Talk:List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity Portal List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality is part of the WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.

List

This article has been rated as List-Class 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.)

	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.
List	This page is a list and does not require a rating.

An anon moved this article from Christian views on homosexuality. I am wondering whether this article should be moved back. → JarlaxleArtemis 03:27, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think the move (which I only just discovered despite having Homosexuality and Christianity on my watchlist!) was a good idea. That page is already overlong. --Angr/_comhrá 19:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Episcopal Church?

Is the American Episcopal CHurch mentioned in this article? If not, it should be. Esp given the recent controversy over homosexual marriage that's dividing the church right now. Sexperts 18:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholicism

I found that the table of accepted practices of non-celibate homosexuals showed that Roman Catholics' ordination of homsexuals "varied" and that non-celibate homosexuals were "allowed as members." The Catholic Church's teaching, as correctly noted elsewhere, is that homosexual acts are gravely sinful. Those who happen to have homophilic urges but who remain chaste are welcomed into full membership in the church. Those who are not chaste are not to receive communion, the rite by which spiritual membership is recognized. In one sense, they may remain members in that the Church retains official records in the hopes of their repentence, but the table infers homosexuality is considered permissible, which it is not. Mercy is not permission.

The notion that homosexual acts are permitted by priests is absurd. Official instructions are that even those inclined towards homosexuality are unfit for the priesthood. The flagrant abuse of leniency in punishment is not permission.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.31.101 (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

I have found that people have edited the description of the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality so as to indicate that the Catholic church permits homosexuality. Such people have not bothered to justify their changes. 69.143.31.101 17:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of Unitarian Universalism as a Christian denomination

As the section removed states Unitarian Universalism is not a Christian denomination and as such should not be included in this article. The Unitarian Universalist position on homosexuality should be stated somewhere in the web of articles relation to homosexuality and religion, but having it here is disingenuous. Further more I personally find it defamatory and insulting linking such open minded and accepting people (Unitarian Universalists) with such a lot bigots (Christians). If someone does edit it back please leave my objections intact. 71.111.15.178 09:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility, and do not label Christians "bigots" again. I have no objection to moving the UU position to some other place, but you didn't move it anywhere else, you just deleted it. Better to have it listed somewhere than not have it listed at all. --Angr (tɔk) 10:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Unitarianism is, at the very least, culturally part of the broader Christian tradition. As mentioned in the article, some Unitarians consider themselves to be Christians and some to do. For that reason alone it is appropraite to list their view as part of a discussion of broader Christian approaches.--Sjharte 11:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my understanding of Unitarianism is that they derived from the congregational churches. Most of them still follow the Congregationalist Church governance model. If what I am saying is still current information (can a UUer here please be verify?), then I think we should edit the UU position to say that there is no binding denomination-wide position on gays. You would have to say, "The UU has stated X but this is not binding on all congregants" See UCC position for more detail on how to phrase a congregationalist position. If LDS is included here, then other plauasbly quasi-Christian groups should also be included. Also, I have heard that many UU christians don't spell "Christ" with a capital C so we may want to change that as well. MPS 15:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Unitarian Universalist and I have been one all my life. The UU fellowship does follow the Congregationalist Church governance model in that every fellowship is independent but part of the Unitarian Universalist Association. However, this is only one aspect of the religion. UUism does not teach the Bible or the teachings of Jesus Christ (I haven't heard of not capitalizing the "C," but it's a name, so I do so - I respect other people's beliefs and saying that Jesus Christ doesn't deserve enough respect to have his name capitalized doesn't make sense to me). Quakerism also has roots in Christianity, but it's strayed so far from it the religion barely has any Christian beliefs; Unitarian Universalism is similar but even moreso. As most people aren't familiar with Unitarian Universalism, stating that it's a Christian religion would confuse most people; they would probably assume that it has Christian teachings and ideals and beliefs. In fact, a majority of Unitarian Universalists are humanists, atheists and/or agnostics (with humanists being a huge amount) and they don't believe in a god or goddess or gods or whatever. I know there was a poll by the UUA that proved this; I've also certainly seen it in the UUs I've met. To sum it up, saying that UUism is a Christian denomination is like saying that Taoism is a Christian denomination as well. In my opinion, it deserves its own page. 68.32.225.201 03:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I used to attend a UU congregation. They nearly ran their interim minister out of town for quoting from Biblical sources. I realise that this is not typical, but U*Uism is no longer related (other than historically) to Christianity. I have started a new page. Carolynparrishfan 20:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Could someone add Unitarian Universalism to the link list in Homosexuality and religion? I'm not quite sure how to do that. 68.32.225.201 05:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think an important question is how UUism was perceived in 1970, vs now, 35 years later. That is when UUs voted to be supportive of people regardless of sexual orientation, in the context of an openly gay minister, James Stoll. I suspect that a lot more UUs felt "Christian" then, and that UUism was more welcomed by other Christian denominations then. If so, that event is an important chapter in the history of Christianity. And that event could also be part of the wedge that distanced UUs and Christians. Anyone have any historical references on this question? Any references at all? --NealMcB 23:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not adding this at the bottom of the page, but I feal it is neccicary because it only relates to a statement made here. I capitalized "Christ" for a reason. Many relions and christians do not, though in proper LDS termonology and in LDS common society it is almost always capitalized. If you feel it shouldn't be the only solution I would suggest would be putting quotation marks around the word showing that it is from an LDS view. The original author of the section used the title "Jesus" but as it is more common in the LDS community to say "Christ"; though "Jesus" is used, "Christ" is much more common and it is proper to LDS people to capitolize the "C" in showing respect to deity etc. I live in Salt Lake City, I have discussed this with many who agree that "Christ" is used much more often and is proper in the LDS church to capitalize. No person in Utah who is LDS or "mormon" that I have talked with has disagreed, in fact. I talked with many for the matter; not just a few that I like. I know this isn't a huge issue. But I belive strongly in making statements proper; especially on a contravercial topic. Thank you. Great article overall TheMusicalGenius 00:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC) One way to settle it -- quote some famous LDS expert and put the whole statement in quotes so that there is no wierd Christ-in-quotes problem. WP:WWBD MPS 19:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Homosexuals"

Using the term "Homosexuals" for gay and lesbian people is at the least betraying a conservative bias, as the term is medicalizing/pathologizing, and at the worst is considered fairly derogatory by some. The sections of this article that are quoting official documents of a denomination should use the language of the document; otherwise, the article should avoid using "homosexuals" when "gay and lesbian persons" or "LBGT people" is more appropriate. Emerymat 02:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Betraying a conservative bias? I think "homosexuals", "gay and lesbian persons", and "LBGT people" all would betray a liberal bias because it transforms the issue into one of identity politics. It transforms homosexuality from a behavior or an inclination into an identity, into something essential to one's person. Which is what, I would assume, we disagree about, or these Christian denominations disagree amongst themselves about. --Hyphen5 02:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, interesting, but wrong. "Homosexual" is rarely used by gays and lesbians in their self-description. More to the point, it is not used in Wikipedia. I have adjusted this. Also, a few of the denominations were said to condemn homosexuality, but promote respect for gays and lesbians as persons. I have softened the language (usu. to sth like "purports to promote"), because obviously the jury is still out on how much these groups themselves actually respect gays and lesbians. It's not within the scope of Wikipedia to determine whether a denom is engendering respect or any other sentiment. Carolynparrishfan 15:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reomval

I removed this line from the section on Catholicism:

However, if a homosexual man has abstained for at least three years, he may be accepted to begin seminary studies.^{[citation needed]}

It was in contradiction with the rest of the section, which was cited, so I thought it confusing and likely inaccurate.Lostcaesar 14:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German Evangelical

With the aid of Google and Babelfish, I think I've determined that the "Evangelischer Gnadauer Gemeinschaftsverband" recently added to the page is a component organization of the Evangelical Church in Germany. If so, can the section name be changed and a more detailed doctrinal description (rather than just the opinions of most members) be added? DanB DanD 17:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved this from its own section to a mention under the discussion of the Evangelical Church in Germany. Lots of pro-gay denominations have anti-gay caucuses (the United Church's "Community of Concern" comes to mind) and vice-versa (Dignity); it's only feasible to discuss them within the context of the relevant denomination. Carolynparrishfan 15:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table?

This may sound like a bit of an odd request, but could we maybe get a simple table for this? Either to replace the article (Splintering each church's views into it's own article, as has already been done with some) or to be placed at the bottom. For example the first column would list denemoninations. How the rest would go, I'm not quite sure. It would either be a column with a short summary of the views or perhaps several column to be checked or unchecked. (i.e. column two is titled "Allows Openly Gay/Lesbian parishoners, three is Sanctions Same-Sex Marriage, four is Allows Openly Gay/Lesbian Clergy). I just thought it might make it easier to read. It would be easier for my interests, aty least.

Just a thought. --72.12.30.143 08:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Ask and ye shall receive." Carolynparrishfan 15:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homogenital?

Thanks Carolynparrishfan, the table is great.

I'm bit puzzled by your alteration of "homosexual" to "homogenital" in some places. I'm not crazy about "homosexual" myself, but "homogenital" seems even more medicalizing and also has the disadvantage of being unfamiliar to most people. What is the rationale for the change? DanB DanD 23:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the deal. I decry the medical perspective of this article. It seems to focus too much on sexual acts. This is something I will work on in the long-term. The word "homogenital" is a rather unfortunate term coined, as far as I know, byu the Vatican (at least, no one else seems to use it). My rationale is this: the idea of a "homosexual" act rubs me the wrong way. What is a "homosexual" act? Is running a household and raising children together a "homosexual" act when done by "homosexuals"? What about kissing and hugging? "Homogenital" explicity identifies the kind of activity that these churches have a problem with. Is it an overly medical paradigm? You bet, but unfortunately it's the paradigm that these churches use.

There's also the question of variety in language. I had already written "same-gender sexual activity" so many times that I thought I was beginning to sound like a robot. Perhaps I should just change it to "gay sex" throughout. Carolynparrishfan 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it is a Vatican term (I've never heard it before myself) then I say go ahead and use their word for the Catholic section--perhaps with a brief explanatory note? But that makes it seem more inappropriate for application to non-Catholic denominations, especially as many of the more homophobic ones are also hostile to Catholicism.

DanB DanD 19:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm wrong. Here are an Evangelical and a Lutheran page that use the term. Carolynparrishfan 19:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added an explanatory note to terminology of homosexuality, and I'll add a link there to the first instance on the page. If you turn up an early citation for it somewhere, it would be nice to know the actual origin of the word.

DanB DanD 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Europe / US-America

We have to know, that european states are more liberal in sexual issues and so we have more liberal views in Christian denominational positions on homosexuality in europe. GLGerman 21:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)GLGerman

[edit] Definition of "Homosexual" and status as members

The article's table is unclear. For the column that outlines the denominations' stance on whether or not homosexuals are allowed to be members, what is meant by a "homosexual"? Is it meant "someone who is attracted to others of the same sex", or the more traditional Christian view of "someone who engages in homosexual relations"? ~ Hairouna 21:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"The following table illustrates the status of non-celibate gays and lesbians..." Carolynparrishfan 23:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There are no christian churches in Germany which doesn´t allow homosexual members in church.GLGerman 01:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)