Talk:Homosexuality and religion

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Discrimination

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Religion Top‑importance

	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.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scientology Low‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Christianity section

Not good!

POVvy statements, such as the usual bias phrase "In accordance with the traditional values", the initial paragraph then claims "Christian denominations accepts homosexuals" and then goes on to explain that they don't accept "homosexual acts", which is clearly biased in favor of that kind of Christian bigottery on the loss of the homosexuals – what does it mean? "We're not going to excommunicate you if you abstain from being homosexuals" or?
then the "general", "traditional" vs. "some", "other" word gaming plays against the "liberal Christians" and such,
Fred Phelps, ignorable because condemned by all (other) Christians,
lists of names not needed here.

The Christianity section needs to state the following:

Some Christians are negative, which are? Which denominations? Where? Why?
Some Christians are positive, which are? Which denominations? Where? Why?

The section doesn't need much more than that, because there is a main article. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC

I agree. I've tagged the section as needing a summary of the main article Homosexuality and Christianity. --Alynna (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC

The Christian view of morality is a standard that doesn't change. Policial correctness changes constantly, but biblical doctrine doesn't. The cannon Christian view on homosexuality is that homosexuality it wrong. You claim that it is 'Christian bigotry in the loss of homosexuality.' At least in my own experience, 'bigotted' organizations have only 'pushed back' against homosexuals due to homosexual activism demanding people champion homosexual activity or be labeled as bigots. 'PC' organizations and products, such as CyberPatrol, have guidelines that label (for example) Christian organizations as bigots if they 'have a neutral or hostile view of homosexuality.' I hope this helps with maintaining neutrality of the document. Claiming 'clear Christian bigotry' shows a compromise on your half towards bias.

Section on Jainism needs edited for grammar and POV

Just... needs a lot of attention. "Some texts in Jainism have depicted of Eunuchs are born with genetic defects or due to social pressure." -- one of many examples of really bad grammar. POV is found throughout the second paragraph, in sentences like "For this liberalism and sense of realism, the masters of the organization deserve praise."

Traditional religions all condemn LGBTQ+

Generally all religions traditionally view what we would consider LGBTQ+ today as something undesirable. Sure, there are progressive sects and denominations, but the traditional view of nearly every religion on Earth regards LGBTQ+ as something negative and even sinful. 2601:98A:400:8910:992D:A09C:979B:6574 (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's just wrong. The majority of religions don't view homosexuality as negative. Hinduism, Buddhism, Hellenic Polytheism, Paganism, Humanism, Taoism and many more don't. It's almost exclusively Abrahamic religions that are so prejudiced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MianMianBaoBao (talk • contribs) 01:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like Dharmic Religions have pretty strong traditional segments which are against Homosexuality, and it's largely omitted. For example, the Hindu section does mention opposition to Homosexuality, but barely touches on it, spending more time talking about progressive segments in favor of it. 71.129.228.139 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Zoroastrianism and sexual orientation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology image

I propose to keep the representative image to the Scientology subsection which symbolically shows the discussion of homosexuality and Scientology to help improve the article. The image was removed on a related article so I'm starting the discussion here in case. Here are my reasons outlined from MOS:LEADIMAGE:

It "give[s] readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right" section.
It is an "appropriate representations of the topic".
It is the "type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works".
Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.
It is "relevant in the topic's context" visually representing the intersection of homosexuality and Scientology by combining the two recognized symbols for each.

Here are some examples of reputably published academic works using art showing combined or side-by-side symbols to artistically represent the intersection of the book's topics using well known symbols from each:

The Flag and the Cross (Oxford University Press)
Theology of Money (Duke University Press)
Baptized in Blood (University of Georgia Press)
The Market as God (Harvard University Press)
Religion and Politics in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge University Press)

Here are examples of a Wikipedia pages using a similar symbolic concept in a lead image used elsewhere on Wikipedia: Template:LGBT Mormon topics, Baháʼí views on homosexuality, Homosexuality and religion, Jewish views on homosexuality, Christianity and homosexuality, and Time magazine. Additionally, other sections have similar symbolic depictions on this article. Here are some similar examples specific to Scientology elsewhere on the web representing the intersection between homosexuality and Scientology: Newsweek magazine, An artist's page, Elle magazine. I would like to WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. Any thoughts? Pastelitodepapa (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second @Grorp on thinking it should be removed. This image is not very good, hasn't been used comparably elsewhere, and adds nothing. Other people have used the rainbow Christian symbol, while no one has used this kind of thing to represent Scientology. What does slapping a rainbow on a cross add to the reader's understanding if no one off wikipedia has done so? Those sources aren't about Scientology. Why do this? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]