Talk:Queer theology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	LGBT Portal 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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start 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.)

Contents 1 Category 2 Link to Anti-queer theology site 3 Community ban of the Joan of Arc vandal 4 Distinction Between Acts & Desires 5 "Only" Liberation Theology ? 6 List of Theologians 7 What??

[edit] Category

I removed this from the category for Christian theology, simply because this stub doesn't explain how it is distinctly Christian, as opposed to just "general" theology. Maybe after some more edits, we can put it there again. KHM03 21:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Anti-queer theology site

With reference to the link below, the others are quite right that this page is not about debate. It is perhaps more appropriate to add the link to a page that does address religious controversies over sexual orientation. Queer theology is not at all what your link is addressing. Your link is merely addressing homosexual behaviour and queer theology, whilst marginally concerned with such behaviour, casts a broader net and is more of a strategic political stance.

I edited the page on "queer theology" page to include links to (DR) Rembert S. Truluck's page, and to truthsetsfree.net, another "gay christian" site. In the process, I also added a religion-stub for (Dr) Truluck. And it was also me who added the link to the Anti-"queer theology" site, which you removed, siting reason that it was "not about this debate".

The link was:

• What the Bible REALLY says about Homosexual Issues, by Tony Marco

I protest that your deletion was a POV-inspired deletion. My edit's, I suggest, where balanced, NPOV - two supporting the idea of "queer theology", one against, and the creation of an NPOV page, which I contend added to this category, as Dr. Truluck is an prominent "gay christian".

How can you justify that a link to a page giving the other side of the argument is "not about this debate"? (It's not as if I edited the article to include the stuff in the counter argument - I merely added a link!)

I would suggest that the fact that you are a member of the MCC (which, I presume is a "gay christian" church), adds weight to my argument that your deletion was a partisan, POV-inspired deleltion.

As I understand it, Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia", this means that pages are not "adverts" for one any particular idea, they must attempt to give some degree of balanced analysis.

The idea is that any user, of whatever "persuasion", might look up this page, read the main tenets of the article, and then have an opportunity to see other related ideas, including arguments against.

For example, if someone looks up the article on Stalin, he/she may wish to link to some external pages which are pro Stalin or anti Stalin.

CPMCE 01:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

--Sjharte 10:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC) Hi.

The article on Queer Theology is supposed to be just that - an explanation of the existence and devlopment of this branch of theology. The pro/anti gay debate is real and valid - my suggestion was that it not take place in this article as it would overwhlem it. Perhaps a "see also" link to those many otehr parts of wikipedia where that debate takes place - and I have made this change

The original links that I put in were to a US major acedemic institution that studied queer theology and to an online Queer Theology jounal. Both totally in point. I did not seek to put in links to gay ministries or affirming congregations (what you called "gay churches") - others did that. I would personal prefer to see those links to go too so that this piece could focus solely on discussion of this branch of theology and leave other issues to otehr posts.

In conclusion, I hope that you wills ee that i have not saw myself as trying to enforce my personal POV but instead tried to keep the article clean and relevant as it grows.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sjharte"

Hi. I'm relatively new to this so I hope I am not doing this incorrectly. But I think it is important to note that it would be absurd to have a link to a "pro-Stalin" website in an encyclopedia article. That would be like having a "pro-Hitler" site. I hope to eventually be able to contribute to this article and think that it is relevent to note that there is opposition to queer theology and on what grounds some people oppose it. Part of queer theology, I think, is that it is somewhat radical, which involves noting why it is radical and why some people oppose it -- it threatens power structures that benifit and disadvantage certain groups.

[edit] Community ban of the Joan of Arc vandal

This article has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal. This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person.

A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned. This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts. Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. Durova^Charge! 17:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distinction Between Acts & Desires

To ensure that 'trad' teachings are not misunderstood or simplified, a distinction between acts, desires, and the persons who experience (passively) desires and choose (actively) acts has to be made; any church with a coherent theology makes, and has always made these distinctions. Desires are not sinful, insofar as a person does not choose their desires. Despite this, a further distinction is made, insofar as the desires can be fundamentally disordered, i.e. incapable of being ordered to a positive, non-sinful end. Homosexual desires are considered by such in most 'traditional' (Catholic/Orthodox) teaching. The acts themselves are always and have always been considered sinful. Insofar as someone who experiences homosexual attractions but does not act on them is morally blameless, 'traditional' teaching has, at least since Aquinas, always made a distinction which DanB's edit does not reflect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.155.112.104 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This just isn't true. Christianity does teach that certain desires are sinful, even if not acted on. Jesus said of committing adultery that if a (straight) married man looks at a woman (not his wife) lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. A consistent interpretation of this would imply that if a man looks at another man lustfully, he has already committed homsoexual acts with him in his heart. —Angr 12:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Only" Liberation Theology ?

So i read this part of the article and i`m a little bit surprised. Sure there can be theologian who are defender of liberation theology. But there are also a lot of theologian who have nothing to do with liberation theology, but they are a part of queer theology. 212.95.108.33 10:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Theologians

I question the list of queer theologians and think that some of them (esp. Glaser and McNeill) are more appropriately gay and lesbian theologians. I think this article needs to carefully distinguish between the work of gay/lesbian scholars and queer scholars. The two are not the same. There are definite differences in political agenda.

[edit] What??

"Queer Theology" has got to be one of the most stupid things of which I have ever heard. Is there also a "Black Theology"? Or perhaps a "Hermaphrodite Theology"? The subject of homosexuality is something that should be addressed by theology and not have its own category and page. My vote? Erase this dumb page. In spite of life experience generally telling me about the kinds of things people will do, it still amazes me that controvertial subjects almost always get raised to unreasonable and artificial levels of importance (just to get more public attention). Erase the page.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.183.212 (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is Black theology, actually. And your distaste for a field does not somehow cause to to go out of existence, or be notable. Tb (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, I didn't realize how absurd theology had become. There should be no such absurd thing as "Black theology", "White theology", "Homosexual theology" (a much more appropriate and less derogatory term than "Queer" anyway), "Male theology", "Female theology", "Chain-smoker theology", "Wine-Bibber theology", or any other such idiocy. Believe me, if I could wish these *non-fields* out of existence, I would, and I imagine that I am not quite alone in those feelings. I have no problem with theology speaking to such sub-topics, but none of those things are theologies, and to say they are is, as I said, merely to raise controvertial subjects to unreasonable and artificial levels of importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.183.212 (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're point is. You're against it. You think they shouldn't exist. But they do, and they're notable. That's sufficient for Wikipedia. Now kindly take your bigotry and go home. Tb (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My points were extremely clear to those with "ears to hear". The page should be removed both because "Queer" is crude and offensive (e.g., "queer" is an inaccurate and vague coloquial term with a crude history...think of the crude "smear the queer" or the stereotype-pandering "Queer eye for the straight guy" for just a couple of myriad examples....At least change it to "Homosexual Theology"...good grief...) and because there really is no such thing anyway (it is merely a subnote addressed by an overarching theology, systematic or otherwise). You need to be very careful and more accurate with where you aim your false accusations of bigotry, Tb. You may be some sort of clergy, but you have not a corner on "truth". If you truly believe in the Bible, then I'll walk you privately through the reasons (in Greek and Hebrew if you prefer) why the practice of a homosexual lifestyle is considered sinful by Biblical standards. I have as much right to express my desire to see these pages deleted or subnoted under some other theology as you have to keep them here, so politely ask you to tame your "tongue", for if you don't like my views then you are also free to ignore them (especially since I am a reasonable enough person not to just repeatedly delete the entire absurd page myself).

None of these are relevant considerations for Wikipedia. Do you understand that? I don't think so. Tb (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, queer is generally seen as a positive term in, at least the younger parts of the queer community, whereas homosexual is seen as non-inclusive and clinicalising. I've never heard "homosexual" used by any native english-speaker except in a derogatory sense. Queer I hear as a negative, but more often as a positive because it embraces the diversity of marginalised sexual and gender identities Curufinwe (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• I guess it would be upsetting to discover there's also African theology, Asian theology, Native American theology, Latino/a theology, mujerista theology, etc.? Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Upsetting? No. Equally absurd? Yes.

• Let me get this straight (tee hee) -- all theology is Judeo-Christian? There is no Hindu theology or Muslim theology or Baha'i theology? No wonder you're so confused about Queer Theology. Even non-Christians have a theology! Aristophanes68 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about this, but the IP has a point about the article as it stands, it does not make it clear how and when this term came about. A quick google test reveals that this is a real concept - e.g. in literature such as Queer Theology: Rethinking the Western Body by Gerard Loughlin. The article needs to make it clearer that this is an established term, on the model of liberation theology. There is a big difference between saying that there is a theological discussion of sexuality and that there is a specific concept of "Queer theology". I would ask the IP editor if s/he has a problem with the existence of the liberation theology page, just because there is no page on "oppression theology". It's simply the case that some concepts exist and some don't. Paul B (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the intro to clarify that the queer theology is not just some wacko term, but that it emerges from the wider concept of "queer studies", which the IP seems to be unaware of, and which might explain his shock at the use of the term. Since I'm no expert, I hope this is not inaccurate. Paul B (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)