how many Christians think homosexuality is wrong or that the Bible says so. Their numbers don't automatically make them right. Other Christians, including some who can read Hebrew and Greek, disagree. Thus the issue is presented here neutrally.BroWCarey (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to add this point in reference to the above mini-discussion. The earlier poster is right. 95-99% of Christians worldwide are not "accepting" of homosexuality in any manner different than they're "accepting" of any number of the other sexual behaviors that the Bible calls sin. And the vast majority of NT and OT scholars, including Jewish, Christians, and Muslims, and the vast majority of scholars at nearly every mainstream Christian seminary in the world (who, I would add, can probably also read Hebrew and Greek) disagree with the pro-homosexuality position. As I pointed out in my section of this discussion above ("NPOV?"), this article is sorely lacking in showing how marginal the pro-homosexuality viewpoint is within the Christian church. The vast majority of Christians would say that homosexual acts are right there alongside fornication, adultery, bestiality, lust, hatred, etc., etc. Please understand that I mean this in the most non-condemning and non-offensive way possible, but the pro-homosexuality crowd are really the flat-earthers in the room here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.74.49 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you are wrong on this, although you might be correct if you were speaking in terms of denominations. But when you speak of individual Christians, I doubt it. Even within most denominations that are officially anti-gay, there are networks of support for LGBT people, and many members disagree with the denominational position, either openly or in private conversation. So if you add all of those to the denominations that are openly affirming, you have quite a large number.BroWCarey (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

off-topic and offensive

They're standing their ground despite the overwhelming scriptural and historical evidence that goes against their interpretation of scripture. They're also standing their ground despite the fact that the methodologies they use in reading and interpreting scripture essentially "open the door" to justifying other behaviors mentioned in scripture that they would have no problem pointing their finger at and calling wrong (i.e. incest and bestiality among others). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.74.49 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Yes, it's definitely not condemning or offensive to say that any arguments justifying homosexuality also justify rape. Congratulations, you have a truly Christlike mindset. Please see my comment above about making useful contributions based on reliable sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC) I'm sort of at a loss to respond, because you're prickly response to a small challenge doesn't bode well for any future "discussion" on this topic. Anyhow, my goal was not to keep from offending you anymore that it was TO offend you. Any viewpoint on this topic, no matter what side of the fence you're on, is prone to be very offensive to someone. I'm just pointing out that you can slice away the prohibitions on bestiality and incest using the exact same means you're using to slice away the prohibitions on homosexuality. For example, we could say that the OT prohibitions on bestiality were REALLY intended to deal with the pagan practices of the Egyptians (a similar argument has been used to address the OT prohibition on a man "lying with" a man). We could also assume, based on the fact that Christ never spoke of it, that he felt it was okay. Paul never spoke of it, either, to my knowledge. So, we could assume he was okay with it. If Paul did speak of it (again, I'm not sure where), we can default to the old, "Paul wasn't in agreement with Christ" argument. We can pick apart the Hebrew and Greek and find alternative ways to translate the same verses and then further alternative ways to translate them from there. So, please, explain to me, would prohibitions on other practices that we can all agree are abhorrent, detestable, etc., stand up to the level of scrutiny you've directed at these particular verses. The simple answer is no. The methodologies you are using to interpret scripture and not internally consistent OR consistent with historical or mainstream interpretations. This needs to be addressed in this topic. I've hatted part of your first comment in this thread, as well as the rest of this exchange. I'd have done so even if it weren't offensive, because it's off-topic, and I'll keep my reply short: Unless you maintain a level of observance similar to that of an Orthodox Jew, you have no business complaining that other people are discarding laws. Christians in particular claim to believe that God is love. It isn't inconsistent to interpret other commandments in this light - which would not only condone same-sex relationships but recognize them as a positive thing, while still maintaining prohibitions on rape. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Okay - and you make a valid point there about Christians cherry-picking certain OT laws to hang on to, and that could / should be discussed in the article. But, again, to re-iterate the relevance of my point, it doesn't change the fact that the interpretive scheme you're using to marginalize the prohibitions on homosexuality is not consistent. Mainstream Christianity has at least attempted to come up with a coherent patchwork to explain its emphasis on certain OT prohibitions and deemphasis of others. Some scholars have broken down the OT laws down into moral laws, dietary laws, sacrificial laws, civil laws, etc. and then explain why one category still applies while another doesn't. Not my particular approach, as I think that the best Christians are the ones who are the worst behaved. Anyhow, your "God is love" schema is equally problematic and flows, again, of your own colored interpretation of scripture, which, may I again point out, is NOT in line with mainstream Christian thinking. Yes, scripture says "God is Love," but it also says "love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth." God is love, but not every sexual relationship in the name of "love" is morally 'good' as it is defined in scripture. Your thinking could be equally used to justify any Biblically-forbidden sexual relationship. I can almost hear the preacher announcing it now on Sunday Morning, "It's that time of year again. We're so full of God's love at our church that we'll be holding our twelfth annual orgy this Saturday in our Family Life Center. Everyone bring a dish, ahem, covered, please...." I digress, but this article needs an NPOV. And a full discussion of the verses discussing homosexuality in the Bible and their pro/con interpretations / breakdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.74.49 (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot emphasize this point enough - this is the position of very very few people who self-identify as Christians. This article really needs to reflect this fact. I strongly suspect this article is being maintained by a few devotees who share a common viewpoint on this subject. Can someone make some edits to this topic, so that this viewpoint is maintained, but kept in the context of being a minority viewpoint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.74.49 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Why does this bother you so much? Do you think that if you keep minimizing the numbers or the impact of denominations that are revising their opinions on this subject, that they will just disappear? Why can't you just accept the fact that there are a growing number of denominations, ranging from liberal theology churches to fundamentalist churches, that no longer view homosexuality as sinful? Your view may vary from theirs, but that's all it is: your view. Their view is just as valid in a neutral forum. So please stop reacting as if this article were a personal attack that you have to defend against. BroWCarey (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok we are arguing numbers here but the point that interests me is neither side offers anything in this discussion. I could say only five people in the world like Pizza. You could say 5 million people in the world like pizza. I will assume of course that 5 million is closer to correct but with the absence of any source either one could be true. You both bring up interesting points but since there seems to be a controversy amongst you to which point is true the burden of proof falls to each of you to prove your points as fact.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Born Eunuchs

i stumbled across this and i think this should be incorporated into the article

• http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/thesis.htm

(1) born eunuchs could have complete genitals, (2) they had no lust for women, and (3) they had lust for men.

this makes a case for eunuchs being what we call gay today and this has a relevance to the Christianity because of Matthew 19:12 "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[a]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

• Clement of Alexandria relates the beliefs of the followers of Basilides, a Gnostic leader, about Matthew 19:12: "Some men, from their birth, have a nature to turn away from women; and those who are naturally constituted in this way do well not to marry. These, they say, are the eunuchs from birth."60 As noted previously, Clement himself stated that a eunuch is unwilling (not unable) to perform sexual intercourse.

• Among the orthodox Christians, Tertullian said that eunuchs "repudiate marriage."64 Jerome felt that eunuchs from their mother's womb were "those of a colder nature, who do not seek lust."65 Gregory of Nazianzos (Oration 37:16-17) warned born eunuchs against being arrogant about their abstinence (with women, presumably) and at the same time against committing ritual prostitution, which had probably been a tradition among eunuchs since Babylonian times:

              "Be not proud, you who are eunuchs by nature. Your abstinence is practically
              involuntary. You are not tempted, and your abstention is not tested by trials.
              That which is good by nature is spurious; that by deliberate choice, is laudable.
              What praise is due to fire for burning? Burning is in its nature. What praise is
              due to the rain for falling down? It is the Creator who makes it do so. What praise
              to snow for being cold? or to the sun for shining? It shines without wanting to.
              I praise that which desires what is better. Praise to you, if, born flesh, you become
              spirit; if, weighed down like lead by the flesh, you take wing by the word; if, born
              low, you find heaven; if, bound by flesh, you rise above the flesh.

              "Since your abstention is not laudable, I ask something else of eunuchs. Do not
              commit prostitution in divine matters. Having yoked yourself to Christ, do not
              dishonor Christ. Perfected by the Spirit, do not make yourselves equal to the Spirit.
              'If I yet sought to please men, says Paul, I would not be the slave of Christ.'
              If I serve a creature, I will not be called a Christian." 

This text is from the fourth century CE, a period of intense fighting between the supporters of the Arian doctrine, many of whom were eunuchs, and the forces supporting what was to become Christian orthodoxy, namely the belief that Jesus was fully and eternally God as well as human. During this time, eunuchs were highly influential as servants to the Roman emperors, who from the fourth century on were (almost) always Christian. Within two centuries, however, the concept of a born eunuch all but disappeared from western European culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.124.0 (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

i think it's very noteworthy and it should be in the article but not by me ~kp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.124.0 (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

While interesting, it offers nothing that would affect the traditional position on homosexual relations. Motive or orientation is never the determining factor in laws against illicit sex partners, with everything from incest to bestiality being unequivocally condemned. Strong desire is included in Rm. 1:27, but not in a sanctifying sense, and is treated as a consequence of rejecting God's order. While some have sought to extrapolate gay marriage out of Mt. 19:11,12, the "what" of "what therefore God has joined together" is distinctly confirmed by Jesus to be the male and female of Gn. 1:27; 2:24, and marriage is only established as between opposite genders, whose uniquely compatibility and complementarity is seen to transcend the procreative aspect. (SoS; 1Cor. 11:1-12)Daniel1212 (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It applies to eunuchs, who would be included in an article on LGBT, but as you say do not equate to the modern category 'homosexual'. What can be established is that (regardless of traditionalist POVs) contemporary commentators have suggested the significance of references to eunuchs (such as the story of the Ethiopian) shows that people from sexual/gender minorities (i.e., today's LGBT) did feature in the Gospels and New Testament, and without distinctly negative connotations. Mish (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Enormous proposed cut

I propose that we cut out everything in the article from the "Conflict" headline onward. This section is rambling, badly written, completely irrelevant to the rest of the article, and has been tagged with multiple tags for almost a year which show no signs of being redressed. The article would be improved by cutting these sections. Pianoguy (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the "choice and free will" section should go, too, unless it is completely rewritten so that it has something to do with Christianity.BoulderCreek12 (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be any objection I have gone ahead and made this cut. Pianoguy (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Headline text

The introduction states "In traditional Christianity, most Christians have regarded homosexuality as immoral." There is a comment that states "it may be that only sexual relationships between members of the same sex were regarded as immoral, but the topic of this article has been determined by consensus to be something else, namely homosexuality. If the description "immoral" does not fit, then provide an appropriate description of how Christianity has viewed homosexuality, rather than changing the subject to sexual relationships between members of the same sex."

Homosexuality is considered a sexual orientation by the APA. I understand that this article is about homosexuality, and not same-sex relationships, but we can't mislead people to think that traditional Christianity thinks a sexual orientation is immoral. If we need to have the word homosexuality in the title, could we say something like "In traditional Christianity, most Christians have regarded homosexuality as an immoral practice, but have had differing views on homosexuality as a sexual orientation." Whatever we put, it needs to accurately portray Christianity and Homosexuality. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Difference between homosexuality and homosexual sex

In the first paragraph of the article, it says that the Roman Catholic church believes that homosexuality is intrinsically sinful, but this is not the case. Homosexual sex is considered sinful, but this applies to both homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, just as heterosexual sex outside of marriage is considered sinful. Homosexuality, as in the deep-seated and exclusive sexual attraction to the same sex, is no more sinful than heterosexuality. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church it states that "they do not choose their homosexual condition" (CCC-2358) which would mean that if they do not choose it, then it is the way that they were created by God, and if God is God then He makes no mistakes. Some people are tempted towards one type of sin and others towards another. Someone with a tendency towards gambling is no more intrinsically sinful than a homosexual; each are tempted by a different type of sin. Temptation does not render a person sinful; temptation renders a person human. --Adriannajean (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Since this article is about Christianity and homosexuality, would it be fair to say in the introduction that the Roman Catholic Church has a neutral view of homosexuality, or that it is even a positive view? It would be helpful to know more about what the Roman Church thinks about homosexuality besides just that it is a God-given temptation (which itself is perhaps a bit theologically problematic). Is homosexuality not "intrinsically disordered" according to the Vatican?--Bhuck (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it is "dubious" that some Conservative Synods of the Lutheran Church consider homosexuality sinful. The Missouri synod's views on sexuality are clear: it is sinful, whether sex is involved or not. The LCMS is certainly a Conservative Synod, so that should clear the debate. Michaelzxhc (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to correct this by saying that Roman Catholics just opposed gay sex, not homosexuality, but it was reverted by the comment saying "I highly doubt that." The Catholic Church said "men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies ... must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." It doesn't sound like the condemn any sexual orientation, just gay sex. Unless there is evidence that they condemn something more than gay sex, I am putting it back. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tommaso Stenico

It would be interesting of we could have an entry on Tommaso Stenico, a clerical inquisitor at the Vatican who was forced to admit his homosexuality after a hidden camera caught him making illicit advances. [1] ADM (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual people and Christianity

The paragraph about gay Christians who wish to abstain from gay sex was removed from the section on Homosexuals people and Christianity. It was put in the section on reparative therapy, but I don't think most of these people support reparative therapy, so it really shouldn't be in that section. I think, in order to honest, we need to talk about all gay Christians in this section. Also, the Nicolosi survey was peer-reviewed. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What you think they support is not important. It is sources that matter. As you persist in adding groups, rather than people, I have changed the section heading to reflect this, and added some other groups who support lesbian and gay Christians to be lesbian and gay Christians. Mish (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Choice, repentance, change and the conversion/reparative therapy movement

The placement of these sentences are misleading: "Christians who view homosexual sex as sin believe that homosexuals can change and, while welcoming homosexuals to their churches, call on them to "repent and be changed". The mainstream mental health consensus in the United States and elsewhere is that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

It starts off talking about homosexual sex, and then goes into a statement about choice in sexual orientation. The placement makes it seem as if the Christian view is in contradiction to the APA, which it is not. They are about two different things. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It still is misleading. What does the whole discussion of the APA have to do with anything? Does anyone believe sexual orientation is a choice? A quick read makes it seem as if those who believe gay sex is a sin think a homosexual orientation is a choice. What does that have to do with reparative therapy? Do you see how all of these topics are not related, but are thrown together to make it seem as if these groups are claiming something they are not? The misleading tag stays until it is clear what the relationship between all of these things really are. It is going to have to take some major reworking. If the APA stuff about sexual orientation not being a choice is to remain in the section, it needs to be clear that most of these groups agree with the APA in that respect. As it now stands, there seems to be a disagreement. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The section now reads: "Christians who view homosexual sex as sin believe that homosexuals can change and, while welcoming homosexuals to their churches, call on them to "repent and be changed". Against this, the American Psychological Association considers homosexual behavior to be as normal as heterosexual behavior." I'm sorry, but that is WP:Synthesis. The APA views eating pork as normal, but doesn't mean they go against the Muslim belief that eating pork is a sin and pork lovers can change. Those are two different things. Again, it has the false implication that the APA somehow thinks a change in sexual behavior is not possible. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I put it back the way it was before people started fiddling with it. Mish (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Material from homosexuality and religion

This was removed from the homosexuaity and religion article as being in far too much detail, and more appropriate for this page (if it is not already all covered here):

The Roman Catholic Church and later, Reformed and Protestant churches traditionally condemned same-sex sexual relations, based on scripture texts such as describing a man lying with another man 18:22 as sinful acts. Where the Catholic view is founded on a natural law argument informed by scripture, the traditional conservative Protestant view is based on an interpretation of scripture alone. Certain books in the Bible, such as Leviticus, suggest that same-sex sexual relations between men is seen as sinful by God; a "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination".18:22 Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans, referring to people who had turned from God out of wickedness, and worshiped creatures rather than the Creator, describes how, as a consequence of this, God left them to their own devices: "Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another".Romans 1:26–27 He gives a list of the sorts of things people who turned their backs on God have done, and follows this by pointing out that we have all done these sorts of things, and says "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things".Romans 2:1

Protestant conservatives also see homosexual relationships as an impediment to heterosexual relationships. They interpret some Biblical passages to be commandments to be heterosexually married such as "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh"(Genesis 2:24) and "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord"(1 Corinthians 11:11). Catholics, on the other hand, have accommodated unmarried people as priests, monks, nuns and single lay people for many years. A number of ex-gay Christians have reported satisfaction in their heterosexual marriages.

Denunciation of homosexuality is also seen in surviving early Christian writings; such as 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 — for example, Eusebius of Caesarea's statement which condemns "the union of women with women and men with men.” Many prominent Christian theologians have been critical of homosexuality throughout the religion's history. Thomas Aquinas denounced sodomy as second only to bestiality as the worst of all sexual sins, and Hildegard of Bingen's book Scivias, which was officially approved by Pope Eugene III, condemned sexual relations between women as "perverted forms."

In the 20th century, theologians like Karl Barth, Jürgen Moltmann, Hans Kung, John Robinson, Bishop David Jenkins, Don Cupitt, Bishop Jack Spong challenged traditional theological positions and understandings of the Bible; following these developments some have suggested that passages have been mistranslated or that they do not refer to what we understand as "homosexuality." Clay Witt, a minister in the Metropolitan Community Church, explains how theologians and commentators like John Shelby Spong, George Edwards and Michael England interpret injunctions against certain sexual acts as being originally intended as a means of distinguishing religious worship between Abrahamic and the surrounding pagan faiths, within which homosexual acts featured as part of idolatrous religious practices: "England argues that these prohibitions should be seen as being directed against sexual practices of fertility cult worship. As with the earlier reference from Strong’s, he notes that the word 'abomination' used here is directly related to idolatry and idolatrous practices throughout the Hebrew Testament. Edwards makes a similar suggestion, observing that 'the context of the two prohibition in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 suggest that what is opposed is not same-sex activity outside the cult, as in the modern secular sense, but within the cult identified as Canaanite'".

The Roman Catholic Church, maintains what it regards as early Christian teaching on homosexuality, and that sex is solely for procreation: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

The Catholic Church requires those who are attracted to people of the same sex to practice chastity, because sexuality should only be practiced within marriage, which it regards as permanent, procreative, heterosexual, and monogamous. The Church acknowledges that homosexuality can be a problem for people attracted to the same sex, rather than the opposite sex, but stresses that such people "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity." The Vatican distinguishes between "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" and the "expression of a transitory problem", in relation to ordination to the priesthood; saying that homosexual tendencies "must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints takes a position of self controlling any tendencies towards same-gender attraction. Dallin H. Oaks, a leader in the LDS church, stated “All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior”. Homoerotic thoughts, feelings and behaviors are considered to be a problem that everyone can and should overcome. Homosexual activity is considered a serious sin on par or greater than other sexual activity outside of a legal, heterosexual marriage and those involved may be excommunicated. However, despite this position, the church decries any unkind act towards gays, as is manifest in this statement: "The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people."

Richard Land, the head of the public policy board of the Southern Baptist Convention, claims that the "radical homosexual agenda" is one of "America's Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse." Even among denominations that proclaim homosexuality to be sinful, there is usually an official policy of "love the sinner, hate the sin."

Al Sharpton, a Baptist minister and Civil rights leader, offered a different Christian perspective during his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, arguing that asking whether gays or lesbians should be able to get married was insulting: "That's like saying you give blacks, or whites, or Latinos the right to shack up -- but not get married [...] It's like asking 'do I support black marriage or white marriage'. . . . The inference of the question is that gays are not like other human beings".

Other Christian denominations do not condemn homosexual acts as bad or evil and some liberal Christians are open and affirming to active homosexuals. Indeed, there is a denomination of 40,000 members, the Metropolitan Community Church, devoted to being open and affirming to active homosexuals. The United Church of Christ also condones gay marriage and some parts of the Anglican and Lutheran churches allow for the blessing of gay unions. The United Church of Canada also allows same-sex marriage, and views sexual orientation as a gift from God. Within the Anglican communion there are openly gay clergy, for example, Gene Robinson is an openly gay Bishop in the US Episcopal Church.

There exist religious groups and denominations whose interpretation of scripture and doctrine states that homosexuality is morally acceptable, and a natural occurrence. For example, in 1988 the United Church of Canada, that country's largest Protestant denomination, affirmed that "a) All persons, regardless of their sexual orientation, who profess Jesus Christ and obedience to Him, are welcome to be or become full member of the Church; and b) All members of the Church are eligible to be considered for the Ordered Ministry." In 2000, the Church's General Assembly further affirmed that "human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are a gift from God and part of the marvelous diversity of creation."

Desmond Tutu, the former Archbishop of Cape Town and a Nobel Peace Price winner, has described homophobia as a "crime against humanity" and "every bit as unjust" as apartheid: "We struggled against apartheid in South Africa, supported by people the world over, because black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about; our very skins. It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given. ... We treat them [gays and lesbians] as pariahs and push them outside our communities. We make them doubt that they too are children of God - and this must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy. We blame them for what they are."

Others consider that Christ made the commandments to "love God and one's neighbour," and to "love one's neighbour as oneself" touchstones of the moral law; that these imply a radical equality, and that, by this principle of equality, the Law of Moses is to be adjusted. Jesus exemplified this principle in his teaching on divorce. Furthermore, it is said that Jesus Christ instituted a virtue ethic, whereby the worth of one's action is to be adjudged by one's interior disposition. For these reasons, it is said that to condemn homosexuality is to fall into a pre-Christian "Pharasaical" legalism.

Passages from the Old Testament have been interpreted to argue that homosexuals should be punished with death, and AIDS has been portrayed by some such as Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell as a punishment by God against homosexuals. Religious condemnation has been such a deep source of pain, many lesbian and gay youth have prayed to God to become heterosexual.

spelling

I reverted the change to the British English spelling in one section heading. Looking through the article, both US and British spellings are used - and the article contains material about the USA, UK and other countries. The MoS suggests that the spelling should be consistent within articles, and this is determined by the focus (i.e., exclusively US articles use US spelling, UK use British). This is not as straightforward, and given both spellings already feature, if spelling is going to be adjusted for one form of spelling it should be discussed before making changes, as enforcing US spelling will necessarily mean that this will weight the focus of the article towards an American perspective. Mish (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

LDS Church

The debate about whether the LDS Church is considered a Christian denominations has been hashed over multiple times on higher level pages. As one editor on Talk:Christianity said the last time this came up, "Can we nip this discussion in the bud? We've had it before. We'll have it again. The shorter it is, the better. We refer to JWs and Mormons as Christians whether they "really" are or not." But here are a few reliable sources that include the LDS Church as a Christian denominations:

• 2001 American Religious Identification Survey
• Christianity
• CIA - The World Factbook -- Field Listing::Religion

And some high level pages on WP that make the same categorization:

• Christianity
• List of Christian denominations
• List of religions and spiritual traditions
• Almost all the US State pages that list the religious demographic percentages
• Even the header navbox on this page includes the LDS in its list of denominational positions

Such is the established consensus and pattern used across WP. If the pattern is going to change, it should first happen at the higher level pages. --FyzixFighter (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As you say, this is a persistent problem. I have broken the paragraph up to clarify Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian Christianity. Mish (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the LDS reference in the lead is problematic for other reasons, in that it does not reflect an entry on LDS views in the article itself (the lead should summarise the article) and it is not backed up with a citation. Mish (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Schwinn may call their bicycles "automobiles" but if all of the automobile manufacturers call it a "bicycle", it would still be a bicycle. The basic and most universal tenets of Christianity are denied by the LDS church, hence, it cannot by any definition be referred to as "Christian" nor do any mainstream classically Christian denominations refer to it as so. Mormons may refer to themselves as Christians, but Christians do not refer to themselves as Mormons. Publicly edited entries in Wikipedia carry no weight or authority nor do state lists of "religious demographics" which put "Scientology" into the same mix. At the end of the day, the people with the most time on their hands can reshape the content of Wikipedia recasting bicycles into automobiles. This is most disconcerting as people come to Wikipedia to try to understand subject matters and when avid LDS people misinform, it only lends to confusion, not understanding. If I were an adherent to the LDS, I would do so proudly without trying to hope people think I was something else. I do thank JoshuaJohnson for a tolerable compromise in the opening language of this article, but the term "Christian" is used in a very loose generic sense, not in a biblical sense. Theleopard (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The LDS church is definitely Abrahamic. On the Religion and homosexuality page, Abrahamic churches are divided into three categories - Christian, Muslim, and Jewish. Which of the three should the LDS church be placed? Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is odd that a sect which started up in the 19th Century and considers that Christian denominations that persist from the time of the Apostles are not really Christian, and denies some of the central tenets of what most Christian denominations have held as central since the formulation of the Nicene Creed (and its variants), also considers itself 'Christian' - but the LDS does appear to, and often we find the irrational, unreasonable, paradoxical and self-contradiction in Christianity. I was surprised to see how far Mormonism had integrated itself amongst mainstream denominations in the encyclopedia, as my understanding has always been that it is not accepted as Christian my all major traditional denominations (Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, etc.). LDS are not a part of the WCC, for example. What I think is not important, however, it is what Mormons believe and what is accurate and reliable that we can say about that. There are sects/denominations with a long pedigree that hold differing views from the mainstream, such as the Copts, and we would not discount them. It seems important not to confuse readers by inserting positions attributable to Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, the Unification Church, etc. amongst positions established within mainstream churches as if they are the same thing - because they differ doctrinally on a number of key points. That is why it is important to differentiate between the Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian churches/denominations/sects. The Catholic Church, for example, believes what it does based on Catholic tradition and the Bible, Evangelical Protestantism on the Bible alone, Mormonism on the Bible and their own teachings. Catholic tradition has nothing to do with Mormon views on homosexuality, and Mormon scriptures are irrelevant to all Trinitarian denominations. It is misleading to present them as if they have any connection with the beliefs of Trinitarian Christians - LDS view them as apostates, and they view the founder of LDS as a false prophet. Rather than get into the ins-and-outs of that, it is better to deal with them as separate issues. At the same time, it would be wrong to give Mormon views undue weight (especially if the purpose such insertion appears to be for promotion or proselytizing): LDS may be the 4th largest religious group in the USA, but that is just the USA, around the world, Christianity is mainly made up of Trinitarian Christians. Mish (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

4th largest in the US and 15th largest in the world[2] sfter 3 other Non-trinitarian churches. The LDS church is convenient to quote because its doctrine is unified and because it is much more international. For example, it would be difficult to say what the Assemblies of God are saying about an issue without extensive research about all of the different groups within the Assemblies of God. The LDS church might significantly differ from other Christian churches with respect to the Trinity, but it is much more inline with mainstream Christianity on homosexuality than the Episcopal Church or Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. I think it would be acceptable to cite Mormon sources in areas where they are consistent with mainstream Christianity. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Strange, I don't recall anywhere anyone saying that the LDS believe that other mainstream denominations are not really Christians, nor is this part of LDS theology. Whether other denominations accept it as Christian is irrelevant since this is not a theological encyclopedia but a scholarly, secular encyclopedia, and reliable scholarly sources consistently place the LDS within the larger category of Christianity. This is why the LDS are listed as a Christian subset in demographic breakdowns, because the reliable sources group them that way. A significant number of evangelicals consider the Roman Catholic Church to not be Christian, so do we not include them? A significant number of monotheists (Muslims and Jews) do not accept Christianity as a monotheistic religion, so do we say Christianity isn't a monotheistic religion? Inclusion in WCC is also irrelevant - the RCC isn't a member. Fortunately we do not use the theological interpretation of one religion for another to guide the editing on WP. The pattern that has been established multiple times over on Talk:Christianity and similar high level articles is that of self-identification and identification according to reliable sources. Look at the second paragraph on Christianity - LDS theology agrees with everything there except the acceptance of the ecumenical creeds. Certainly there are doctrinal differences, but again, scholarly sources agree that there is enough connection between mainstream Christian denominations and non-traditional denominations for the non-traditional to be included in the larger subset called Christianity. Other WP articles certainly don't carry much weight, but the consensus that arrived at those pages do [3].

You can't really say that Catholic tradition has nothing to do with Mormon views on homosexuality because, as you noted, they both use the Bible as part of their source of doctrine. One could make the same argument about the Catholic teachings and Evangelical teachings which categorically reject most of Catholic tradition. I think the only valid argument for not including the LDS may be the claim of undue weight. However, the article also mentions specific evangelical groups that are comparable or smaller in size (in number of members) and that are also not mentioned directly in the article, so that argument is not as persuasive given their inclusion. Given that the LDS Church is the 4th largest Christian church in the US and given the widespread attention the church got for its position on homosexuality during the Proposition 8 debate, I think it is justifiable to mention them in the article. It was included in the list of churches in the intro for a very long time and only recently was removed by an editor who appears to be unfamiliar with how this debate had been settled in the past by a much larger consensus of editors, so the worry that its insertion is promotion and proselytizing would also appear to be irrelevant.

I'm going to try a small rewrite to reduce the explanation to a simple footnote/link like the the other churches listed but maintain the distinction from the other traditional/mainstream churches. If we find that we still disagree, I suggest we try asking at WP:RELIGION or WP:CHRISTIAN to get outside comments from the wider group of frequent religion editors. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying they shouldn't be included - but you cannot support what 'Christians' believe by citing some Mormon ruling on homosexuality, because that doesn't apply to other Christians. What you can do is cite what is held in common - what the Bible says, and where things differ (the Catholic church and natural law). But, you can only cite what Mormons believe as what Mormons believe - because other Christians do not accept Mormon teachings as having any validity for Christians. For example, Catholic agencies specifically produce guidance on how to counter Mormon proselytizing amongst Catholics. If Mormonism is included as a non-Trinitarian type of Christianity, then so too should be Jehovah's Witnesses, as that appears to have more members. If we are going to weight it correctly, the major emphasis should be on the Catholic debate, as they dominate Christianity numerically, then Orthodox teaching should have more detail, followed by the controversy within the Anglican Communion, then other major Trinitarian denominations, then JW's with Mormons. Mish (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

By analogy, we wouldn't be able to cite any one denomination for what "Christians" believe since they all have very distinct and separate traditions. Certainly the Mormon position is influenced by their Christian roots. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That is what we do - cover the different views of different denominations. So, we don't represent Catholic views as if they are Anglican views, just as within Anglicanism and Catholicism (and Evangelicalism) there are different views - we don't make out the different Anglican views are one view.

I think the JW's should be included, but weight isn't only granted on pure numbers, but also relevance. The JWs might be bigger than the LDS church, but they haven't involved themselves in the debate as much as the LDS church. There just simply isn't as much material on the JW's position on homosexuality. Given your logic that weight is based solely on population, the Metropolitan Community Church should only receive a passing mention, if at all. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, because the MCC is made up predominantly of lesbian and gay people, so they are more relevant in that respect than churches that are made up predominantly of people who are not lesbian or gay (or homosexual) - there are two categories in the title, Christianity and homosexuality, so a Church that actively supports homosexuality in lesbian and gay people is just as relevant as any that doesn't - whatever the numbers. Mish (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that it should be mentioned. My only point was that you can't go just off the numbers. You also have to go off of how relevant they are to the general debate on homosexuality and Christianity. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be a problem, because nobody is interested in what LDS says apart from LDS (ditto for JWs) - whereas Vatican and Catholic pronouncements and Anglican debates feature in the media regularly. Mish (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion - and then let the reader decide what is relevant.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

There is no reference for the claim in the first sentence of this article: "Christianity has traditionally regarded homosexuality, in the sense of human sexual behavior, to be an immoral practice (or vice) and sinful, and many large Christian denominations continue to hold this view, including the Roman Catholic Church,[1] the Eastern Orthodox church,[2] most Evangelical Protestant churches (such as the Assemblies of God,[3] the Christian & Missionary Alliance,[4] the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (United States),[5] the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod,[6] and the Southern Baptist Convention),[7] and the LDS Church.[8]"

This sentence is highly biased and poorly worded. I will be changing the first paragraph to:

"Christians hold varying stances on people who are romantically and sexually attracted to the same sex. Some Christian denominations accept gay congregants and clergy. These include the Episcopalian Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ, the Moravian Church, and the Friends General Conference (Quakers). In particular, the Metropolitan Community Church was founded specifically to serve the Christian LGBT community. Other Christian denominations such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints, and fundamentalist (or evangelical) protestant churches believe homosexuality is an immoral practice (or vice) and sinful.

The Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, and the Methodist Church of Great Britain are actively debating the issue. The worldwide Anglican Communion has experienced ongoing debate and controversy over homosexuality both before and after the Episcopal Church ordained the first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in 2003."

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This incorrectly implies that the other Christian denominations are not accepting of people who are romantically and sexually attracted to the same sex, when in reality it is not the people that are being condemned, but same-sex relationships. Also, since most of Christianity does not approve of same-sex relationships, they should be mentioned first. There is the same problem with the title "Views critical of homosexuality", as most of the churches are not critical of the sexual orientation of homosexuality. I propose we retitle it to be "Views critical of same-sex relationships". We can have another section about views on sexual orientation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi JJ, One problem is that there is no reference that supports the claim "...most of Christianity does not approve of same sex relationships." Are you taking a global perspective? I agree with your other point that what is condemned is same-sex relationships, not people who are attracted to the same sex. I propose the following:

"Christians hold varying stances on people who are romantically and sexually attracted to the same sex, and gay sexual behavior. Some Christian denominations accept gay congregants and clergy, and do not view gay sex as sinful or immoral. These include the Episcopalian Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ, the Moravian Church, and the Friends General Conference (Quakers). In particular, the Metropolitan Community Church was founded specifically to serve the Christian LGBT community. Other Christian denominations include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox church, most fundamentalist (Evangelical Protestant) churches and the LDS Church believe homosexual acts are an immoral practice (or vice) and sinful.

The Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, and the Methodist Church of Great Britain are actively debating the issue. The worldwide Anglican Communion has experienced ongoing debate and controversy over homosexuality both before and after the Episcopal Church ordained the first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in 2003."

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The statement "Some Christian denominations accept gay congregants and clergy" makes it seem as if the other denominations do not. There only seems to be minor fringe groups that do not accept gay congregants, and only recently has the RCC made regulations against gay clergy. Another issue is that in order to conform to wikipedia standards, we need to have both Christianity and homosexuality in the opening sentence. I still think the against same-sex relationship side should come first. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the gay congregants and clergy issue. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several points:

• What Christian denominations and provinces within denominations accept or don't accept
• Acceptance of homosexual congregants in relation to an ideal lesbian and gay partnerships
• Acceptance of homosexual clergy in relation to an ideal of lesbian and gay partnerships, and ordination of same
• Acceptance of homosexual congregants in relation to an ideal of celibacy or heterosexual marriage
• Acceptance of homosexual clergy in relation to an ideal of celibacy or heterosexual marriage
• Non-acceptance of homosexual congregants regardless of abstention from same-sex-sex
• Non-acceptance of homosexual clergy regardless of abstention from same-sex-sex
• Acceptance of homosexual congregants regardless of sexual practice
• Acceptance of homosexual clergy regardless of sexual practice, and ordination of same

Mish (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Good list.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The intro should discuss what the rest of the article is talking about. The first part of the first sentence says "Christians hold varying stances on people who are romantically and sexually attracted to the same sex." All of the churches mentioned in this article, and all but a few fringe groups, accept gay and lesbians as members. It doesn't seem like they hold varying stances on people who are romantically and sexually attracted to the same sex. It seems they are pretty unified - love and acceptance - or at least that is what their doctrine dictates. Whether the members follow that is another story. But you can't start out an article saying there is varying stances, but then not present any variance. That should be changed. Most of the text focuses on the debate on same-sex relationships. Since this is about the more broad category of homosexuality, could we have a paragraph about the nearly universal call for love towards gays and lesbians, and let the other paragraphs focus on the controversy? Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

original research?

this article has the original research template, but no content within seems to be tagged as OR. Template:Original research says: "This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given." I cannot find any reason for the template to remain, so I am removing it. Feel free to bring re-apply the template if original research is cited, here on the talk page, or tagged in the article. 71.202.41.107 (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Immoral vs. sinful?

Honestly, what is actually the difference between considering homosexual activity as "just sinful" and "also immoral"? The intro seems to hold a view that it is a difference. Summer Song (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Views on gay people

Much of the article discusses views on homosexual behavior, but doesn't necessarily talk about views on gay people. A majority of Christian religions teach that gay people should be treated with love and respect, and there are many versus in the Bible that support that position. There are a few fringe religions who do not and it should be noted that their positions are fringe. Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the majority of Christian religions teach that all people should be treated with love and respect - nothing in the bible refers to gay people as such as the term 'gay' or the idea of homosexuality (as opposed to homosexual behviour) did not exist then. That said, the article should make clear that churches that view homosexual behaviour as sin, still welcome homosexuals themselves in the same way that all 'sinners' are welcome. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus' homosexuality

Shouldn't this article reflect recent studies that suggest Jesus may have been gay? If it were proven that Our Savior was a friend of Dorothy, that would go a long way to clarifying the Christian position on homosexuality -- or indeed, it would perhaps render the need for clarification unnecessary. Anyhow, it's worth thinking about, and this article should perhaps explore it. Just my two cents.... SCFilm29 (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Which studies? Mish (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

July 2010: Presbyterian Church (USA)

Presbyterian Church (USA) allowed gay clergy in partnerships

• Advocate:Presbyterians: Gay Clergy Yes 92.252.121.85 (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Liberal and mainline churches in europe

The article looks to much on situation in USA. Here in europe is a different sight and feeling for LGBT topics and LGBT rights.

In europe many christian churches do not view monogamous same sex relationships as sinful or immoral. Thes include all german lutheran, reformed and united churches in EKD, all swiss reformed churches in Swiss Reformed Church, the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, the Danish National Church, the Church of Sweden, the Church of Iceland and the Church of Norway. 92.252.121.85 (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Lutheran communion: open lesbian bishop Eva Brunne in Sweden

Within the Lutheran communion there are openly gay clergy, for example, bishop Eva Brunne is an openly lesbian Bishop in the Church of Sweden. 92.252.121.85 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What is this?

"There are a few bible texts that seem to refer to homosexual behavior. Discussions about these texts are focused around four main questions: What does the text mean? Is it correctly translated? For instance some scholars cite alternate translations, in which most of the verses aren't referring to homosexuality." Discussions? The source provided shows a discussion by one minor group. What scholars exactly cite alternate translations? The one provided in the source. Was this written for a political purpose?

"Do you only look at the by certain churches approved Biblical canon or do you also take original texts, like the Biblical apocrypha, in consideration?" Do you only look at the biblical cannon provided to you by the church you choose to help you understand the religion? The biblical apocrypha? Various churches and congregations have differing views on what is apocrypha and what isn't. To be a Catholic you follow catholic cannon. To be this one you follow this cannon and to be that one you follow that cannon. Mormons had another book that wasn't even apart of the apocrypha. Again was this all written to serve a political purpose?

"Is the text a ‘divine message’ or a reflection of cultural values?" Again pov's differ. Again I wonder if this is in the article for a political purpose.

"How does one text relate to another? Where on the one hand texts are compared to the message of Jesus, who never spoke for or against homosexuality. And on the other hand homosexual sins are emphasized, where other sins from the same text(s) are neglected." It's been documented that some Christians feel that Jesus did away with the old testament while other feel he didn't. Arguments against homosexuality are man and old while the for side is new and few. You could at least give the against side their equal voice. 70.15.191.119 (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The against side is loud and ubiquitous. There are few who are unfamiliar with it. But your insistence on negating every part of this article suggests your own political agenda. Do you really think that there are no scholars, or very few scholars, who understand the Hebrew and Greek texts differently? Numerous books have been published on the subject, by various scholars. You seem quite ready to dismiss such "minority" opinions as irrelevant. But I have to wonder, do you have the ability to read Hebrew and Greek, and have you researched this topic in the Hebrew and Greek texts? If not, then I have to wonder why you are so adamant about rejecting the work of those who can? And in case you are wondering, I do read both languages, and I have researched this. I find no fault in the arguments presented here. In fact, I find numerous translation errors in English language Bibles, many of which are deliberate, for doctrinal reasons. A truly honest translation of scripture would contradict many churches' beliefs, and not just on the subject of homosexuality.BroWCarey (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok so there are few who don't know the against side and since that's the case there is no room for putting much if any effort into showing the against side? Instead people should learn the greek and hebrew language and read the older available copies of the books of the bible until they can accept homosexuality as more than a sin. Am I saying their are no scholars or few scholars who view the bible differently? No I don't recall saying that. I miss where I've said that at all in fact. Numerous books aren't cited. One website is cited. The website cites 3 books. One book from the famous homosexual scholar John Boswell. The famous homosexual Rev. William H. Carey. And Bruce Bagemihl, Ph.D. whose work relates to human sexuality and not the bible. There a numerous scholars who have different views on the bible. There are numerous non scholars that have a different views on the bible. There are enough denominations to show that. Notable absent from this article is the word Arsenokoitai. It's in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. It's an interesting word to be left absent since quite abit of the arguments that the bible said nothing to denounce homosexuality hinge on it. John Boswell the notable gay scholar mentioned so often in this article was very critical of the word being used to reference and in the context used to denounce homosexual practices. But if this was in the article you would have to also give room for his critics on this subject. one such critic David F Wright. William L. Peterson agreed with Wright except on Arsenokoitai meaning homosexual. As the Oxford classicist K.J. Dover made clear there was no Greek word for the Homosexual identity and that the concept of sexual identity was a recent phenomenon. Peterson went on to say Arsenokoitai refers to Homoerotic practice and not sexual identity. I'm not quite ready to dismiss the minority. I'm just not ready to allow the majority to be dismissed like you are so ready to do. What was you reasoning that the for side should have a section of their unsourced thought process dedicated to them? I think you said, "The against side is loud and ubiquitous. There are few who are unfamiliar with it". I guess you could say that I have some what of a political agenda. I feel wikipedia not be biased and continue to espouse verifiability and neutral point of view. The neutral point of view was violated in this article. Neutrality requires that all significant view points are given space in proportion of their prominence. Personally I'd see no problem giving each view equal space when it comes to this subject but wikipedias not a forum for view points. I would also like to point out the section "Views critical of homosexual behavior" is filled with opposing points of view after views critical of homosexual behavior are posted while the section "Views favorable to homosexuality" contains no opposing views. The use of named individuals is prominent on the Favorable side while on the use of names on the critical side are limited. Scholars like Boswell are used on the favorable side while Crack pots like Joe Dallas are used for the critical side. My political aspirations are not to give one side especially the minority side undue weight. I must also question the use of the addition of no religious scientific views in an article about religion especially when those non-religious scientific views are given more weight than their religious counter part as seen in the section, "Choice and free will." 70.15.191.119 (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You want info on arsenokoitai? No problem. The word doesn't appear in any ancient literature outside the New Testament. It's found only in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 (in the dative case, arsenokoitais). From its absence in any other writings of the first century, it's logical to conclude that Paul coined this word. There were words in Greek that could have been used to indicate male homosexual activity (while such a word as homosexual did not exist), but Paul didn't use any of those words. Now, if Paul is going to coin a new word, he would not want its meaning to be obscure; he would want it to be plain and clear so his readers would understand. Arsenokoitai is derived from the word arsenes (male) and koit (lying down -from the verb keimai- lie down). Put together as a plural noun, the word translates as "those who lie down with males." But that's not the end of it. If Paul had intended this word to describe men lying down with men, the word would not end with "ai" but with "oi." Ai is a feminine ending. The dative form used in 1 Timothy, ais, is also feminine. Why would Paul coin a word with a feminine ending if he is talking about men? That would only cause confusion. And his goal would have been clarity. There is already the word pornoi present, fornicators, in the masculine plural, to indicate sex outside of marriage. Arsenokoitai closes a loophole: Because pornoi is masculine, and a feminine form is not used, nitpickers could argue that the rules against sexual immorality only apply to males. While such an argument, linguistically, isn't valid, some could argue it. But there are definite situations where a female initiates sexual activity, such as a prostitute soliciting a customer. Arsenokoitai properly translates as "those females who lie down with males," thus covering any situation where a woman initiates illicit sexual contact, whether adultery, fornication, or prostitution. So now you have the lowdown on arsenokoitai from someone who can read Greek. BroWCarey (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Very funny, 70. If you'd read the article, instead of going "OMG it isn't entirely negative so it is WRONG" you would notice that it links to Homosexuality in the New Testament, which naturally discusses "arsenokoitēs," a word which Paul evidently made up and which by no means universally acknowledged as referring to gay people.

Can you provide examples of gay theologians who interpret the passages as condemning gay people? We obviously can't trust the interpretations of straight theologians - they'll just interpret it such that it enforces heterosexual superiority, won't they?

And finally, what's this nonsense about "religious scientific views"? There are scientific views, and there are religious views. If something isn't a religious view, there's no reason to put it in this article.

You might want to cut it out with the walls of text and try to contribute productively, rather than ranting because Wikipedia does not confirm your prejudices.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a straight person theologian wouldn't? I don't recall calling anything other than this article wrong and in the wall of text I discuss the non neutral point of view this article has. Because it gives undue weight to the minority side. Further more I miss where I gave my personal thought or opinions on homosexuality in any of the text above.

I never said "arsenokoitēs" universally said anything. I gave to views of it. Arsenokoitēs properly translate in to one thing. If it properly translated it wouldn't have so many translations. This may be the translation you want to pick but your desires don't matter. Since there is no agreed translation you need to give both or all major translations. It's called neutrality. This article lacks it from wikipedias standards not my own. Further more arsenokoitēs is relevant to this article like it's relevant to homosexuality and the bible article and the homosexuality and the new testament article. It's relevance does not dissipate in one because it is in the other. Further more Wright is mentioned in that article to have opposed Boswell while mentioning nothing of what his opposition was while someone found room for Boswells opinion. Peterson is notable absent.

This article makes room for the critical views of Joe Dallas a crack pot but there's a lack of anyone significant from the critical side. There how ever are numerous notable individuals on the favorable side. The section labeled critical has points refuted at every turn while the favorable side is completely favorable.

There are religious views and there are scientific views. There are also religious scientific views or religious views with a scientific basis. The Psychiatrists view only matter here where they pertain to religion. "There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment" has nothing to do with Christianity. Psychiatrists and their psychiatric opinions unrelated to religion aren't relevant to religion.

This article has no balance. It lacks a neutral point of view because of this. I'm not saying homosexuality is wrong. I'm not saying it's right. Neither should anyone else in a wikipedia article. This isn't about right or wrong. This is an encyclopedia. There is supposed to be neutral representing facts from both sides. Actually by wikipedias guidelines Neutrality requires that all significant view points are given space in proportion of their prominence.70.15.191.119 (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason that the only anti views are from crackpots (to use your term) is that serious scholars no longer hold anti views. Every single anti argument has been debunked and proven false. So the only people still standing by such arguments are the poorly educated and the dishonest.BroWCarey (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There are no anti-views that have been proven wrong as it pertains to this Christian religion. There are none that have been proven right. Neither side has proven their case definitively. Neither side. You can personally pick and choose which side you agree with and there's no problem with that. Further more this article goes against your argument. This article holds 3 groups at some points (those who believe homosexuality is a sin and don't except homosexuals amongst them, those who who believe homosexuality is a sin and except homosexuals amongst them, and those who don't feel homosexuality is a sin.) and two groups at other points (those who feel homosexuality is a sin and those who don't) but the only group who's views are represented in depth are those who don't feel homosexuality is a sin. This group is a minority world wide so you are giving them undue weight and therefor this article is not neutral by wikipedia standards. Pat Robertson is much more notable than Joe Dallas. You have Boswells named dropped a number of times but his critics who are also colleagues Like Wright and Peterson have are no where to be found. You list Boswell and his reasoning for his views but you only mention that he has critics. This is wikipedia an encyclopedia and there is no room for bias. It doesn't matter if you think homosexuality is a sin. I doesn't matter if you think homosexuality isn't a sin. What matters for the purpose of this article is Christianity and homosexuality. Not giving the side that thinks homosexuality sin the same respect as those who don't makes people who use this encyclopedia poorly educated and the people who take part in it I feel are dishonest. This is an encyclopedia "An encyclopedia (also spelled encyclopaedia or encyclopædia) is a type of reference work, a compendium holding information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge". This is not an encyclopedia of a particular branch of knowledge. There are plenty of websites for activism that you can tell people that they are stupid for their beliefs and poorly educated for having them. This website should not be one of them.70.15.191.119 (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You do a lot of complaining, but I don't see you doing anything about it. If you think you have credible sources with the anti argument, then edit the article accordingly. (Not too many Christians would consider Pat Robertson a credible source, given some of the bizarre statements he's made. I recall him stating some years back that HIV could not be transmitted through heterosexual contact. Of course, he was wrong, and everyone knew it. But I never heard him retract that statement.) But no one is going to do this work for you. If you feel the article is biased, then it is up to you to do something about it and edit it. If you are not willing to do that, then please do everyone a favor and stop whining.BroWCarey (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Your right. The people who watch him on TV in 180 countries in 71 languages that donate money to him don't find him credible and primarily because you have an opinion of him.. The point is that Pat Robertson is a more notable individual than Joe Dallas. Robertson has more followers. Robertsons message has reached more people. John Boswell is a notable individual. You and others may find that Robertson is full of crap but that's really not a good argument on your part because there are people who think Boswell is full of crap.

I am doing something about it by complaining. I need not more than complain. There's no reason to edit anything when a willful disregard of neutral point of view rules has taken place. At worse this article has given undue weight for the favorable side, doesn't give equal validity to the critical side, doesn't use good research, doesn't speak from a impartial tone, uses idiosyncratic opinions , and uses loaded words. AT best you can take away the Undue weight and replace it with a lack of balance. Any edits made in such an environment will be undone. It was the job of the original editor and each additional editor to keep this article neutral. Instead it became a race for the favorable side to discredit the critical side. This is religion not politics. Theologians can right as they wish but if you are a catholic the Popes views and opinions are just as high as any theologian. In fact the popes word is the highest as it pertains to catholicism. Boswell's opinion is no more reputable than David Wrights. Petersons opinion is no more reputable than either of those 2. There is how ever a notable lack of concern on the part of any editor for their opinions while Boswell is the go to guy. Your use of ad hominems and your use of a strawman doesn't take away from my argument.70.15.191.119 (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I reiterate: Do something or stop complaining. This article isn't a finished work that everyone has to accept. If you feel the article is lacking in some way, you have the right to edit it. Add sources, add links... as long as they are legitimate. If you cannot, or will not, do that, then your complaining is pointless. You simply make yourself look like a malcontent, contributing nothing. Why do you assume that someone else must edit the article to make it acceptable to you? If you don't like it, fix it. In other words, put up or shut up.

As for Robertson v. Boswell: Robertson has made many public statements that were easily refuted. His comment about HIV was just one of many. Time and again, he has made himself look like a fool. Sure, millions watch him, and contribute tons of money... to a man who is wealthy beyond imagination. And those gullible sheep would believe him if he said the moon were made of cheese. As for Boswell, he has his detractors... I have read the works of those who disagree with him. And one thing is consistent in all of them: They disagree, they ridicule, they contradict... but I have yet to read even one that could offer a legitimate argument to disprove anything Boswell wrote. He spent years doing his research. His detractors seem unwilling to do the same. So no one has actually disproved Boswell's work. And there's the credibility difference: Robertson has been proven wrong dozens of times, predicting things that didn't happen, making claims about things that couldn't hold a drop of water. He tends to speak without thinking. Boswell has never been proven wrong. Maybe that's why his opinions are given more weight than Robertson's, Dobson's, or Cameron's.BroWCarey (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I reiterate: it's not my responsibility to make this page neutral. After pointing out the lack of neutrality and the bias on the part of the editors I have done enough. You have put Boswell vs Robertson before us. I brought forth Robertson VS Joe Dallas. I only pointed out your thoughts that Robertson is full of crap doesn't take away from his acclaim and that if it did The fact that numerous people think Boswell was full of crap would take away from his acclaim. with your argument neither individual is worthy of a mention here. Neither.

Interestingly enough what I have noticed is that you haven't mentioned David Wright one of the individuals who have challenged Boswell on the interpretation of arsenokoitēs. You also don't find the time to mention William Peterson who disagreed with Wright only in that arsenokoitēs meant homosexuality though he agreed that it did refer to the practice. You name drop Dobson and Cameron (I'll assume James Dobson but I am foggy on who you mean by Cameron) and interestingly enough I never mentioned those two. Though now that you mention Dobson I must say he would be a more notable source than Joe Dallas. He like Robinson has a far larger following. He has a far greater significance than Dallas.

The significance behind you completely ignoring Wright or Peterson particularly highlights your inherent bias. Wright specifically argued against Boswells lexicographical arguments. Peterson argued against the lexicographical arguments of both though his arguments were largely against homosexuality. You stand here and attest that no one disproved his work but I must attest that no one proved his work. Since you've read all of his detractors you have definitely Read at least Wrights work. Wright has illustrated contradictions in Boswells work. Wright has attacked Boswell's work on the his methodology. What's your argument now? "Boswell went to Yale." Wright's arguments are widely accepted. They are no less scholarly than Boswells. Wright isn't the only one. The sources for both sides are numerous. This article largely takes the stance that one of those sides is right. This article is a disservice to anyone unlucky enough to read it.70.15.191.119 (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not our "responsibility" to make the page conform to your personal version of neutrality either. Who do you think you are, asking us to do your research for you? If you think it's unsalvageable, nominate it for deletion. If you think you can salvage it, get off your butt and salvage it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You're a real piece of work, 70... You spout off all this information here, where only a few will see it, but you won't take the time to actually edit the article. I think you just like to complain. And you are funny, too: "You stand here and attest that no one disproved his (Boswell's) work but I must attest that no one proved his work." BOSWELL proved his work! And he did a good job of it, too. (I am referring more specifically to his last book on same-sex unions in Europe.) No one else needs to prove it. The onus is on others to disprove it. And no one has. Paul Cameron is a darling of Dobson and others, a fully discredited psychologist who goes around inventing lies and myths about gay people, and then selling them to the gullible. He comes up with idiotic statements like "homosexuals are more likely to be involved in car accidents than heterosexuals." He can't prove that statement, and his gullible audiences don't ask him to. But when was the last time you saw police or medical personnel at an accident scene recording the sexual orientation of those involved? But Dobson has no problem repeating and publishing the "statistics" that Cameron invents. Such people hardly make reliable sources for anything. As for Wright, I've read his refutation of Boswell. He contradicts Boswell, but doesn't actually prove anything. He claims, for example, that arsenokoitai is of Hellenistic Jewish origin, and connects it with Leviticus in the Septuagint. But that word isn't found in the Septuagint, nor in any other writings of the period. So Wright's claim is spurious. Wright rejects Boswell's conclusions about Sodom... but doesn't mention that the Mishnah, ancient Jewish Bible commentary, also agrees with Boswell about Sodom. Wright offers no real evidence to support his views. Were Wright's traditional view of Sodom's sin correct, the translators of the Bible would not have needed to mistranslate to support it: The word Sodomite is found in the King James Version in two places in the Old Testament. Some translations also put it in the New Testament. But since the word is not found in the Hebrew or Greek texts anywhere, it doesn't belong in the Bible at all. This was simply a means to add credence to the Quranic notion that Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality, a notion foreign to the Hebrew text of the OT.BroWCarey (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I need not more than complain. He has not been proven right or wrong. Neither has Wright. One thing his has proven is that Boswell's Historical argumentation and methodology especially in the use of scriptural, patristic, and medieval sources do not hit the bar of critical scholarship in particular reviews of Boswell's work. Further more Boswell as Wright points out carefully leaves out details to back up his view on the famous made up word. Wright argues particular verses attached to the verses Boswell bases his argument off offer more context to the word and prove his opinion. Both authors reach a high bar in scholarship. Another point I feel I have let languish in my mind is the fundamental right of freedom of religion as especially outlined in the universal declaration of human rights. Particularly article 18,"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." The church of Bob who worship all things bob have the right to do so. Religion isn't science. Christians are only right from basis of other Christians and not in all situations. Other than the views on homosexuality there are many other with conflict amongst Christians. The conflicting views arise from denomination to denomination and even congregation to congregation. For example when I was younger I went to the Church of Christ. The particular congregation I went to felt that you could sing but you were not allowed any instrumental accompaniment. My wife how ever went to the United Church of Christ and she found that view very odd. She felt you brought to the table what you had. If you could strum the guitar have at it. I am sure you are familiar with the King James only movement. James White put them into four categories. One of which, "The KJV As New Revelation", would completely write off anything that Boswell had to say on that was based off anything other than a direct translation of the King James version of the Bible. There is no real scholarly way to take them on. You would simply be criticizing their religious beliefs and nothing more. Dobson and what's that other guys name might be individuals that you find repulsive but I sure you realize that there are people that feel the same way about each individual named in this article. Martin Luther has detractors that wouldn't worship the way they do if not for a hammer and a nail.

And Roscelese it's not your responsibility to make this page conform to my views of neutrality. Nice strawman though. It is your responsibility to make this page conform to wikipedias standard of neutrality. My accusations that this page lacks neutrality are built on the basis of wikipedia policies concerning Neutral point of view a fundamental principle of wikipedia. If you would like to review said policy: [[4]] and make arguments on the basis of why this article is conforming to these policies then please do.70.15.191.119 (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you shift responsibility onto someone else: "It is your responsibility to make this page conform to wikipedias standard of neutrality." Why is it Roscelese's responsibility, and not yours? I've read this article. In fact, I have re-read it every time there is an edit, and have contributed small parts to it myself. I don't find any problem with its neutrality. It simply states what some Christians believe and why. It does not take sides in the issue and declare some Christians right and others wrong. It clearly states that some Christians are opposed to homosexuality and states their view on it. Since their views are generally based on the commonly available translations, more information isn't really needed. More information is needed when others say the translations are wrong. The burden is on them to show why they believe the translations are wrong. Thus, links to that are provided. You won't find reliable sources that can prove the common translations of Lev. 18:22, 20:13, or any verse containing the word "sodomite" are correct, nor will you find a reliable source that can prove that some of the modern translations of Gen. 19:5 are correct. Such sources don't exist, because the translations are easily proven wrong by anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew. All you will find are sources that either repeat the translations, or defend them without evidence. While people like Wright might seem credible to some, to those who can read the ancient languages, such sources don't measure up. His attempt to link arsenokoitai to Lev. 20:13 in the Septuagint tells me he can't read Greek. He looked at the verse and saw the words arsenos and koiten next to each other, and jumped to an invalid conclusion. He ignored the word before arsenos and the word after koiten: meta arsenos (with a male) koiten gynaikos ([in] a woman's bed). (Which, by the way, is what the Hebrew also says: et zachar (with a male) mishkvei ishah ([in] a woman's bed). BroWCarey (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not see anything in this article that does make it neutral. Both sides of this argument are represented but there is no balance. It's arguable that views on this subject are of the same prominence. To remain neutral under Wikipedia guidelines this requires balance to be maintained. There is also a lack of impartial tone clearly outlined in the use of prominent vocal figures for one side and the lack there of for the other side. In original research that you have done you may have come to the conclusion that leads you to not have a favorable view of certain individuals or their views but I'm sure you are aware of Wikipedia's stance on original research. This is an encyclopedia not a soapbox.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel there may be a conflict of interest amongst parties involved in this discussion. As such I have added this article to the Editors assistance/Request noticeboard in hopes that a resolution to this dispute can be found.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

The discussion above brings in the question of neutrality. I will highlight a few key points.

• The balance of this article is weighed towards one particular set of the two views available. Both issues are of equal prominence.

*"Homosexuality in the Bible" Reflects 1 set of views though this article is primarily about two sets of views *"The Church and homosexuality" There are more than three churches critical to this issue. The issue of balance also comes up here when a sentence is dedicated to the critical side and a paragraph is dedicated to the to the favorable side.

• "Historical views on homosexuality" Only a view of the favorable side is used here. Boswell isn't the only source who has written on this subject.
• "Views critical of homosexual behavior" any favorable views contained in this section should be moved to the section "Views favorable to homosexuality"
• "Choice and free will" The most prominent views in this part of article are from psychologists or psychologist organizations and are on the basis of psychology. This article is on Christianity and homosexuality. Non-Christian views on this subject should be limited in scope.
• Individuals Prominent to this discussion are used unequally. There are many Prominent individuals favorable to homosexuality directly named in this article. There very few prominent individuals (namely Joe Dallas) critical of homosexuality named in this article. The article above names a few individuals(many of which are more prominent than Joe Dallas) and points out there are many more. What I get from the discussion above is that IP thinks that this does not amount to good research. Carey feels that this is good research and the names mentioned are not the best and most reputable authoritative sources for the side critical of homosexuality do to his original research.

There may have been other issues on neutrality listed in the above discussion. I feel that the arguments that this article isn't neutral are based on wp:npov. WP:NPOV in a nutshell- Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So...edit it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If I were to edit it you are aware that I would simply remove content to achieve a balance. I would not personally add anything. The reason why I don't delete it to a state of neutrality is clearly pointed out in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ under "Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete"- 'generally there is no need for text to meet the highest standards of neutrality today if there's a reasonable chance of getting there.'Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you add anything? Who else are you expecting to do your work for you? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No I am expecting others to do their own work for themselves. My only issue is that it's not neutral. How it becomes neutral isn't an issue. It's each active editors job to maintain the neutrality of the articles they edit. Try wp:npov. I feel it would be a great source of info for you. Further more if you could make arguments on the basis of this or other policy that would be great.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a bunch of professional editors sitting around writing articles. These articles are written by ordinary people, like you and me. If you feel that an article, any article, is inaccurate or biased, then YOU edit it, within the proper guidelines. But if you are not willing to do anything, then don't waste everyone's time complaining. I am satisfied with the current state of this article. What would possibly motivate me, or anyone else who believes the article is fine as is, to undertake the task of editing it to meet with your approval? Wikipedia doesn't work that way. If YOU don't like the article, then YOU edit it.BroWCarey (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I never suggested that wikipedia was maintained by professionals. I said this article wasn't neutral. If you feel that an article isn't neutral you can bring it up on the talk page or fix it your self if you so choose. People can actually address the issues on the talk page or they can have aversion to any kind of discussion like you and complain that people mentioning issues with the article are wasting their time. Interestingly enough there is no requirement on your part to respond to an issue on the talk page. Now if you think this article is good and with in the guidelines of those established by all means it's time for a good article review. I mean instead of saying it's neutral because you say it is and avoiding all key points by everyone that gives a negative review why not put this article up against careful scrutiny?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

foot note number 29 and it's relevance as a source

What is the relevance of foot note number 29 and as a source how does it back up, "What does the text mean? Is it correctly translated? For instance some scholars cite alternate translations, in which most of the verses aren't referring to homosexuality." ?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Since that particular source examines the scriptures commonly used to condemn homosexuality, looking at them in the original languages, and showing alleged translation errors,how does it NOT back up "What does the text mean? Is it correctly translated? For instance some scholars cite alternate translation, in which most of the verses aren't referring to homosexuality."? That's exactly what that source deals with. Are you sure you are addressing the relevance of the source, and not just perturbed by the material the source presents? I only ask because the relevance of the source to the statement seems obvious.BroWCarey (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think only a Christian would be perturbed by the information by the material the source represents. I hope this isn't a question of "bad faith" on your part. Wikipedia:Assume good faith. The questioning of this as a relevant source goes largely to the reliability as a source. Of course you are aware that Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Of course you are aware that the first two sentence say, "There are a few bible texts that seem to refer to homosexual behavior. Discussions about these texts are focused around four main questions:" and that the implications that come from this is that these are the primary questions asked amongst those reviewing the bible as it pertains to homosexuality. This seems to me to be suggesting a consensus amongst those studying the bible but if this is not the case please verify. Is a source that reflects only the view of one group of individuals that question the bible enough to highlight a question as a main question that is asked by all? Is this source showing that there is a discussion going on? Where is this question contained in that source? Where in that source does it show that this question is a one of the main questions asked by all those who are discussing this topic of homosexuality and the bible? At the moment this article is stating proverbially that the world is flat and everybody think so,Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 29 is not attached to all four of those "main questions." It was added as a reference only for one of them, which is why it is positioned after the first bullet point: "What does the text mean? Is it correctly translated? For instance some scholars cite alternate translations, in which most of the verses aren't referring to homosexuality." The source addresses each of these points. As for its reliability, their website indicates they have been researching this topic in the Hebrew and Greek for over 30 years, that they are not liberal theologians, and they do reference one or two other sources for information. Given the length of time they have researched this, they were probably among the first to do so. I am unaware of any source that has refuted the information they present. But more to the point, our article states that some scholars cite alternate translations, in which most of the verses aren't referring to homosexuality. This site offers evidence of that. Whether or not the conclusions reached about translation errors are valid isn't the issue. That's for readers to decide. There are a number of other sources I could think of off the top of my head that also state that the verses in question are mistranslated, including Truluck, Pearson, Pennington, White, and more. I hesitate to actually add them, since some think there is already too much information offered for this viewpoint.BroWCarey (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware that foot note number 29 doesn't offer it's self as a source to all four main questions but I do feel that it is intended to offer it self up as a source to show that it is one main question being asked. Further more the first bit implies that these four questions are very common amongst Christians and even points to other questions aren't being asked. The problem I see with the source is that it claims they essentially have done the work but on another page they show that some of their information comes from other sources. What seems unclear to me is how much of the information can be attributed to them and how much can be attributed to other sources. There sources are named yet they are clearly anonymous. See the thing is that Self-published sources are usually not reliable. They say they have 30 years of experience but I could say that I have 30 year experience in art restoration and it wouldn't be any more or less verifiable. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Now religion, as I am sure you are aware, is relative to it's practitioner. To your assertion that no one else has refuted which ever points you are referring to with the relativity of religion an individual simply telling you that you are wrong is a worthy refutation. There are many common points in the Christian religion but theres also enough fracture in it to truly show it's relativity.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The relevant information at this source is theirs. The other sources they mention are on tangent issues: homosexuality among animals, and same-sex marriage in Europe. Therefore, on the main topic they address, they have done the work. I can only guess as to why they remain anonymous, but I will try to find out. I suspect it may be due to the hostility some display on this topic. I do know that some of the other websites that approve of gay Christians receive hate mail and death threats. By retaining some anonymity, such negative response can only be directed to an email address. As for the "questions" referenced in the article, I'm not sure who came up with them. But it seems to me that they are valid. While everyone might not consciously ask these questions, I think that when the subject of homosexuality comes up, those who don't actually ask them, will at least make assumptions about them. For example, many will assume the English translations are correct, and never question them. Many will take them on face value, never looking deeper, or considering context, etc. As to whether people look at apocryphal books, that is undoubtedly determined by their own beliefs: Those who believe such books are on a par with scripture will consult them. Those who do not believe those books are divinely inspired will not. So while the questions may not be asked directly, they do factor into the equation.BroWCarey (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So essentially you are saying that the source is reliable because you say it is? Please clarify because that's what I am getting. If that's the case I am sure I can find sources from people educated enough to use the go daddy website service. The other sources that they mention are the only unquestionable sources on the page. wp:sps Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Their anonymity may be protecting them from harm (I completely respect that and I completely respect anonymity) but never the less their anonymity prevents me from judging their reliability.

These questions do not seem important to me when only one of them has a weak source to show they are being asked. I also question they weight given to them when no other views on Homosexuality in the Bible are given here. This seems to me to be a soapbox issue to encourage people to ask these questions especially with the lack of any of other thoughts or questions being asked on the subject. As far as the apocryphal my knowledge is that documentation on views of it are mostly limited to denominations and congregations.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, my views on a source don't affect its validity. I have added two additional sources for the translation issue. In regard to the four questions, while I don't have a problem with them, if you feel the need, edit them!BroWCarey (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course I don't mean to offend you on your views of the validity of the source but this article is a very contentious subject and I feel that a certain amount of respect need be given to it. Any views I represent are on the sole basis of scrutiny and do not reflect my views on this subject. I personally leave all views on this topic to Christians since it is their arena and not my own. I do feel that I am completely valid in asking the validity of foot note number 29. I will not argue the correctness or incorrectness of the website. I only argue that personally I can't establish their credentials to trust their views, I can't show quickly and easily their views are widely held, and as it pertains to scholarship I can not quickly or easily review their work as fact or at least holding a persuasive view. To hit it scholarly I would have to know Hebrew and Greek or know their names and review their credentials. I could do that with Boswell. His reliability as a source is easily established. You can establish the reliability of the website as a source but since I can't use you as another source to back up the reliability. I am just a mere annoyance and a far worse individual could come here and argue on the basis of true bias and edit the article under such bias.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What was the point of deleting the section when I had just added two new sources? When I suggested you edit, I didn't mean eliminate the section. I have restored the section, but edited it to address only two questions: meaning in relation to context, and proper translation. I have temporarily removed the original #29. I have contacted Hope Remains in regard to your concerns. If they add further info to the site about their qualifications, etc., I will consider adding it again. In the meantime, I have added two sources. There are numerous others, but these two address the issues in question and should suffice.BroWCarey (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Serial went from hands off to slashing. I've reworded the short section to simplify it and to remove the question style, which sounds too textbookish.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Original text,"There are a few bible texts that seem to refer to homosexual behavior. Discussions about these texts are focused around four main questions: What does the text mean? Is it correctly translated? For instance some scholars cite alternate translations, in which most of the verses aren't referring to homosexuality.[29][30][31] Do you only look at the by certain churches approved Biblical canon or do you also take original texts, like the Biblical apocrypha, in consideration?[original research?] Is the text a ‘divine message’ or a reflection of cultural values?[original research?] How does one text relate to another? Where on the one hand texts are compared to the message of Jesus, who never spoke for or against homosexuality. And on the other hand homosexual sins are emphasized, where other sins from the same text(s) are neglected.[original research?]"

New text, "Some biblical texts seem to refer to homosexual behavior. Discussions about these texts focus on their context and translation. Some scholars cite alternate translations in which most of the verses do not refer to homosexuality.[29][30]"

The difference being that the first was incorrect. I removed it due to that. There's no problem with removing incorrect information. I could have sifted thru the sand and reworded it. Now it has been reworded. I can't even question the neutrality of this section anymore though it still manages to reflect the same views. In eliminating the section I was editing it. wp:brdSerialjoepsycho (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That's like saying a doctor repaired a broken arm by amputating it. Slashing isn't editing, and in this case, it certainly wasn't constructive. If you are unwilling to correct poor wording, then leave it for someone else. But don't eliminate it completely. Even poorly worded, it carried important information.BroWCarey (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It was so poorly worded that it was completely incorrect. I took out the incorrect information. I slashed it all to make it correct. Someone else slashed it carefully and also made it correct.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't make it correct; you made it gone. Big difference. I restored it, and then edited for clarity, accuracy, etc., which is what you should have done. If you weren't willing to actually correct it, you should have left it alone. Slashing it borders on vandalism. I refer you again to my analogy of the broken arm. Yes, if the doctor amputates the arm, the broken bone is no longer an issue. But that's not practicing medicine, it's butchery. You did the same thing to the article.BroWCarey (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I made it gone and by doing so it became correct. The information I removed made it correct. My attempt was only to make it correct. It's bad to cut off a broken arm but this thing had Gangrene. Careful surgery was not made here. None of the information was backed by sources until it was formated like this. I corrected the information by deleting it. You restated it so that it was factual. I removed an arm to save a life and you made a prosthesis.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You evidently don't understand the difference between correct and absent. They are not synonymous. Absent is neither correct nor incorrect; but it can be incomplete. You are in error when you say that none of the information was backed by sources before you amputated. Some of it clearly was. You just didn't want to bother to fix the rest of it, so you eliminated all of it, the good with the bad. That helps no one. If that's your idea of correction, in the future please don't bother.BroWCarey (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Until it was written as it is now the sources did not back the content. The absence of that information made this article correct. I didn't eliminate the good with the bad. It was all bad the way it was written. I could have very carefully edited to leave,"There are a few bible texts that seem to refer to homosexual behavior.For instance some scholars cite alternate translations, in which most of the verses aren't referring to homosexuality." But since you were aware of the issue at hand when you last edited it you could have to. Anyway issue is over.

BTW you haven't said anything about the other changes I made. Renaming the Church and homosexuality to Christian denominational positions on homosexuality and moving relevant information pertaining to Christian denominational positions on homosexuality to the section. Well all the changes outlined in the topic below. I would appreciate your thoughts on it.

I'm trying to bring balance to the one side but I do not want to do it and unbalance the other side. I am not wanting to cut anything important. I did end up cutting a few things but of course everything is explained below.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I had just added two new sources to the material before you cut it, so please don't stand there and tell me the sources didn't back the content. As for the other changes you made, they weren't butchery, didn't obfuscate the article, didn't hurt anything,so I have no problem with them.BroWCarey (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I will stand here and tell you your sources didn't back the content. And they still don't back the previous content. They back the current content but not the previous content. I feel fine in removing the previous content and since it lead to the correction of it I feel justified.

On another note I'm attempting to slowly help move this article to FA status. When I'm asking for your thoughts I'm asking if you think the changes are up to the quality of a FA? Of course there are a few other things that need to be fixed but the immediate changes are what I'm worried about.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hold your horses! I'm not sure this would even meet good article criteria. How about getting it there first? (It could probably use a peer review to figure out what changes should be made.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL!! I'm aware. GA status would be the first step on the road to FA status. I was considering putting it up for a peer review but was waiting until I or someone else cleared up the Obvious issues that would come up. Missing sources and such. I'm unsure at the moment of how to source a few of the churches that officially have multiple views. But really at the moment those are the only significant issues that I myself see barring it from GA status. Also and I guess it's bad faith on my part but I expect Non-npovs may pop up in a peer review. I should have better faith but I really don't want to deal with homophobes.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer review or GA review

There are a few places asking for citations. After those small issues are cleaned up I think this article might be ready to get a GA review or to go with caution a peer review. Myself I feel that peer reviews are the best choice when first going in because you generally get more information throw at you. I feel you get more biased reviews with the peer review process but you also get more unbiased reviews as well. I feel that GA reviews tend to shut down after a certain amount of negative review. I feel it is the goal of all articles to become featured articles and becoming a good article is a step in the process. I still feel an issue of the neutrality but I do feel this could meet the good article criteria or at the very least it's fairly close.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Christian denominational positions on homosexuality

I renamed 'the church and homosexuality'-'Christian denominational positions on homosexuality'. I felt it primarily covered denominational views on homosexuality so I moved information that directly correlated to denominational views from 'Contemporary views on homosexuality' to it. I was adding a little more in depth information to this section and once I completed I noticed that some of the information I covered was covered again in the contemporary views section. I added this information, 'All jurisdictions, such as the Orthodox Church in America, have taken the approach of welcoming people with "homosexual feelings and emotions," while encouraging them to work towards "overcoming its harmful effects in their lives," while not allowing the sacraments to people who seek to justify homosexual activity.[33] The Roman Catholic Church views any sex activity not related to procreation and not undertaken by a married couple is sinful. These views do not only concern homosexuality but any sexual activity that can not result in Reproduction.[34][35] The Seventh-day Adventist Church is opposed to same-gender sexual practices and relationships on the grounds that "sexual intimacy belongs only within the marital relationship of a man and a woman."[36]'

I noticed that this,'Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianities regard Sacred Tradition and Ecumenical councils as co-authoritative with scripture, and the ordinary Magisterium is authoritative in Catholic theology.[43] The Roman Catholic Church, maintains what it regards as early Christian teaching on homosexuality, that sex is meant for both procreation and pleasure, and that one without the other is sinful, therefore making homosexual acts sinful: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."[44] Methodism derives doctrine from the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which consists of an evaluation of the synthesis of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.[45] There are also differing positions about how great a role is played by continuing revelation (see Cessationism and Secular theology).' after I added the above information. Since this information covered the same information above I simply removed this information. This information is quite abit more detailed so I could understand a desire to add it back but I do feel it shouldn't be in the contemporary view section. Either that or this section and the contemporary view section should be rolled into one section. I removed all mention of the methodist doctrine as it told how they decide their doctrine but not their doctrinal views on homosexuality.

on an off note I am going to add a few sources where I can but if anyone more knowledgeable can assist it would be much appreciated.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)