Talk:Christianity and homosexuality/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Gram error?

this edit [1] claims to be correcting a gram. error. However, the words are in direct quotes and I believe the former version actually reflacts the language of some Bibles. Can anyone verify? -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Both translations seem to be extant. I don't think it really matters. Direct quotes would have to be in Biblical Greek. :-) --Bhuck (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual orientation as sinful

The text has the following sentence: "Among those that see it as sinful, there is further variance regarding whether it is just homosexual acts that are sinful, or homosexual orientation as well." Which churches believe that a homosexual orientation is sinful? Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but Jesus said something about lusting in one's heart, which is not really an act, is it?--Bhuck (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The scripture says "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."(Matt 5:28) You could apply that to a man lusting after a man, or a woman lusting after a woman. I don't think having a certain sexual orientation means you lust after those people, but if anything, you would have to say both a heterosexual and a homosexual orientation is sinful. Homosexual lusting can be inferred, but heterosexual lusting is the main point of the scripture. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to do a literal interpretation of the bible, only heterosexual men are fobidden to lust -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There are other passages dealing with just plain lust. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Since this claim seems to be unverifiable, I have removed it. Should we say conservative churches oppose homosexuality, or just homosexual relationships? I can't find anything saying they oppose anything more than just a sexual relationship. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but is a homosexual relationship necessarily a sexual relationship? If so, then it would seem that homosexuality would be a form of sexuality, so one could argue that the churches opposed to same-sex sexual practice are thus opposed to homosexuality. On the other hand, if one argues that there are non-sexual forms of homosexuality which are not condemned by these churches, then one must conclude that the churches do not condemn same-sex (i.e. homosexual) relationships. I have the feeling that we are operating with very shifting definitions here.--Bhuck (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The homosexuality page distinguishes between homosexuality as a homosexual orientation versus homosexuality as a same-sex relationship. We should make the same distinction. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that this distinction is as clear-cut as you seem to indicate here. I presume you are referring to the section which begins with the following as an introductory sentence? "Homosexuality is a broad term which includes several aspects of same-sex sexuality, such as sexual orientation, sexual identity, and sexual behaviors." Are you proposing that we restrict the subject of this article solely to "sexual behaviors" and not discuss Christianity's relationship to sexual orientation or sexual identity? Or discuss the ways in which people of a certain sexual identity relate to Christianity? I'm not sure it is so easy to implement such a distinction. I wouldn't even say the homosexuality article itself makes the distinction--instead I would say it discusses the variety of aspects and the way in which they are interrelated.--Bhuck (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I also don't think it is helpful to discuss the position of Christianity with regard to same-sex relationships, since these can be sexual or non-sexual in nature, so the term is too general for use here. "Same-sex sexual relationship" is I think the thing you want to be discussing here, but I think the more the relationship takes on a long-term, self-conscious nature, the more you enter the realm of sexual identity as well, which is why most people view the message (seen on T-shirts, for example) of "I'm not gay, but my boyfriend is" as sarcastic.--Bhuck (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not up to us to decide, debate or convince each other. It is what we find in reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And what do reliable sources say it is that conservative churches oppose? Homosexual orientation, homosexual identity, homosexual activity, or same-sex relationships? I think it is pretty clear that homosexual activity is opposed and same-sex relationships are not. On the surface, it would also appear they do not condemn homosexual orientation, unless that orientation develops so far into an identity. How do reliable sources say that conservative churches react to people whose sexual identity is gay in the sense of the counter-example given in the article sexual identity: "An otherwise conservative exclusively homosexual man has objections against what he considers "gay identity politics". He considers himself homosexual, but does not identify as gay."?--Bhuck (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't care whether we use homosexual activity, same-sex relationships, or gay sex. Personally, I think gay sex is specifically what they are opposed to, but it should not be said that these churches oppose homosexuality. The homosexuality article does indeed make the distinction between homosexual orientation and gay sex. Since homosexuality includes a homosexual orientation, and most churches do not oppose a homosexual orientation, it is not accurate to say they oppose homosexuality. Pick a term, and I will use it, but homosexuality is not the correct term. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Since attending a gay rights demonstration could be considered a "homosexual activity" and since the relationship between two brothers or between father and son is a "same-sex relationship" (as opposed to a same-sex sexual relationship...the term "relationship" alone is too vague there), I believe the term "gay sex" comes the closest to what I think you mean. (Other editors have correctly objected that such terms are perhaps anachronistic when applied to a first-century context.) However, if you keep shifting the focus to only gay sex and not homosexuality as a whole, then I think you need to move the article from the present lemma "Homosexuality and Christianity" to one that more closely approximates what it is that you want to talk about, namely Christianity and gay sex or something like that. The homosexuality article does not make the distinction between homosexual orientation, homosexual identity, and gay sex--instead it discusses both the distinctions and the inter-relationships between the concepts. Since the other concepts, besides purely just gay sex, are also part of the homosexuality article, an article such as "Homosexuality and Christianity" cannot just pick one of the concepts (gay sex) to discuss, but also must discuss the relationship between Christianity and homosexual identity--if Roman Catholic priests are supposed to be celibate anyway, why do candidates for the priesthood who are homosexual have to be subjected to greater scrutiny, for example? How do abstinent Mormon gays feel about laws protecting them against employment discrimination? Do they agree with their church leadership on these points?--Bhuck (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! What is the LDS church's leadership's position on protection against employment discrimination? The LDS church has said "The Church does not object to rights ... regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights."[2] Why would abstinent Mormon gays disagree with that?

I agree that this article should cover all aspects of homosexuality. However, when you are talking about specifics, you should use the most specific term. Roman Catholic Church opposes a gay identity among priests. Except in the case of same-sex marriage, the LDS church does not oppose gay rights. Most conservative Christian churches oppose gay sex. A few conservative churches oppose a homosexual orientation. Notice each of them go to different articles. All should be discussed here. However to say "Views critical of homosexuality" implies that conservative churches are critical of all aspects of homosexuality. Homosexuality should only be used when discussing homosexuality in general. Just because a church is critical of gay sex does not mean it is critical of homosexuality. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of Michel Foucault as a source in this article

This article contains the sentence, 'Some arguments about the meaning and morality of “homosexuality” hinge on the fact that the term homosexual and the conceptualization of homosexuality as an enduring relationship similar to a heterosexual relationship, rather than only sexual activity with someone of the same sex, is development within the 19th century.' The source given for this supposed fact is Michel Foucault's The History of Sexuality. The 'fact' in question is wrong. The term homosexual is modern, but the 'conceptualization' (I suppose that means an idea) of 'homosexuality as an enduring relationship similar to a heterosexual relationship' is ancient. It was known to (to give a rather obvious example) Plato.

This part of the article obviously needs changing. Skoojal (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this section, since it appears to be irrelevant to this article. Skoojal (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sodomy

Recent edits have introduced the term "sodomy" into the introduction, which is rather problematic, since there is a fair amount of discussion about just what is meant by the term. To say that "unnatural and sinful practices" were traditionally condemned as sinful is a sort of circular logic which does not much help the reader to understand the discussion. I suggest replacing the term with something more specific, such as "anal sex between men" or "involuntary sex inflicted upon strangers" or whatever it is that the term is supposed to mean. The link to sodomy is not particularly helpful here, since the article appropriately presents the various conflicting interpretations but does not say which interpretation is meant in the context of this article.--Bhuck (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You're probably quite right. Go ahead and undo the edits in question. Skoojal (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Vague Claims

The article reads, 'Throughout a portion of Christian history some theologians have viewed homosexuality as immoral.' This is extremely vague and unhelpful. Exactly what 'portion of Christian history' is being referred to here? Please specify! I'm not an expert, but I don't believe that anyone who was would make such a vague and poorly-defined claim. I don't believe that such vague claims belong in articles, so I've taken it upon myself to reverse that edit. Obviously sources are needed here. Skoojal (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

'some' v 'most' WP:BRD discussion

All evidence I have ever seen indicates that "most Christian churches have regarded homosexual behavior as immoral". What evidence, even anecdotal is there that 'some' is a more accurate reflection of the christian churches' position? -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to limit ourselves to "some" and "most". We might also want to consider "a majority of" or "many". I think the problem with "most" might mean that some perceive it to mean "nearly all", while others consider it to mean anything more than 51%. Is a 2/3 majority "most"? And what exactly is it we are counting here? Does each Baptist congregation count separately, given their ecclesiology? Is the MCC counting equally as "one church" over against Roman Catholicism (also "one church"), so that if these were the only two churches in the world, then exactly half of all churches would regard homosexual behavior as immoral?--Bhuck (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Too Much Focus on Current Events

The article reads, 'On May 15, 2008, for example, the Roman Catholic bishops of California issued a statement explaining their opposition to the state supreme court ruling of the same day which effectively legalized same-sex marriage.' I don't think this should be in the article, at least not in its current location, which should focus on earlier history. Contemporary issues should be covered later in the article. Skoojal (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I find that quote overly prominent and jarring in the context of the more general discussion I expect in an article introduction.--Bhuck (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed it; shouldn't have been there in the first place. Skoojal (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There still is a large focus on current events, many of which have little to do with the actual topic "Homosexuality and Christianity" - and not "free speech and anti-harrasement", "Homosexuality and ex-gays", "Anti-discrimination laws". Sure all these topics may have some relation to this article's topic but hardly exclusively. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Move?

This may seem pretty irrelevant but should it be called Christianity and homosexuality? The trend for most other ones is Christianity and abortion, Christianity and politics etc. So maybe we should follow it? Of course it doesn't really matter but you guys might want to consider it? Stinkypie (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

POV and tone problems

This article suffers from various problems:

• There is a constant tendency to belittle one view and to aggrandize another.
• The usage of bad sources: is Bishop Sponge really good enough for factual statements in the intro? Are LDS sources really good to reference the views of Christianity, considering the controversy about positioning Mormonism within or without Christianity? Using these sources affirms one POV and hence is POV.
• Sometimes sources are misrepresented, as in the introduction to the quote from Aristides (who said nothing about Greeks influencing Christians to have gay sex - it said that homosexual Greeks consider Christians to indulge in the same acts). I removed the whole passage because we have a list of Church fathers above and there is no reason to quote a passage from Aristides but not from Augustine, Clement, Tertullian etc etc etc

Str1977 ^(talk) 08:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Objecting to the recent move

An editor has just moved this page, previously "Homosexuality and Christianity" to the unwieldy title "Christianity and sexual relationships between members of the same sex" apparently without any discussion or agreement. I would propose moving it back, or rather as a previous contributor has said, moving it to "Christianity and homosexuality". --rossb (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The current title is unwieldy and needlessly wordy. Pianoguy (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus for move to Christianity and homosexuality--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

See discussion in previous section. The editor who moved the page to the current name did not seek consensus for it and sems to have misleadingly marked the move as a minor edit. The admitted distinction between homosexual acts and homosexuality as an orientation is not sufficient justifcation for such an unwieldy title.

Rather than just move the page back to "Homosexuality and Christianity" it is proposed to move it for consistency, as suggested by User:Stinkypie, to "Christianity and homosexuality". --rossb (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Christianity and homosexuality per the above. Tevildo (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• It was previously called "Homosexuality and Christianity", and likewise we have Homosexuality and Islam, Homosexuality and Judaism, and basically everything listed at Template:Religion and homosexuality (Unification Church views of sexuality is the exception). Rename back to previous name, or rename all the others to match the new suggestion. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  I agree that a consistent form would be better, but we don't at the moment have consistency throughout the project. A brief unscientific survey seems to give preference to "[Religion] and [subject]" rather than "[Subject] and [religion]" - eg, Islam and science, Islam and animals, Islam and slavery, Islam and domestic violence, Islam and modernity, Islam and antisemitism, Islam and children, Islam and clothing as against Homosexuality and Islam, Women and Islam, and Anarchism and Islam, which are the only three articles with this naming scheme on Islam I can find immediately. I would support moving the existing "Homosexuality and [religion]" articles to "[Religion] and homosexuality" - but let's see how this one goes first. And, of course, the fact the template is called "Religion and homosexuality" rather than "Homosexuality and religion" might also be a point in favour. Tevildo (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support either of the above proposals. "Homosexuality and..." links all the related homosexuality–religion articles nicely; "Christianity and..." has the benefit of being alphabetical and therefore open to no criticism that the order has implications about the subject(s). Srnec (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support either proposal; the current title is unnecessarily long. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support move to Christianity and Homosexuality. Weak support for Homosexuality and Christianity, prefer the other order but it's not a big issue IMO and I'm skeptical that consistency is achievable, and uncertain whether it's even desirable. Either order would be an improvement. Andrewa (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Christianity and Homosexuality is the better title than H & C. --Fremte (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support C and H as first choice, with H and C as second, but definitely not the unwieldy monster we currently have. Aleta ^Sing 22:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I was the one who moved it. I have no problem with moving it back, as long as it is clear that if the topic is Christianity and Homosexuality then it is not acceptable to restrict the subject of discussion simply to "sexual relationships between members of the same sex". May I assume that all those supporting the above move will be watching the content of the article as much as the title in order to prevent the title from being misleading? In particular, these users should please give an opinion in this discussion here.--Bhuck (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Note on Aquinas

I've added a reference to Aquinas' categorization of sexual immorality in the "Historical views on homosexuality" section. Previously, there was an in-line note (presumably referring to the phrase "homosexual acts") - "he did not use this term, but we lack a reference to the original text to see what term he did use". The term that Aquinas uses is "the sin of sodomy", sodomiticum vitium (which I've put in), and, in the previous chapter (II-II Q. 154 Art. 11) of the Summa, he defines "the sin of sodomy" as "copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female" (concubitum ad non debitum sexum, puta masculi ad masculum vel feminae ad feminam). I'm not sure if we need to go into this much detail on Aquinas' precise words in the article, but - that's what they are. Tevildo (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Homosexual acts and desires"?

At present, there's a sentence (which is subject to an in-line comment - the talk page is _really_ the place for this sort of thing, you know) in the "Historical views of homosexuality" section - "Many prominent Christian theologians have been critical of homosexual acts and desires (though silent on the subject of sexual orientation)". Is there a really a difference between "homosexual desires" and "sexual orientation"? If not, I would support the in-line commenter's suggestion to change the whole lot to "homosexuality". If there _is_, perhaps someone could explain what the difference is, so that we can (potentially) clarify this point? Tevildo (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an ongoing tension in the article. As the in-line commenter, I am also happy to discuss this explicitly here on the discussion page. This topic has come up on the discussion page before, for example here, but does not seem to have ever been completely resolved. Please keep in mind that, if we decide there IS a difference between homosexual desires and homosexual orientation, then a discussion of various authors' positions on homosexual desires might not be relevant to this article, which is quite clearly and explicitly about the relationship between Christianity and homosexuality (see consensus here).--Bhuck (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I see your point - "Homosexuality" simpliciter refers (solely?) to the orientation? I personally would think it has a wider meaning, and. in any case, find it difficult to conceive of a view of "orientation" that doesn't at least _include_ desire. However, doubtless others will have different opinions... Tevildo (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The orientation is homosexuality. Homosexuality is one of several possible sexual orientations. I suppose homosexuality could have a wider meaning, for example if speaking about situational homosexuality, where there can be homosexual behavior without a homosexual orientation, but I don't think many people argue that many ancient and medieval writers were addressing this concept, and in fact the term "pseudo-homosexuality" (addressed in the article on situational homosexuality) suggests that such behavior is not actually homosexuality.--Bhuck (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

From the tripartite definition given above, that sounds to me more like "sexual identity" than "sexual orientation"; such behaviour might not be "actually" homosexuality, but it is (surely) homosexual? I think we need an agreed definition of "orientation" if we're going to progress this. Tevildo (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We do, of course, have definitions in Wikipedia of sexual identity and sexual orientation. From the latter article, we also gain this insight: "Sexual identity and sexual behavior are closely related to sexual orientation, but they are distinguished, with identity referring to an individual's conception of themselves, behavior referring to actual sexual acts performed by the individual, and orientation referring to "fantasies, attachments and longings."[3] Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.[4] People who have a homosexual sexual orientation that does not align with their sexual identity are sometimes referred to as closeted." Sexual identity may be homosexual, sexual orientation may be homosexual, and sexual behavior may be homosexual. In any of these three cases, we would be dealing with homosexuality. The problem arises when one tries to separate the aspects, particularly in an anachronistic context when applying them to pre-19th-century writings.--Bhuck (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable - I would therefore suggest, as a minimum, that "sexual orientation" in the current passage be changed to "sexual identity", as I _can't_ see how "fantasies, attachments, and longings" can't be equated with "desires". Some input from an editor who objects to "homosexuality" in the sentence might be useful, if I'm right in thinking that Bhuck wouldn't object to that word. Tevildo (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind changing "sexual orientation" to "sexual identity", and if we substitute "homosexuality" for "homosexual acts and desires" that would be fine, too, but neither of these changes addresses the fundamental tension towards which the in-line comment is directed. The tension is the result of certain editors' desires to make it appear that ancient writers who were critical of homosexual desires were not homophobic because they were not criticizing people but only actions ("love the sinner, hate the sin"). Therefore, I suspect that such editors will object to saying that "Many prominent Christian theologians have been critical of homosexuality", which is what I believe you have suggested and I have agreed to. If they fail to object, and if we make the change, then I think the parenthetical comment about sexual identity or sexual orientation becomes superfluous. I think the change would be good, though, since "homosexuality" is half the topic of this article, so we should try to keep the text of the article as close to the topic of the article as we can.--Bhuck (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)