Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Voln (talk | contribs) at 05:46, 30 September 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Bible and homosexuality received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archive 1

Cleanup and references

I've archived the previous talk page having finished cleaning up the page, as I think that most of the previous discussions aren't releveant any more. Apologies if I moved something by mistake that still needs to be addressed.

I've added references to each of the sections and given arguments for different interpretations of each of the passages and so have removed the totallydisputed tag. When people add more information please provide a reference for it! This is a contentious subject and I think one of the main reasons the page got the totallydisputed tag placed on it was that references weren't given and people were adding their own original research.

I've also removed a short section on 1 Peter which you can see here, as it wasn't referenced and I couldn't find anyone using it in any of the arguments about homosexuality. --G Rutter 09:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Great work, this article had been in an awful state for a long time. - SimonP 15:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits to 1 Corinthians

I moved some information from Homosexuality and Christianity to 1 Corinthians, as I thought it was more appropriate here. I integrated it and checked it with what was already here and the only paragraph that I felt needed to be added was on the Church Fathers. However, an anon editor feels that I have deleted information, so I hope that we can discuss it here, rather than get into a revert war. Compare my original insertation here and the anon's addition/over-writing of the section here.

There were originally three paragraphs in the Controversy over Biblical terminology section. The first paragraph dealt with the translation of "arsenokoitēs". The two versions are similar, but the one from H&C was not referenced. The second paragraph dealt with the Church Fathers and contains the same information, but I have rewritten it slightly for style and added some links. The third paragraph dealt with the translation of "lo tishkav" from Leviticus, which is already covered in the Leviticus section. Anon, could you please explain exactly what you prefer about the version from H&C and then perhaps we can work out a solution to this please. Thanks! --G Rutter 11:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrary and biased reverts

I am sorry to see that this page seems to have fallen under the control of a group of anons who strong-arm a distorted presentation of the topic. Haiduc 00:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I had nothing to do with reverting your changes, I would note that quite a few of them involved the deletion of referenced material or quotes (which was noted in the edit summaries of the reversions). You might not agree with the quotes (and I certainly don't agree with all of them), but the fact is that they've been said and published either in journals, books or by major groups. The Genesis material was hardly "irrelevant" as Hilborn (amongst others) used it to argue that Genesis forms the basis for all human sexual relationships, while the quote you removed sums up many people's attitude to the arguments Vasey, Williams, etc make.

On Luke 7, the "lengthy...semantic foray" is hardly "irrelevant" as it establishes the point that pais is used in a variety of different ways in the Gospels and by Luke himself. I have however readded your reference to the NET Bible and added a counter-argument to Marston's statement (although we really need to find a reference for it). I also added inhospitality to the list of sins of Sodom. Your paragraph about abominations in Leviticus was interesting, but I haven't readded it as you didn't cite any sources.

As I've said already on this page, if we can add things that we can reference we won't end up back with a totallydisputed tag and hopefully we'll avoid edit wars. --G Rutter 22:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I have nothing further to add at this time, except to point out that we do not need references in order to contextualize the use of "abomination" in Leviticus, in the same way in which we contextualize the use of "pais" or "entimos". Haiduc 22:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have taken a look at your edits and I do have something to add. The Marston attack, which is a slur, of claiming "pedophilic" sex for the centurion and his slave needs to be placed in the perspective of the legal age for marriage in Ancient Rome for a woman, which was age 12. See and and . It is absurd to wave the flag of pedophilia in light of these figures, and if the quote is allowed to remain it needs to be qualified accordingly, lest we become an uncritical mouthpiece for a biased rant. Haiduc 23:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added the information, but I have to say I don't think the arguments on both sides are very good. It seems to me that we don't know what was going on, so can't really draw any conclusions from it. I think both Horner's and Marston's arguments are weak, and I don't think adding the age of marriage is terribly helpful either, especially as it was 14 for males. If anyone can find any sources with better arguments, please add the information! However, the purpose of this page is to accurately reflect the arguments that have been made on this subject, whatever we personally think about them.

I don't agree with you about contextualising "abomination" without sources. As it says below the editing screen: "content... must be based on verifiable sources". We've provided references for pais and entimos and need to do the same for any other point. --G Rutter 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I will look for references. Haiduc 11:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Gender Reference to God

The last line of the first paragraph includes, "showing what actions God considers to be good and which he considers to be sinful." What about changing the sentence so that there is no gender specific pronoun in reference to God? --Dorje Shedrub 19:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Um... well if you can think of a sensible way to reword the sentence so that it's not clusmy (any more than it is already) then I'm not going to complain. --G Rutter 22:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I changed "he" to "God" and changed "what actions" to "which actions," to make it match the rest of the sentence. --Dorje 01:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want to change "he" to a non-gender-specific pronoun? The original Hebrew is gender specific - if it's good enough for God, why change it? PiCo 08:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Reference to Judges 19:16

Forgive me, for I'm new at this, perhaps I'm not reading it correctly, but in the "Passages from the Hebrew Bible Section", under the subheading "Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah", there is a reference to Judges 19:16 as being a near-parallel to the issue of homosexuality. I can't see anything in Judges 19:16 that has ANYTHING to do with the topic at hand.

The really important verse is verse 22:"While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."" I've altered the article to make this clearer. Thanks! --G Rutter 12:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem: This sentence does not appear in old bible translations. Sex is never mentioned in that line at all.

Sex is not exactly mentioned in the bible. There is no word for sex in the bible. It might say "know" (or rather "yada") as in "so we can know him", but it does not say "so we can have sex with him". What you have there, G Rutter, is a very biased, and consequently unreliable, translation. It probably has Paul saying "homosexuality is evil", or something like that, as a number of politically motivated translations do, but the actual text does not say that, and is more ambiguous. Clinkophonist 20:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Better Literal Translation of Koitē

The word literally means bed (especially the marriage-bed) not sexual intercourse, although it is clearly being used euphemistically for sexual-intercourse. Etymologically, the word is derived from the Greek word keimai "lay" which can clearly has some euphemistic meanings but is not limited to only such meanings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.150.91 (talk • contribs)

There is often a difference between the etymological and contextual senses; along the same lines, the Hebrew ידע (yd') simply means "to know," yet when Adam "yada" Eve, she had a son! ;) (Gen. 4:1). If context is just as much (or more) a part of meaning (understood as authorial intent) as syntax/form and etymology, then it seems valid to give the lexical entry that best expresses the full sense ("sexual intercourse") rather than giving the bare etymological sense ("lay"). » MonkeeSage « 16:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Notable sources?

Oh my goodness. There is some extremely silly stuff in this article - particularly the foregrounding of a single chapter from an obscure book by T. Koch, the "Cruising as Methodology" material. It's barely scholarship, and it's nothing like as prominent in the field as it is prominent in the article. It makes the whole thing sound silly and smutty.

The article should be primarily based on well-known, influential sources. Where is the material on Marcel Proust's treatment of the Sodom and Gomorrah story? Where is Peter J. Gomes? We focus on these obscure little people, and ignore the big names. Whole article needs a rewrite.

DanB†DanD 01:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I just want to congratulate all users who have edited the article, and discussed on this talk page, for keeping this place a haven of sanity and maturity, and not letting it devolve into a breeding-ground of hostility and bad faith. :) —Daniel (‽) 09:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Leviticus 18 & 20 Counter-Arguments

I understand that the way I worded my argument might not have been the most P/C. I rewrote the text in a more encyclopedic format and will paste it below for discussion. If there is no objection I will put the text in the article:

Other counter-arguments point towards other rules put forth in the book of Leviticus which are not 
followed by the contemporary church.  Such verses in the book of Leviticus include Leviticus 19:27, which 
condemns cutting the hair on the sides of the head and trimming ones beard, and Leviticus 11:7, 24-25, 
which condemns contact with the flesh of a dead pig.  Those who use this argument point out that Leviticus 18:22 
and Leviticus 20:13 are taken out of context when used as an argument against homosexual 
relationships.

JWGreen 19:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You really ought to source it, however it's phrased. It's not the place of a wikipedia editor to put forth arguments (even balanced arguments) without attributing the ideas to an outside authority. DanB†DanD 19:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Leviticus 19:27 from a speech by Tony Campolo at Concordia College, Moorhead, MN on 9/20/2006.
I heard the other argument a while back, but can't remember who the speaker was. I did find the argument on this site though. It is also mentioned here . An anonymous former US president wrote a letter to Dr. Laura Schlessinger in satire about the subject of the pig skin also, referencing the fact that footballs are made out of pigskin. It can be found here . I would also like to point out that not many in-text citations are used in any other sections, which may need citation. I’m putting the text in, along with citations. -JWGreen 23:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to make the section of the article entitled "Leviticus 18 & 20" less POV. Also, I addressed the only comment that was posted about the text. I will try to find the counter-arguments for my counter-arguments, but then that opens doors to more counter-arguments, and essentially this would turn into an edit war, which I do not want it resort to. Can anyone else coment on this so I know If I am not wrong in my statements? -JWGreen 01:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I put the text back in with arguemts from "the other side" per request by Volin. -JWGreen 16:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Voln, exactly in which other articles have you seen the argument you are deleting? And which are the countervailing arguments that you find lacking? How can we keep this information in a way that is balanced? Diego 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There are many reasons why this addition violates normal policy. The sources cited include blogs or personal pages rather than reputable, peer-reviewed academic sources. The page at the in-forum site does not mention the subject at all. It therefore is not adequately sourced. The argument which is being added is just another variation of the old "shellfish prohibition" argument which has periodically been added to many other articles here, and has often been deleted for various reasons - partly because citing admittedly discontinued Levitical laws would not be relevant as a means of rejecting a prohibition which is upheld in the New Testament, just as such an argument could not be used to reject the Ten Commandments unless the argument is stating that literally all of the moral codes given in the Bible should be rejected because a few of the Levitical codes are no longer in force. If this is the argument then it should be clearly stated; if not, then it's not a relevant argument for the specific topic which this article addresses. Many other points could be made if I had the time. Voln 19:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I figure I'd stir up the pot here a little... the "shellfish" argument is significant enough that it could have its own article. Not sure of the apt title or the reputable sources that would feed it, but I have definitely seen this argument around awhile... It goes something like this... Argument: "you eat shellfish, doen't you... and you play football... so you are selectively enforcing OT laws... you hypocrite!"

Response 1: "yes but the NT reinforces sexual immorality prohibitions while loosening ritual and dietary laws to allow the Gentiles to be reached."

Response 2: "by the logic of discounting OT prohibitions, incest is ok now, and killing, and covetousness."

Response 3: Jesus told the adulteress, "go and sin no more" which tells us that the laws are still there but that Jesus says we fellow sinners don't punish or administer God's Justice (let he who is without sin cast the first stone).

MPS 19:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the shellfish business and its close cousins, the pigskin/two-crops/two-materials arguments, have been repeated ad nauseam. It looks like the Misplaced Pages Administrator "Jayjg" has often deleted all variants of these from Misplaced Pages because they distort the matter so much. Among the other counter-arguments (aside from those you mentioned) would be the point that none of these discontinued Levitical codes ever had any relation to any of the primary Commandments contained in the Decalogue, whereas sodomy is linked to the general commandment against adultery/fornication. It isn't explicitly stated there, but neither are incest, bestiality, rape, or pedophilia. Voln 20:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know any of those counter-arguments to the "shellfish" argument, that's why I asked for them. I feel that they are relevant enough to be included, and I haven't found them anywhere at wikipedia, so in my opinion they should be added (both the argument and the criticism). I'll try to write up and post it here at talk page for discussion.Diego 10:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"whereas sodomy is linked to the general commandment against adultery/fornication" If we're talking about the 10 Commandments, there is not one about fornication and "sodomy" has nothing to do with adultery. --Chesaguy 02:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The Commandment against "adultery" has always been understood to include fornication of any kind (except by those who wish to redefine the Commandments to suit whatever their own preference happens to be). If it doesn't refer to fornication, then there is no prohibition against pedophilia, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, etc. Voln 05:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review