Talk:Homosexuality and religion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

VfD

VfD vote - removed December 2, 2024 - no concensus to delete As with History of homosexuality, this page should be a section of Religion and sexuality.Hyacinth 18:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) Keep - There is more than enough information in both this article in the articles that you suggest this should be merged into that warrant keeping them as separate articles. There are already links for reference to each other though if need be, more verbiage cross-referencing each other could be included. Lestatdelc 20:10, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC) Keep Bensaccount 23:12, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) Keep. Ambivalenthysteria 01:48, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) Keep. Once the article's expanded there should be more than enough information for a dedicated page. Exploding Boy 05:59, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC) Comment If this page is to be kept, then History of homosexuality and History of heterosexuality should be restored, as the reasons for redirecting those is the same as for this. Hyacinth 18:33, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) Comment I agree on history of homosexuality, though history of heterosexuality should be at history of sexuality. Ambivalenthysteria 02:40, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) Comment Disagree with that suggestion, history of each is appropriate as separate categories with relevant overlap of content. Lestatdelc 03:46, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC) Comment Why? How is history of heterosexuality possibly going to differ from History of sexuality? It's just a silly attempt to copy history of homosexuality - which would be significantly different. Ambivalenthysteria 06:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) Comment Becuase there are numerous historical customs and proscriptions that apply specifically to same-gender sexuality that do not apply to opposite-gender sexuality. The presumption that because heterosexuality is the "norm" and therefore should be the history of sexuality and relgiion is a fundamental biased POV. For example, religious proscriptions against sexual congress during menses is specific to heterosexuality, but that does not make it applicable across the board and is irrelevant to male-male sexuality for example, hence it is specific to, and should be separate from homosexuality. Just because heterosexuality is ubiquitous and the statistically most prevalent does not mean it is the history of sexuality and religion as a whole. BTW, its not "silly" thank you. Lestatdelc 15:05, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC) Comment In that case, I can see your point. I doubt there'll be much content for it, however. Ambivalenthysteria 00:08, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) Comment Not sure about that, the history of arranged marriages and age of consent law alone can be a rich source of content, not too mention various cultural taboos about sex, even dangerous and relevant health issue ones such as the belief that having sex with a prepubescent virgin girl can cure someone of AIDS as is the belief in some rural areas of Africa. Lestatdelc 00:54, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC) Comment I'm afraid you're half-arguing my case for me there. Cultural taboos, health issues, and particularly age of consent issues are relevant to both. See what I mean - I think you're going to struggle to find content that is specific to heterosexuality. Ambivalenthysteria 06:10, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) NOTE: Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality Hyacinth Comment Tehre are sexual taboos and health issues specific to heterosexuality. Regardless, the history of homosexuality should be restored if it has been deleted and the religion and homosexuality article shouldn't be deleted. Religions the world over have made statements specific to homosexuality: proscriptions against, where and how and with who it is acceptable, etc. That is, I guess, specific attitudes have been taken toward homosexuality that are different from those taken toward sexuality in general, or toward heterosexuality specifically. Now, the history of sexuality article shouldn't be about heterosexuality, but about historical attitudes toward sexuality in general, warranting specific articles about the history of heterosexuality (initially, heterosexuals were considered perverts - interesting, no?) and the history of homosexuality and how these concepts have developed over time. -Seth Mahoney 19:21, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I moved a number of external links that were in the article to a "links" section. Generally (there might be some exceptions), we're trying to write our own information here, not a web directory. So we should only very, very rarely, if ever, say "see [URL] for more information." Why not? Because we want to include that information ourselves, eventually.

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with making an annotated list of external links.

--LMS

---

I removed the Wiccan views of homosexuality from this page since this page only has links to the very general religions (Christianity, Islam, Neopaganism etc.). I think that the more specific sects' (like Wicca's) views on homosexuality fit better on the specific religions' "views of homosexuality" pages as opposed to this one. The "Jewish views on homosexuality" page does this nicely and I think using that as a model works well.

---

?!? Richard Stallman is not a religion. He is an American citizen who happens to be a computer programmer. I doubt that he has a faith based on his teachings. (Free-softwareism?) RK

What? You haven't heard that the Church of Emacs canonized him as St. IGNUcius? ;-) Wesley

Richard Stallman's support of free software has a near-religious fervor to it, but the "Church of Emacs" is just an insider's joke. I guess you already gnu that. ;-) Ed Poor

Buddhism

Cut from article:

Some other religions, such as Buddhism, embrace non-heterosexuality as a valid human trait and do not believe homosexuality to be inherently sinful.

The Buddhist_views_of_homosexuality article doesn't call homosexality "a valid human trait" OR "inherently sinful". --Uncle Ed 13:17, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)