Talk:Religion and homosexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

 

Religion portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

Start This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archives

October 2001 to April 2004 (includes VFD discussion) April 2004 to January 2007

[edit] Moral views

Moral views on homosexuality redirects here. This makes no sense to me, as morality and religion are clearly different things. A.Z. 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to begin an article for that title which would deal with morality exclusive of religious beliefs? Frankly, I don't know if much of an article could be created. Is there anything like consistent non-religious positions to right about? But give it a try!  Sean Lotz  talk  10:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I would really like to begin such an article! I believe it can be created and it could be a great article. There are many people who don´t practice a religion, yet have opinions about the morality of homosexual acts, for instance. In my high school, whenever we had a debate about homosexuality and someone was against or in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality, the arguments used were never religious, and yet a discussion about the morality of homosexuality would happen. Maybe those common arguments could be in this article. Like the common view that it is not natural to be gay and therefore it is wrong. And the common answer to this which states that we all do things which are not "natural" every day, like driving a car and using condoms. Or the other answer which would see it as being natural. The article on same-sex marriage has some of those moral views independent of a religion. P.S.: I too sometimes spell "right" instead of "write". A.Z. 01:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Valkrath 07:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC))Perhaps an added insertation should be done. An entire Conservative view of the matter. That way you can get rid of people claiming that this is bias article.

[edit] Repetitiveness

I found some of the later sections repetitive. Particularly the "Neopaganism and sexuality" says almost the same thing as the previous subsection about "Neopagan religion". It also seems the article is first trying to organize the content by religion and then alluding to the same things organized by particular stances that are taken (civil rights, persecution, support, genetics). Both are valid approaches to organizing the content. It seems like the stance approach should be broader and more general while the by religion approach should get into the specifics. And I think it is better to give the broader, general discussions before the specifics, so I would recommend expanding on the discussions by stance (to elaborate on all stances so as not to be biased) and having them first, followed by the discussions by religion with links to the more in-depth articles on each religion and its stance as there are currently, allowing those who read the article to first get broad overviews of the stances that are taken and then look at the specifics of those religions which interest them and even follow the links to the more in-depth articles on those religions. 70.112.12.20 06:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Neopaganism and sexuality" and "Neopagan religion" sections actually have some phrases that are identical. For this reason I suggest merging them. 69.143.80.200 02:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

The lead sentence misleading WP:UNDUE: "The attitude of Early Christians toward homosexuality has been much debated." It implies that there has been extensive mainstream debate regarding this issue, and that is simply not true. WP:UNDUE states that "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." LCP 01:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the UNDUE point (I just don't know enough to say), I added a ref that (especially in the subpages about specific passages) seems to lay out the possible interpretations and points to advocates of opposing views. It's not a scholarly source, but maybe a good starting point. Fireplace 02:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, and I like the ref, but I also find the dichotomy the ref’d page creates too simplistic and, therefore, grossly inaccurate. I would leave it in place, and I would add here that it lacks authority. For example, it states that “conservative theologians†accept a literal interpretation of the Bible over scientific finding when the two appear to be conflict. However, Pope Benedict, who would clearly be considered a conservative theologian, respects the findings of science regarding evolution (though he rejects science's attempt to make claims beyond its area of competence and authority). I am going to try to reword the lead sentence so that the discussion here isn’t another example of the discussion we see regarding global warming or tobacco, where the vast majority holds one highly supported view and a very small minority, often backed by organizations with a vested interest, are given equal press as if they have a legitimate alternate opinion.LCP 18:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following revision that more accurately reflects the current situation. I would like to see refs to the historians and theologians who represent the revisionist view, but I do not know who they are. I also need a citation for the interpretation of Romans 1 that claims that it condemns lesbianism. I have not seen that in any scholarly sources or in my own reading. I also wonder if the whole section should refer more specifically to "sodomy" rather than "homosexuality" or "homosexual behavior" as the latter idea is vague and a modern construct. Regardless, here is the revision I propose:

Throughout the vast majority of Christian history, the Catholic Church and, later, Protestant authorities have been explicitly condemnatory of male homosexual behavior, namely sodomy. Where the Catholic view is founded on a natural law argument informed by scripture, the Protestant view is based more directly in the scripture. Nevertheless, there is a broad consensus among Christian organizations that the Bible, principally in Leviticus, denounces homosexual behavior as a sin and, in the eyes of God, an "abomination" — a term used to describe harsh disapproval of a wide range of offenses, from incest and bestiality to eating shellfish. Acts 15 (The Council of Jerusalem) explicitly advised that Gentile converts were keep from sexual immorality. Many of the letters of Saint Paul, the "Apostle to the Gentiles," echo this exhortation to "avoid sexual immorality." It is clear that sodomy is one of several behaviors considered to be “sexually immoral.†The first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans contains the only explicit mention of lesbianism in the Bible, calling it "against nature".^{[citation needed]}

Apart from passages in the Bible, we see denunciations of sodomy in the earliest writings, such as in the Didache and in 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.†While homosexual behavior is rejected to the present day, contemporary guides to pastoral care reflect an ethos informed by compassion and respect of the sanctity of other. ^[1]

In the 20th and 21st century, a few historians and theologians have challenged the traditional understanding and claim that passages have been mistranslated or that they do not refer to what we understand as “homosexuality.†^[2]

LCP 19:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the word "sodomy" except in direct or indirect quotes, because it's both emotionally charged and inconsistent in its definition (before sodomy laws were struck down in the U.S., each state that had one defined it differently, some definitions including heterosexual activity; in German, Sodomie refers to bestiality only; etc.). If we mean anal sex, that's what we should call it. In Trembling Before G-d it's explained that Orthodox Jews, at least, interpret the Leviticus passage as referring only to anal sex, so that gay men who, say, go no further than oral and/or intercrural sex are not committing an abomination. I don't know whether the Roman Catholic Church has ever been explicit in their definition of sodomy, though. The sentence "While homosexual behavior is rejected to the present day" in the last paragraph is vague in its application; are we still only talking about the RCs here? Certainly not all Christians, or even all denominations, reject homosexual behavior. —Angr 08:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to revise the use of "sodomy." One of the problems we struggle with when talking about ancient ideas about "homosexuality" is that our construct, how we think of HS, is (as you probably know) arguably relatively new (19th century). Ancient literature doesn’t support the idea that people were entirely characterized by their sexuality (as we are today). If you can think of a better way of stating what the Church Fathers opposed, that would be great.

I also agree that there is a problem with vagueness in the following: “While homosexual behavior is rejected to the present day, contemporary guides to pastoral care reflect an ethos informed by compassion and respect of the sanctity of other.†First, I agree that “HS behavior is rejected...†is too broad. I’ll fix that. Second, I agree that it is unclear that the part about “pastoral care†is supported by a citation to only a Catholic document. I’d like to see a ref to a mainstream Protestant source since, from what I have seen, the prevailing Protestaint ethos is the same as the Catholic. The other option is to qualify the statement with “Catholic†(ie, “Catholic pastoral careâ€) and while this might be ok since Catholicism is the largest and most unequivocal denomination in the world and the majority of Chritians in the world are Catholic (~1 billion), I think making such a change would too much slant the section to one more suitably titled “Catholicsm.â€

I’ll remedy the problem with the first half (“HS behavior is rejected....â€) by changing it to “homosexual behavior is rejected to the present day by most denominations...â€. I am not sure what to do with the second problem. I think it is a very important statement, especially since it differentiates mainstreat Christianity from those who call themselves Chritians and yet whose attitude toward homosexuals can honestly be characterized as only fearful and hateful.LCP 17:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to remove "The first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans contains the only explicit mention of lesbianism in the Bible, calling it 'against nature'" as it passage in question does NOT explicitly or even clearly refer to lesbianism. Commentaries interpret the passage in question in Romans as referring to temple prostitution.LCP 03:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I am troubled by the uncited opening statement in the Christian section Throughout all of Christian history, the Catholic Church and, later, Protestant authorities have been explicitly condemnatory of same-sex sexual relations I agree that there are many old church records of aruguments against homosexual activity.... however, they had to be arguing WITH someone who believed differently. Its likely that as the losing side, documents support of the other way of thinking just didn't survive.207.69.137.21 04:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you make an interesting point. Why did the fathers feel the need to bring the topic up at all? To help us to decide whether authors were writing against heretics versus merely what they considered scandalous moral behavior, we can look at other examples. Whenever church fathers wrote against heresy, we know who the heretics were and exactly what they believed. See Gnosticism, Arianism, and Jansenism. In this case, there is no such record. So we can safely conclude that they were writing against what they considered scandalous moral behavior. In any case, Wikipedia is not he place for us to speculate. Wikipedia prohibits original research. So, we can go only with known sources. The reason the lead sentence doesn’t have a citation is that it is supported by the rest of the section itself. Look around Wikipedia a bit, and you will see that this is generally the how it is done. The lead is a summary of the contents of the article or section.LCP 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pederasty in Japanese Buddhism

Pederasty was not uncommon practice among Buddhist monks in Japan when non eldest boys of nobility and samurai were often forced to become child monks. The practice effectively died out when temples stopped recruiting children from lay families. What is unheard of, for me, is a claim that Kukai being the person who started pederasty in Japan. Kukai being the one of the most respected Buddhist saints in Japanese Buddhism, this is highly offensive to Japanese Buddhism, as this implies that he condone child abuse. I also suspect that this edit was inserted by a member of FWBO who has some problematic history with the founder's homosexual practice. Without verifiable citation, this statement must go. Vapour

[edit] my tags

Of course, there are many sources given in the article. However, the STRONG bias in the lead paragraphs presenting "Abrahamic" religion as the source of homophobia the world over is totally unsourced. It would be a one-sided POV even if sourced -- unsourced, it's pure propaganda. Dybryd 00:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely! For example, pre-Christian Rome was markedly anti-homosexual.LCP 01:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing unsourced statements

I'm removing the following statements that have been tagged as needing sources since February:

If anyone can find sources to back up these statements, feel free to cite the sources and re-add the statements. —Angr 18:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuality and spirituality

I am suggesting the addition of a new section entitled "Homosexuality and spirituality" which will treat the omnidenominational, interreligious movement of LGBT adherents (esp. gay and bisexual men) committed to spiritual perspectives not covered elsewhere in the article because they're not associated with a specific denomination or religion. Specifically, I am referencing the "gay men's spirituality movement" as embodied by the Gay Spirit Culture Summit, and the works of Toby Johnson, Christian de la Huerta, Daniel Helminiak, and many others (including myself). My rationale for this addition is that there are substantial numbers of US LGBT-identified individuals (according to the Gay & Lesbian Consumer Online Census) who do not affiliate with any specific religion but describe themselves as spiritual. Many authors have identified common underlying themes and issues pertaining specifically to gay spiritual seekers. I expect to have the additions made later in the month. Comments are welcome before, during, or after the additions. Arguably, this addition could be made into an entirely distinct article. However, initially I believe this wiki article is the best fit. Joeprz 05:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I wonder if what you are talking about would fit under a new "New Age" category, or would that do violence to your ideaology?LCP 00:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out of article focus?

I removed the following unsourced paragraph from the article because it does not seem to have anything to do with the topic of Religion and Homosexuality. If someone can source the statements and re-write in a way that focuses on religion and homosexuality, please feel free to return it.207.69.137.25 01:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Same-sex relations between adult males are segregated in a manner analogous to the segregation between the sexes. Thus, the passive role is generally taken on by an underclass of males, often transvestite or transgender who routinely would be entertainers by profession and who would be both despised for their submissive sexual role and admired for their skills. In earlier years these would have had their start through the traditional bacchá or köçek roles. The active role is played by men who do not self-identify as homosexual, who typically conform to societal expectation to marry and have children and view their homosexual adventures as further confirmation of their masculinity. While this construction reflects the way Muslim men generally represent the culture to themselves, actual practices may vary a great deal.

[edit] Is it OR and POV to equate sexual immorality in Christianity with homosexuality?

The question is in regard to this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_and_homosexuality&diff=160558585&oldid=160556044.LCP 22:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely not OR to suggest gay sex is sexually immoral. Most Christians throughout history have believed that. Although it is historically the principle POV of Christians, it is still POV. Rather than remove it completely, it could be reworded to explain the relationship with gay sex and sexual immorality.Joshuajohanson 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely OR to imply that when Paul required Gentiles to abstain from "sexual immorality" he was referring to gay sex and not, say, heterosexual fornication or adultery. —Angr 22:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I see what Joshuajohanson is saying. What a statement means has to do with context. In teh context of Pauls writing, it is not a stretch to see "homosexual acts" as part of "sexual imorality"

I see what Joshuajohanson is saying. What a statement means has to do with context. In the context of Paul’s and NT writings, it is not a stretch to see "homosexual acts" as part of "sexual immorality". On the other hand, I think I might see what Angr is saying. Can Angr expand on why the context argument is not valid? I also wonder if Angr’s objections have to do with form and the fact of the matter or only form. In other words, does Angr care about what Paul did or did not actually intend? I thought I knew what Paul intended, but I think Angr raises an objection that should be considered.LCP 23:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this can be easily resolved by citing to a prominent commentator and describing the interpretation as a common one (if that's correct). Fireplace 23:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, and I would still appreciate hearing Angr's thoughts on the matter.LCP 00:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the paragraph in question runs in its original form as follows:

The Catholic Church and, later, Protestant authorities have traditionally been explicitly condemnatory of same-sex sexual relations, namely, "man lying with man as one lies with a woman" and men "burning with lust toward one another." Where the Catholic view is founded on a natural law argument informed by scripture, the Protestant view is based more directly upon scripture. Nevertheless, there is a broad consensus among Christian organizations that the Bible, as in Leviticus, denounces same-sex sexual relations between men as sinful and, in the eyes of God, an "abomination". In Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem commanded Gentile converts to eschew “sexual immorality.†In the Epistle to the Romans, Saint Paul describes “men, leaving the natural use of the woman, [burning] in their lust one toward another†as a consequence or punishment for the sin of idolatry. In several of his other epistles, Paul echoes the command in Acts, that Christians are to avoid sexual immorality. It is clear that “men burning with lust toward one another†and acting on that lust is, along with other offenses, considered to be “sexually immoral.â€

The opening sentence tells us this paragraph is going to be about explicit condemnation of same-sex relations, and gives the "man lying with man as with a woman" quote from Leviticus, and the "burning with lust toward one another" quote from Romans. That's fine; that's explicit condemnation of same-sex relations. But then the paragraph also gives the quote from Acts where Paul tells the Gentiles that to be Christians they don't have to be circumcised, but they do have to refrain from (1) consuming blood, (2) eating the meat of strangled animals, and (3) sexual immorality. This is not an explicit condemnation of same-sex relations, and the editorial voice acknowledges this in the last sentence by saying, "same-sex relations are included under sexual immorality". So I removed the part that is not an explicit condemnation, as well as the final sentence justifying it, as being both OR and non-NPOV. When LCP did a partial revert, he actually made it worse by removing only the concluding sentence, making it seem like the "sexual immorality" quote was explicitly about same-sex relations only. I think the paragraph should remain only about explicit condemnation of same-sex relations, not about more general condemnation of sexual immorality. After all, this article is not called Religion and sexual immorality. —Angr 04:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I didn't realize that I my edit would make the passage more objectionable to you. Sorry about that. I saw what you were suggesting about the OR of the editorial voice, and I was trying to fix that. I see your point and agree with Fireplace's comments above.LCP 17:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't realize that your edit made the passage more objectionable either until I started analyzing the paragraph more carefully in my comment here! :-) As for User:Fireplace's suggestion, even a link to published source saying same-sex relations have traditionally been considered immoral in Christianity (duh!) isn't going to change the fact that the Acts quote is not an explicit condemnation of them. For that passage to be included in this paragraph, we'd have rewrite the whole paragraph to be about condemnation of sexual immorality in general, which would reduce its relevance to the topic of the article and water down the point of the paragraph, namely that there are places in the Bible that discuss same-sex relations specifically, rather than sexual immorality in general, which sources X, Y, and Z inform us includes same-sex relations. —Angr 18:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You might be right. It would call for another section on how “sexual immorality†in the New Testament = man-man homosexual acts. I don’t know if such research exists, but even if it does, I see no point in pursuing it. It really adds nothing but verbiage (IMO). Thanks for the edits and the conversation. I found it enlightening.LCP 18:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What confuses me most about Acts 15:29 is that the rest of the passage seems to order the Gentiles to abstain from blood and "the meat of strangled animals", i.e. requiring the traditional and now-controversial kosher killing of cows by cutting their throats and draining the blood. Yet it seems like no modern Christians would stop to ask whether the hamburger they're eating was killed by knife or by pneumatic bolt. How did they come to put so much emphasis on one part of the text, which seems to have some ambiguity, while ignoring another part that seems more plainly written? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, those dietary things never caught on among Gentile Christians. The English eat blood pudding, the Germans eat blood sausage, all in spite of having been Christian for a thousand years or more. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFA input

Hello all. I see there are editors of various points of view here. I would like input from any editor here on the American Family Association article. They actively promote the religious version of reparative therapy, and their viewpoints concerning homosexuality are fairly consistent with Abrahamic religions in general, but I'd like more informed opinions from folk here. Actually, I've been having trouble getting the views of the AFA to be presented warts and all[1]. Any information, advice, or input from any editor here will be appreciated. This is an interesting article by the way. Well done folks. Hal Cross 09:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced paragraph removed

I am removing the following paragraph as many parts of it have been tagged "citation needed" for several months:

Historically, and with exceptions, punishment for male same-sex relations [in Islam] has been less severe compared to its Abrahamic counterparts: Judaism and Christianity. The Qur'an states that if a person commits the sin they can repent and save their life. In early Middle Eastern cultures, such as the Babylonians, Egyptians, and Canaanites, homosexuality was well documented to be entrenched in many aspects of the culture by exposure to Hellenistic culture. Later cultures such as the Abbasid caliphate and Safavid Persia, were renowned for cultivating a sophisticated homosexual aesthetic reflected in art and literature. The reconciliation of same-sex attraction with religious teachings may have been based on a hadith from a collection of quotations ascribed to Muhammad: "He who loves and remains chaste and conceals his secret and dies, dies a martyr". Hadiths from later periods are harsher: "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes... Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to." Both ancient and modern fundamentalists have interpreted these injunctions literally, with resulting loss of life.

If anyone can find a source to back these claims up, feel free to re-add it. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who teaches that a homosexual orientation [is] sinful?

The opening has the following statement "Some teach that homosexual orientation itself is sinful" Who teaches that? Most everything I read is specifically against gay sex. Since many of the churches do not teach against a homosexual orientation (indeed, many deny the existence of such a thing), is it accurate to say they are against homosexuality, or just homosexual relationships? Joshuajohanson (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In denying that orientation exists, churches that do so reduce what is normally called "orientation" to a set of behaviors and beliefs that they consider sinful, hence "homosexual orientation" = just another word [ETA: uh, phrase] for sin.

Dybryd (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Orientation is normally a set of behaviors? On the homosexuality page, orientation is defined as "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to people of the same sex." I don't know of any church that teaches a disposition to have attractions is sinful. That is my question. Yes there are churches that teach gay sex is sinful. I'm not arguing that. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the position that there is no such thing as homosexual orientation is irrational, and so I'm unable to present you with a version of it that will make any sense. Dybryd (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can't present a version that makes sense to the reader then it needs to be removed. Let me try to understand where you are coming from. You are saying because some churches teach there is no such thing as a homosexual orientation, that means they teach that homosexual orientation is a sin. Sounds like a leap of original research. How about we word it a bit more straightforward, like "Some churches teach that there is no such thing as a homosexual orientation.^{[citation needed]}" Again, I would need a reference for that, but at least we are saying what it is and don't put in original research. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The existence of lots of ideas that don't make sense is reported on Wikipedia. Dybryd (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

But original research is removed. If you can't find any reference of a church that teaches that the homosexual orientation itself it a sin, then that claim needs to be removed. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, this is what I get for running my mouth! Tasked with sourcing an article I don't even edit! Fine, but you have to look, too. Dybryd (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Found one!

Lee Irons writes:

The homosexual orientation is sinful in the sense that it is contrary to the creation order, is a result of the fall, and is therefore an objectively sinful condition tending toward actual sin. It stands under the same divine judgment that original sin stands under. It is "an abomination" in the sight of our holy God (Lev. 18:22; 20:13), not only because it is contrary to God's will, but because (unlike most other sexual sins) it violates the order of gender complementarity established at creation.

He then goes on to qualify this, saying that although homosexual orientation is an aspect of "original sin," it is not an "actual transgression." But then he goes on to qualify the qualification, saying:

However, I do think a homosexual Christian can and ought to repent of his or her homosexual inclination in the same way that we ought to repent of original sin. In other words, we ought to acknowledge our own personal moral culpability for our sinful corruption inherited from Adam. We ought to recognize that [...] even apart from any actual sins that we have committed, we are guilty before a holy God [...] The Westminster Confession teaches that we are personally guilty for original sin and liable to eternal judgment because of it.

However, Mr. Irons does not appear to be "a church" - he is just a Presbyterian minister. What's the Westminster Confession? I have never heard of it, but I'm typing it in double brackets and hoping that when I press "Save Page" it will be transformed into a useful link.

Dybryd (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

HAVE MERCY this is a zone of weirdness. It turns out that Lee Irons wrote the above in his defense in a so-called "trial" wherein:

"The Presbytery of Southern California of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church charges you, the Rev. C. Lee Irons, with publicly promoting and encouraging the practice of homosexuality, in violation of the seventh commandment."

I don't know if he would've gone to like Presbyterian Prison if he lost the "trial" or what. But significant to our debate is that he was being "charged" by this "court" partly for distinguishing between gay orientation and gay sex in an earlier paper. The Presbytery of Southern California of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church declared:

"The paper [the one that got Irons in trouble] distinguishes homosexual attraction from homosexual sexual activity, and equates homosexuality with the attraction rather than the act. By claiming that homosexuality is an unchosen 'condition,' rather than a sin of the heart, the author contradicts the teaching of Scripture that both the desire and the act are sin."

So ... I think that's pretty clear! The Presbytery of Southern California of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church says that homosexual orientation is a sin. And it also has delusions of grandeur about being part of the court system or something.

Dybryd (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant news article

Presbyterian assembly votes to drop gay clergy ban

(this is a different kind of Presbyterian)

Dybryd (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue Weight

Hello, I read this article, and I thought that the overall message was misleading. This article is supposed to be about 'Homosexuality and Religion', but instead focuses on Religious intolerance of homosexuality. Granted, the latter has occurred, but the article then goes onto make broad generalizations of certain religions based on remarks made by a few religious leaders, or by lines of text taken out of religious books which are interpreted by the writer of the article. I suggest the the writers of this article be more careful about making claims about large populations of people of certain religions without citing some sort of data which confirms this inferrence.

Another point, I think the article should weigh the quotes and passages in question with the overall message of the religion. For example, isn't it a little irresponsible to base Christianity's overall intolerance of homosexuals on a few quotes when Jesus' overall message was unconditional acceptance, even of people like criminals?

This is just something to think about...90% this article analyzes what, at best, can be considered the article writers' interpretations of vague quotes from religous texts, and on the otherhand the only part mentioning religious support for homosexuals is poorly written paragraph with no citations.--Starchild12345 (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT Community and Religion

Shouldn't there be information about what Religions the LGBT community typically belong to?--Occono (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)