Talk:Christianity and homosexuality

Requested move 8 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There exists no unanimity to move to the suggested titles. (non-admin closure)  samee  converse  19:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

---

• Christianity and homosexuality → Template:No redirect
• Christianity and transgender people → Template:No redirect
• Christianity and sexual orientation → Template:No redirect
• Christianity and animal rights → Template:No redirect

– Per WP:AND, avoid the use of "and" in article titles in ways that may appear biased. feminist (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support except for Template:No redirect. That should be moved to Christian views on transgenders for WP:CONSISTENCY with the primary article located at Transgender. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  Not sure if I agree with this, Special:Search/intitle:"transgender people" shows many articles with "transgender people" in their title, but I don't see many results for Special:Search/intitle:"transgenders". feminist (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  If you think the main article should be moved from Transgender to Transgender people, then I would suggest that you nominate that move. But as long as the main article is located where it is, I think "transgenders" is the term we should use in the titles. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose If it's simply "Christian views" on homosexuality, where do LGBTQ Christians fit into the mix? "Christian views" sounds like "Straight Christian views" if you ask me. Honestly "Views on homosexuality" is a bit objectifying and it views us as an issue or a problem as opposed to a people, a community. Instead I would like to see it retitled to Christianity and LGBTQ People or something like that. Many LGBTQ people actually are Christian ministers and some are Bishops. Highlighting the relationship between Christianity and LGBTQ people gives space for the many "accomplishments" LGBTQ Christians have made.

-TenorTwelve (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• • Template:U, can you suggest a title that does not contain the word "and"? I can support "Christian views on LGBT people". It has to be LGBT not LGBTQ per the article LGBT. feminist (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Though the current title will not satisfy everybody, I think the title is more likely to be found by readers looking for pertinent information. In developing an encyclopedia, the priority should be making it user-friendly, even if some titles do not satisfy all groups of editors. Pete unseth (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose "Christianity and homosexuality" is broader than "Christian views on homosexuality", and this article contains discussion which falls outside the scope of the latter. Template:Ping has also failed to explain how the use of the conjunction "and" in the title of this article makes it "appear biased". Endymion.12 (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Catholic view on sinful sexual acts

I haven't gone through all the previous chat, so it might have been covered, but at least the implication of saying the Cathoilc Church views all sexual acts not related to procreation as sinful is a little amiss? https://www.catholic.com/qa/intent-to-conceive-not-necessary Beyondheat (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Lev. 18:22

Is this real enough to be added to wikipedia? 91.240.227.220 (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

A very simple check of older translations finds this claim to be a lie. For example, the 1901 ASV translation says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind." Similarly in the 1917 Jewish Publication Society's translation, the 1611 King James Version, Moffat's 1935 translation, Joseph Smith's corrected translation, Lamsa's 1961 translation based on Aramaic, etc., etc. Pete unseth (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

July 24 edits

Template:Yo instead of edit warring, can you please make the case for your edits here? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)