This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 ^talk 10:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hopelessly POV article, laid out in an inappropriate, unencyclopedic US vs. THEM style. Subject is already addressed at Homosexuality and Christianity, Homosexuality and Judaism, and numerous other locations.

• Delete ~~~~ 00:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' but article needs desperately to be cleaned up. Contains some interesting information the other articles mentioned do not have. Antley 00:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. --Vizcarra 01:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Homosexuality and Christianity --malathion ^talk 01:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can't merge with Homosexuality and Christianity because the size of the article is already large. . This article was already a section from Homosexuality and Christianity, so the topics are not the same.
  • It is a WE vs. THEM article because both sides use the bible to justify their views and as long as each "we" and "them" are sourced, it is not POV. --Vizcarra 01:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The material is valid, albeit POV. The real problem is the pro/anti structure, which isn't standard Wikipedia practice. Binadot 01:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. Gateman1997 01:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Can..? we delete the bible itself? that would be nice--172.163.188.163 01:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What is wrong with the redirect? ~~~~ 23:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but anything unreferenced, which is pretty much everything, should be removed. - SimonP 01:44, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree with SimonP, however not much is referenced so it might as well be deleted. --Mjvan12 02:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a quagmire of original research and personal opinions, even though an attempt an NPOV is being made. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. It's a valid topic, despite it being poorly written and POV. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 05:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Jesus keep. —RaD Man (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pintele Yid 08:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it may need to be totally reworked but the topic is significantly different from Homosexuality and Christianity, or it could be anyway. cohesion | talk 08:29, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lapsed Pacifist 08:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, restructure (remove pro- and anti- crudities) and clean-up. Remove all unreferenced material. I am not convinced that serveral of these passages are notable in the context of the debate. --Doc (?) 09:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup'. Seems a valid topic. Agentsoo 10:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV essay. JamesBurns 10:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Valid topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Axon (talk|contribs) 14:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Topic is basical covered in Homosexuality and Christianity & Homosexuality and JudaismIsotope23 14:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Decidedly different in subject matter from Homosexuality and Christianity & Homosexuality and Judaism, as those two articles deal with attitudes towards homosexuality in the religions in general, whereas The Bible and homosexuality deals specifically with that book. Some interesting information, but needs a POV overhaul, as mentioned by others above. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 16:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Duplicate material is either for deletion or redirection. I have serious trouble with the very idea, however, of The Bible and homosexuality, as it implies that the Bible as a whole can be said to have a view on "homosexuality," which is a 19th century cultural construction. Further, everything in this is "uses of the Bible by proponents and opponents of homosexual intercourse." If no passage in the Bible says "homosexual," and none does, then everything is interpretation, and therefore the subject is really "what people say is sanctioned by passages in the Bible." Geogre 17:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The term homosexual does not exist in the Bible, but it does reference homosexuals ith both the Old Testament and the New Testament (as the article explains). The fact that you an educated man think that the Bible does not refer to homosexuality whenit does explains the need for the article. However, condemnation is up to interpretation, I agree. But it cannot be denied how big of an issue it is with governments allowing gay marriages and religious groups condemning it because it is unnatural according to the Bible. There is a need for an article that discusses (or at least lists) the verses of the Bible they refer to. Otherwise the Homosexuality and Christianity, Homosexuality and Judaism, the godhatesfags.com articles (and several others) should be removed as well.

I largely agree with Geogre, but I still think that, since many people believe the bible discusses this topic it merits an article. That article, I think, should include the fact that the whole discussion is comparing ancient writings with a modern day cultural construct. I don't think that fact invalidates the article though. As the unsigned person says this is debated even at the governmental level, and providing a resource to help people more intelligently discuss the topic is valid in my opinion. I am not retracting my statement that the article needs a complete rewrite though. cohesion | talk 18:53, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well, my point is that same-sex sexual acts are discussed, somewhat, in the Bible, but it takes interpretation to even make that so. On the other hand, "homosexuality" is a construct (the idea of a life-long same-sex pairing) and derives largely from a clinical setting. We're dealing with apples and shotguns, here. It's quite true that governments and shrill folks are speaking of The Bible as having something to say on the issue, but, honestly, I see that as addressed elsewhere already. E.g. the fundamentalist attack on homosexuality is discussed in the Christianity and article, while Judaic disquiet is in that article. I.e. the "what they say about them" is already covered in the various 'they' articles. Other than that, there really isn't a need to offer up a prescriptive group of prooftexts for folks. Geogre 20:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this article is not "what they say about them" but "what the bible says about them" which has affected how christians (and societies of christian majorities and even organizations like "the boy scouts") think of homosexuality (and same-sex marriage, and adoption by homosexuals, etc.). This article is supposed to be a collection of the verses that talk about same-sex relationship (whether they are sexual or long-term non-sexual). Christians are being accused everywhere of bigotry when the Bible itself talks about same-sex relationships. Homosexuals are attacked everywhere when the Bible may not even condemn explicitly their relationships. This article is supposed to show the foundation of the positions. --Vizcarra 21:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup for reasons already listed. --Idont Havaname 19:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously valid topic, somewhat different from main article, and balanced, even if not in standard format. CanadianCaesar 20:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Merge if needed, but in it's current form very little is encyclopedic - and if people want to know the underlying question (does the Bible condemn homosexuals), they should 'read the Bible'. Wikipedia is not a priest. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. extremely NPOV nearly completely unreferenced and already covered, I don't think it is worth cleaning up. Pandaman
• Keep This is a break out article, and should neither be deleted nor, due to its size, should it be merged. CalJW 21:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - POV essay; topic presented in an unnacceptable manner, it tries to break down the issue as pro-gay or anti-gay. (hate edit conflicts) -- Joolz 21:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• A horrible article, for all the above reasons. However it seems to have been spun off from Homsexuality and Christianity, presumaby to keep the size down, and certainly there needs to be some coverage of this subject. So 'keep, with enormous misgivings, and please cleanup. DJ Clayworth 21:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is just a bad essay. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Geogre. Also, even with "two sides" represented 50-50, the article will still violate NPOV by its representation of this issue as a simple dichotomy, presenting an "Anti-homosexual view" and a "Pro-homosexual view". / Alarm 23:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think that there are more than two views, then I suggest that you add them to the article in separate sections. --Idont Havaname 03:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV fork. Also as per Geogre. JFW | T@lk 23:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete. Poorly-written article whose material is covered elsewhere in WP. Giddytrace 00:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't merge and delete, as it violates the GFDL. Merging requires we keep the redirect. -Splash 00:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This smells of being a POV fork. -Splash 00:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Represents pro & anti POV reasonably fairly. Geogre is wrong to say the Bible has no view, and it is clearly an important and topical issue. I am somewhat sympathetic to saying it is a false dichotomy, but it is a useful presentation that should be cleaned up, not deleted. --CJeynes62.252.0.4 00:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It needs a much expanded introduction, explaining that these are all modern arguments, and it probably needs a new title as well—something like "The Bible and homosexuality—modern views" or some such title, with the current title remaining as a redirect. Each of the sections also should be further expanded, but this being a Wiki, that will happen with time. BlankVerse ∅ 15:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep but really needs merge or vast rewrite. Yeah, I'm feeling bi today. The idea here is OK, it could be informative, but boy!(girl?) are there problems. What is "pro homosexual" anyway? The article shouldn't be just quotes or weak statements: Bobo X:11 says "men screwing men is bad!" "No it's not." There need to be actual quotes from biblical scholars (not politicians) saying "this passage condemns this behavior" or "this passage has been misinterpreted to push discrimination." Wish I had the balls...uh, guts...to wade deeply into this mess. DavidH 23:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand An important article that can serve everyone's ends. The pros and the cons have their say, and those in-between get mightily informed. I scanned it briefly and found it very interesting, even enlightening. I have no problem with the pro-and-con layout, I think it works very well. For those who think it is too polarized, perhaps we can add a neutral viewpoint which may, in time, emerge as the backbone of the article. So, fix, but under no circumstances delete. Haiduc 01:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. I did considerable amounts of work on Christian views on homosexuality, while it was still alive. To be honest, now that I've grown up a bit, I think it's a bit wasteful. Wikipedia is a place to get information. It's not a place to get converted, it's not a place to listen to the latest arguments for or agaist a certain Christian point, et cetera. The topic is almost never given proper citations and references, and, largely, they are the opinions of Wikipedia users. Wikipedia should not be cataloging all of the scripture used to make a point or not to make a point; it should link to the people making the points. They can cite their own scripture, and do their own apologetics, however they please. If this page remains, I would like to see it reduced to a list of citations, possibly with included text, with each quote followed by a link to a non-wikipedia site, and that's it. Since there's no consensus, Wikipedia shouldn't jump to conclusions, and Wikipedia definitely need not present the arguments that prevent a consensus. 128.253.110.167 03:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - it's a POV fork of Christian views on homosexuality. Merge any useful material (virtually none IMO) into that article. Insofar as useful discussion of individual passages takes too much space for that article, create individual articles, as already is the case for Leviticus 18. Rd232 16:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and cleanup. The POV problems can be fixed. This is encyclopedic and noteworthy: these issues constitute a huge amount of the public debate on the subject. This is the sort of information that needs to be in Wikipedia. Nightwatch／respond 22:14, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.