Disputatio:Homosexualitas

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

inordinatus[fontem recensere]

Inordinatus does indeed mean "disordered" in Classical Latin[1], but it seems that the Catechism does repeatedly use this word to mean "unnatural" (the semantic link presumably being "inordinate", a meaning which also shows up in the Catechism). Say what you will about the Catholic Church, but their translator knows his stuff. So I assume there is a tradition of using inordinatus this way in Christian Latin, perhaps evolving from the use in 2 Thessalonians 3:6? --Iustinus 17:30, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Well I personally see nothing with "statum mentalem inordinatem" because if I wanted to say it is against nature I could easily use "contra naturam" which is located in Rom 1:26. That is why I feel that inordinatem should be re-added. Alexanderr 17:39, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
In fact as far as I can see the only too listings for "unnatural" are "contra naturam" in latin. Rom 1:26 and Rom 11:24. Alexanderr 17:44, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Then what do you feel it means here, "inordinate"? I suppose that's possible. --Iustinus 17:48, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Well...Yeah. I pointed out the only references in the bible which approach the english word unnatural. And as for it refering to disorderly, a word which only appears four times in the Vulgate, it can according to 2Thes 3:6 as you pointed out, but then again Sir 7:17 uses the adjective "indisciplinatus", 2Thes 3:7 and 3:11 both use "inquiéte". Alexanderr 18:00, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
P.S. can you explain how to say "both" in latin?
Ambo, declined like duo.' IacobusAmor 18:48, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Re (Iustinus): "Then what do you feel it means here, 'inordinate'?"—The sensibility lurking behind Rom 1:26 is that a woman must not have an orgasm (or presumably even enjoy genital play), or an orgasm must not be had into a woman (so to speak), unless the woman and her sexual partner intend it to fulfill her "natural" function, i.e., of getting pregnant. For sexual activities, the Vatican seems to prefer "disordered": the catechism at the Vatican's website uses that word five or more times, declaring, for example: "masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action." IacobusAmor 18:48, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
I understand, but I still don't get what you consider inordinatus to mean in this context. Homosexuality is not particularly disorderly, in fact the stereotype is that gay men are very neat :P
My guess is that the aptest term in popular (nonnuanced, nontheological) parlance is deranged. Either that or Very, Very Bad. IacobusAmor 18:48, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
The best Latin word for "both" is ambo, which declines irregularly, exactly like duo. However, if you want to say "both X and Y" the best expression is just et X et Y. What do you need to say exactly? I'll help you with the declension. --Iustinus 18:23, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
I mean irregular. Alexanderr 18:32, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. It seems to be akin to the Egyptian idea of c.t. --Iustinus 20:23, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Alia Vocabula[fontem recensere]

You should add "masculorum concubitor" to your alia vocabula, it is mentioned twice in the Vulgate (1 Cor 6:10 and 1 Tim 10:10). Alexanderr 18:32, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes! Hebrew משכב זכר, still in use. Good one. --Iustinus 18:50, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Not really a good one for this context, as the Latin seems to says nothing about the sexual orientation of the concubitores. IacobusAmor 14:10, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Quid sunt concibitores, IacobusAmor?
Ahah, problem. As I mention above, the reference in Corinthians only shows up in the Vulgate, not in the Greek text! --Iustinus 19:09, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Why does it have to be in Greek to add the term? Anyways as I said it is also in 1 Tim 1:10. Alexanderr 19:22, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying the expression is invalid, I'm just saying that given that the Greek text is older than the Latin, this rather undercuts the usefulness of the Corinthians quote already in this article. Catholics are often accused of following the Vulgate translation, while ignoring the Greek and Hebrew (ok, and a little Aramaic) originals, but my understanding was that if this was once true it is no longer the case. Surely if something is in the Latin but not the Greek a better prooftext is needed? (Well, at least in the modern context. Historically that text was presumably used). --Iustinus 19:28, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm still confused as to why Corinthians isn't in the Greek? Was it originally there or is it taken from a different manuscript? Alexanderr 19:36, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
You would have to ask a textual critic. But clearly either Jerome had a different Greek manuscript than we do, or that bit somehow got added. But generally if it's in the Latin byt not the Greek it's assumed to be spurious, right? Like I said, ask a specialist. --Iustinus 19:40, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Masculorum concubitor, in Bibliis Vulgatis[6], locutionem Hebraicam vertens, homosexualem marem significat. Versione Graeca androcoetes."—IIRC, there at least two potential problems here. One is that the phrase may actually refer to ANY male who "serves as a female" for another male; in other words, the ancients made no assumption about the sexual orientation of the "effeminate" party. The other problem is that the phrase may actually be disparaging the payment of money to a male for his sexual services, so the underlying sin is prostitution, not anything relating to sexual orientation. If either of these points is valid, it would be false to say that the phrase "homosexualem marem significat." That would put an unwarranted spin on the phrase. It would apply modern concepts to a world whose people lived by different concepts. Is the phrase itself a hapax legomenon in the Greek? (I have a notion that I've read that it is.) If so, its translation inevitably becomes contested ground, and any responsible mention of the phrase in this context should point out the indeterminacy of the translation into Latin. IacobusAmor 20:53, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure how you'd get the idea that it has anything to do with the payment of money, the definition provided by Whitakers words is simply "fellow sleeper; sleeping partner; bed fellow/mate; cohabitor; concubine;" Not homosexual prostitute. Also while the ancients might not have distinguished the Vulgate does with the term "Molles". Alexanderr 20:58, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
In the Roman world, prosperous men bought or rented slaves for their sexual pleasure. Maybe prostitution isn't the best word. Molles 'softies' would appear to be the ones that the KJV calls "effeminate," i.e. men ("straight" or "gay": it doesn't matter) who acted as insertees for sexual pleasure. This discussion could benefit from outside help, so I'm emailing two learned professors to provide clarification of this passage. If they respond, I'll transmit their messages. IacobusAmor 22:17, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, arsenocoetes (oops, I wrote it wrong in the article) is indeed a Bible-word that doesn't show up earlier. Like masculorum concubitor it literally means "one who beds with males," and is clearly a semitism: the expressions used in the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud mean more-or-less exactly the same thing.
I appreciate that using "homosexual" here is anachronistic, inasmuch as we generally (pace Alexanderr) view it as refering to a more-or-less permanent personal trait, not just an act, but I also think this article will be rather useless if we insist on excluding ancient vocabulary and expressions on this basis. I'll need to rewrite my gloss, fair enough, but I think removing the word entirely would be stupid. And thanks, I definitely should add mollis too. --Iustinus 03:39, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
1. Discussing the ancient vocabularies of this behavior may well be desirable, as long as you remind readers that most of the people participating in this behavior would, in today's vocabulary, be classed as "heterosexuals." The absurdity of an either-or classification reveals itself in college classes when students learn about the region of New Guinea where 100 percent of the males obligatorily engage in fellatio (ideally in some cultures, a teenage boy's first lover is an older man, selected for him by his father). Some students find it hard to wrap their minds around the idea that most of these men are "heterosexuals," but of course they are, in the sense that they marry women and have children and seduce each other's wives and do other such things that "heterosexuals" are expected to do.
2. As for Roman Catholics: if their doctrine is so important as to merit so many pixels, it's even more important to tell about their behavior. One of the first things you learn in an anthropology class is that what people say they should do (i.e. in this context, what the Vatican instructs) usually differs from what they actually do. It's the old theory-practice thing, and Vicipaedia shouldn't get so excited by the theory that it devalues discussion of the practice. In this matter, how do Roman Catholics behave? How do Roman Catholic priests behave? For this article (if Roman Catholicism is worth singling out), these are vitally important questions.
3. The same concerns expressed here, perhaps to be voiced more strongly, will most likely crop up in regard to any article on abortion.
4. One of the strengths of Vicipaedia is its ease of connecting with Latin literature, and an article on this subject could quote extensively from the classics. The boy-boy love-poems of Vergil's Georgics readily come to mind, as do Catullus's put-downs of receptive partners, revealing the same prejudice that Paul so avidly adopts in the passage discussed above.
5. Incidentally, I copied the current first sentence of the article to the priest I'd previously quoted, and his response was: "Ick. One can scarcely imagine even heteros engaging in such a lowlife activity." In other words, the article, right off the bat, can strike readers as having a negative slant. IacobusAmor 13:24, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure if you are looking for a response from me, but as for how average Roman Catholics would behave regarding this matter, I think they'd be in accordance with the teachings of the church for the most part, but some also take liberal views, and have their own favorite "interpretations" of scripture.
Also, I personally don't see how the first sentence (of the article right) can give the impression that the action is negative - it seems just to talk about the subject. Anyways as I said before I hold little credence with the quoted priest's positions. They seem Way to liberal for me. Alexanderr 13:53, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Pace Alexanderr? Does that mean "with the exception" or something like "peace Alexanderr"? :P Alexanderr 03:49, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I kind of used that expression facetiously. In Latin pace alicuius dicere means to speak without offending them. So for instance if you say something possibly insulting you can preface it with pace tua dixerim, equivalent to English "no offence [intended]." As a result, scholars now use it, even in English, to mean "contrary to what so-and-so says," e.g. "Pace Aristotle, children get genes from both parents." So I figured it would be funny to use that expression to indicate that you disagree with this philosophy ;) --Iustinus 04:15, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm answering IacobusAmor's 5 points of September 2, but I don't want to post immediately after them, as the chronology of this thread is already muddled enough:

  1. Keep in mind that even though our model of "homosexuality" is significantly different from earlier ages, the term does not always refer exclusively to sexual preference. For instance, once can easily see a modern person saying "Although I'm heterosexual, I have had homosexual sex before" (OK, most people wouldn't use the technical sounding long words, but they make the point better). In other words, although we have the theory of sexual orientation, we do sometimes use the words to describe acts and behaviors, rather than internal preferences. I am having a bit of trouble with this in the Latin, though, as the term homophylophilia seems quite aptly coined to refer to preferences, but is not so good for acts.
  2. I don't think we need to rebutt everything here. Let them have their say: if we write the article correctly it won't be ruined by this.
  3. Good point. I do not want to have to deal with that :(
  4. Hell yes. That was my plan, more-or-less. Note that Catullus does have his Juventus poems too, so he wasn't 100% against what we would call homosexuality, just "violations of the rules" as the recently quoted scholar said.
  5. What? Really? I can't imagine what shounds negative about it, except perhaps that, being in Latin, it sounds too technical.

--Iustinus 15:15, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

response to point #4 by Ioshus Rocchio moved to down here to fix the numbering in my post --Iustinus
Or 16 where he threatens detractors with forced homosexual acts.--Ioshus (disp) 15:25, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
HA! Well, although that is actually my favorite Catullus poem (believe it or not), I'm not sure it counts as a positive additude: this is more like a put-down of receptive partners. "You dare to call me a pathic? I'll show you who's pathic!" --Iustinus 03:04, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
That's my point though. Of all the things I might say to you if you called me pathic, oone of the last would be "well, to that I'll irrumate and pedicate you", because to my American influenced attitude, the action is the same thing as the orientation. But in the anthropological context that Iacobus has been introducing, this shows Catullus not considering himself to be cinaedic, if he's doing the pitching, so to speak.--Ioshus (disp) 14:21, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Exactly: pitchers are in a socially unmarked category; only the catchers are marked. Different cultures use different psychological maps. IacobusAmor 14:35, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm still responding to your original point 4, in which you said "The boy-boy love-poems of Vergil's Georgics readily come to mind, as do Catullus's put-downs of receptive partners, revealing the same prejudice that Paul so avidly adopts in the passage discussed above." So I'm just saying Catullus has both Vergil-like moments, and Paul-like moments, but I would put #16 firmly in the latter category. --Iustinus 15:33, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
This way sound strange but who is Catullus? Alexanderr 03:13, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Catullus --Iustinus 03:44, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Or Catullus. --Roland (disp.) 10:00, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Fontes recentes et commentarius generalis[fontem recensere]

OK, here's a clarifying response from an Episcopal priest learned in these matters; I copy it here with his permission. I'd asked him specifically about I Cor. 6:9-10 (as cited by Alexanderr). I don't have the recommended books at hand, but contributors interested in the subject should be able to find them easily in a library:—

"Check the discussion of this passage and the key word in Robin Scrogg's Homosexuality and the New Testament. There was no word for what we call homosexuality before about 1860 CE. Paul is referring to prostitution, the paying of pubescent boys to serve older men—to be distinguished from voluntary lover relationships between older and younger men (e.g., 25+ and 15+). William Countryman also discusses this material in his books on sexuality and the NT. And Daniel Helminiak's book is basic, too: What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality.
"The Hebrews and the Greeks had no cultural/social notion of sexual orientation. The forbidden homosexual acts in the Hebrew Bible are all listed in the context of purity laws related to fertility rites involving false gods, as I understand it. The references in the NT all refer to ritual sex (again, serving false gods) or to prostitution. Paul, of course, would have understood any same-sex activity as against nature since he had no concept of any diversity or variance in the matter of sexual orientation. Thus when he refers to same-sex activity he is thinking of straight, hetero males who do it intentionally and by choice (again, usually religious ritual or convenient prostitution). Paul had no idea that some people are naturally attracted to their own sex. Also, the Hebrews were unusually puritanical about sex in order to distinguish themselves and their monotheism from their neighbors. The early Christians carried on this tradition and added to it teachings of those branches of Greco-Roman philosophy that renounced the pleasures of this world in toto, such as the various forms of gnosticism.
"Check the books I have recommended. They make it quite clear that errant translations of the Hebrew and the Greek crept into the Vulgate and much later more explcitly into the 19th century revisons of the Bible in various languages."

In the light of this discussion, the current wording, "Masculorum concubitor . . . homosexualem marem significat," is false & irrelevant, and should therefore be struck from the text. As an anthropologist, I must reemphasize the interpretive danger of attributing the psychological concepts of one's own age & culture to people of another time & place. IacobusAmor 14:10, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

IacobusAmor, the Doaui-Rheims Bible renders "masculorum concubitoribus" which appears in 1 Corinthians 6:10 as "Menstealers", which would get rid of the whole young man who is forced into sexual bondage bit which you and your Episcopal priest are refering to. It projects an image of the person intentionally stealing away men - not one being stolen away and forced to have relations with another man. And if it was talking about the later would it not be cold and cruel to say one who is being forced to forced into these acts is destine for hell? Is your episcopal friend saying that? I hardly believe Paul would be so callous.
I personally feel that this is just another attempt to distort the word. The writers of the bible were speaking of the morality of action, and that doesn't change just because the doers might have a predisposition to commit those actions (something by the way which I don't believe).
Eitherway I will ask my priest about the meaning of Masculorum Concubitor, and add my own findings later. Alexanderr 02:21, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Menstealers does away with what now? And seriously dude, the way Episcopal runs off your fingers, it's hard not to read disdain. That hurts your credibility.--Ioshus Rocchio 04:10, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Well I wasn't trying to show disdain for anyone, I was actually trying to be very careful with my words, so I'm sorry if I offended anyone. But what I was trying to say is that if "masculorum concubitoribus" can be translated as "menstealers" it can't possibly refer to young men who are forced into sexual bondage (bought, and sold as was said some way above). It would be like saying that a women who is forced into prostitution by a man is responsible for stealing him away [from his wife]. It is would be vilifying the victim. Saint Paul definitely wasn't talking about young men forced into bondage - this is so clear to me that I can't even imagine the alternative. He was talking about men who (willingly) sleep with other men. Why would he say that the kingdom of heaven isn't for a man forced into an act he doesn't want to commit? A victim? To even consider it is impossible. Alexanderr 04:41, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

OK, IacobusAmor, I am sympathetic with attempts to read such passages differently, but in the context of this article I'm not sure I buy it: it would not be hard to find quotes from Roman-era church fathers, and likely even Jewish authors, showing that all homosexual acts were already felt, by monotheists of that era, to be sinful. It is also a bit misleading to say that the Romans had no concept of sexual orientation, they just divided the categories a bit differently (note that "pathic" and "tribade" are apparently given as predictions in horoscopes, which implies a lifelong characteristic!). For a lot of Jewish debate on this subject, try googling for mishkav zachar "male bed." Apparently a lot of the argument centers around the fact that this expression has traditionally been interpreded to refer specifically to pedicatio, so some would claim that so long as that particular act is not engaged in, Jewish homosexuals are in the clear. (Note that mainstream Orthodoxy, while apparently accepting that the biblical prohibition specifically refers to that sex act, reject the claim that other homosexual acts are therefore permitted).
I'm thinking the solution is to change the arrangement of the article slightly: put "Ancient World" as one section, with discussions of the different civilizations as subheaders, then put "Religions" as another section, so that Alexanderr can continue his explanation of Catholic doctrine, and others can add sections for other religions as they see fit (this would of course include the interpretation you have provided).
Now, Alexanderr, I think you may be arguing at cross-purposes with the others: I'm not sure you're understanding each other or talking about the same thing. But in any case the online text I found of Duay-Rheims does not use that expression, and I'm pretty sure that even if it did, it wouldn't mean that IacobusAmor was suggesting that victims of rape should go to hell.
In any case, the odds of any of the parties involved in this debate changing their philosophy is pretty slim, so can we focus on improving this article instead of on bickering? --Iustinus 04:08, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Iustinus, you're right I made a mistake - or two. First I was reading 1 Tim 1:10, and I accidently read the wrong line. So My argument would have to be entirely re-written, but I still don't believe that it was male prostitutes forced into defiling themselves with mankind, who are refered to in that passage, because if it was it'd be blaming the victim. It just would. If the roman male prostitutes weren't bought and sold (as I read on this thread) and did these actions on their own - maybe. But otherwise, if they are youths forced into the act, no. Alexanderr 14:05, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
1. The goal is to read pertinent writings accurately, not differently.
2. Neither I nor the priest I quoted mentioned hell, nor did we discuss rape.
3. Perhaps readers will be interested in comments from the other learned scholar I emailed, a professor of English; he starts off with molles (but cites the Greek term), mentioned elsewhere in the disputatio:
"In the passage you cite (or another one from St. Paul) there is also a Greek word “malakos,” literally “soft,” usually translated as “effeminate.” malakia “softness, effeminacy” was regarded as a vice or defect of character since the Greeks of the classic period combined varying proportions of homosocial and homoerotic behavior with a robust misogyny. Hence their viciousness towards any of their number who broke the numerous rules for pederasty—for example, by frequenting male prostitutes or allowing themselves to be penetrated. St. Paul is very much a participant in their spirit when in Romans he mentions “women...with women” as an afterthought—what women do isn’t worth taking seriously, it seems, either to Greek moralists or to St. Paul. But with male homosexual behavior St. Paul seems to have a special problem—a number of his catalogues of “sins” read like cut-and-paste jobs out of stoic diatribes, as though the subject weren’t worth devoting a lot of original thought to (presumably there were wide areas of agreement between urban pagans and urban Jews when it came to moral behavior), but it does seem as though the subject of male homosexuality pressed some button in him. It probably had to do with that bete noir of the observant Jews of his time, the gymnasium, which was a focal point of pagan male socialization but scandalous to Jews by reason of its dress code—that is, its undress code—among other points one stressed by historians is the way in which those of the circumcision would stand out, as it were, at the baths. This is known to have caused some younger Jews to resort to surgical procedures to reduce the visibility of the covenant that had been cut into them. . . . In any case, it’s a pity St. Paul wasn’t informed that his hastily-penned letters were going to be picked over by bishops and theologians for centuries after his own time; he might have worked out his priorities a little better." IacobusAmor 13:43, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
  1. Well, perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a break with tradition.
  2. Right, but Alexanderr is still thinking about that thing in Corinthians about not getting the "Kingdom of God."
  3. Yes, quite true. I could add some opinions of my own, but this is not the place. The fact that female homosexual activity is thrown in "as an afterthought" is not surprising, what's surprising is that it is mentioned at all. Orthodox Jews need to bend over backwards to explain why it's forbidden, as it is nowhere mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. By the way, on that note, check out this article. It's a scholarly review of a book on female homosexuality in the ancient world. Very interesting, and surprising in some ways. --Iustinus 15:04, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

IP edit[fontem recensere]

The IP edit was me just to let everyone know. Alexanderr 20:55, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Leges de Homophylophilia[fontem recensere]

Alexanderr, what the hell are you doing? I specifically asked you to stick to the Catholic stuff, and if you're going to stray from that, the least you could do is write neutrally. I understand how you feel about homosexuality, being a devout Catholic. But do I go editing articles on Christianity to say "Christianity is a heretical sect that advocates the worship of the false messiah Jesus, who is undeservedly called 'Christ'" just because I am Jewish? The point of Wikipedia is not to provide a soap-box for me to promote my religiouos doctrine, and the same applies even to you. You are obviously intelligent enough to know what is neutral and what is not, so I can only assume you are doing this davka. Cut it out. You know damn well how everyone is going to react when they read your borderline vandalism. --Iustinus 07:03, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Iustinus, I know you asked me to stick to the Catholicism section originally, but I thought I'd asked if I could edit other sections (so long as they weren't the ones you were), eitherway I wrote with information from the homosexual marriage section on the english wikipedia, and I though I posed the bit about the consequences as possible, because while it is believed that society will be taxed more financially it hasn't been deminstrated. Sorry if my tone wasn't neutral, but I wasn't angry when I wrote it and while I used "sanctitatem" I meant it in a religious prespective. Again I wasn't angry when I wrote the section, and the information came from the En Wikipedia. Alexanderr 07:14, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
I added "possunt" to make it clear that it was only a possibilty, and the second bit, about possible damages is clear because it says it's only a belief. Alexanderr 07:42, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
This is quickly turning into Homophylophiliaphobia. Catholics...--Ioshus (disp) 14:40, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, and I suppose that categorizing isn't any kind of phobic? Anyway, as I said (a LONG time ago) you can add information to the article as well as I can. Alexanderr 15:06, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
I confess a huge amount of catholophobia. This is precisely why I don't edit articles, save for grammar, about the subject.--Ioshus (disp) 15:09, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the whole catholic church is just so scary. Alexanderr 15:11, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
You "confess" it, do you? :P --Iustinus 15:51, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Haha, I barely noticed that...I'll go say a few our fathers and light a few candles. Or maybe the whole village could gather round and hurl stones at me.--Ioshus (disp) 21:33, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

this comment moved by Iustinus again. Sorry, I have apparently have a different sensibility than everyone else when it comes to the ordering of comments. I guess I'm just inordinatus. The emphasis of the Islamic section seems to be on punishment. Someone might mention Rumi and the long literary celebratory tradition. IacobusAmor 13:37, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Iacobus, it was just the first paragraph of the Islamic section from the english article homosexuality and religion. I intend to add more to it including passages from the Quran (if we can find a decent version in Latin online). Any help in this regard would be most appreciated. Alexanderr 16:21, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have problems with how the Catholic section is structured too. It seems to be centered on proving the notion that the Catholic Church considers it sinful, which is true, but not terribly deep: really, anyone who has been able to read Latin for the last 1500 years or so was already aware of this fact. Encyclopedias do need to start with the basics, yes, but I think there's more to be said here. Were I Alexanderr (to paraphrase Parmenio), I would arrange the Catholic section chronologically.
  • This might start with the Bible quotes (but these might be better placed in a general "Christian" or "Judeo-Christian" section, since they dont' just apply to Catholics. But until we have such a section they could just go here, I guess),
  • then move on to the Church Fathers (I know for a fact that Tertullian discusses homosexuality—or rather "same-sex sex acts," as we are constantly reminded, sexual orientation is a modern concept :p —and I would be surprised if others did not as well)
  • We could maybe include the Planctus Naturae Iovis Fulmen linked to here.
  • The modern era is where it becomes interesting: it was considered a big deal when JP2 released the new catechism. Alexanderr just quotes it to show that homosexuality is sinful and disordered, but in fact it was felt to be a laxening of the churches condemnation of Homosexuality. This is because it essentially says that there is nothing sinful about the orientation, just the sex-acts. [Whether or not it is reasonable to expect chastity from any but the most exceptional adult human can be left up to the readers, Ioshus :P ]
  • The recent "instructions" approved (but apparently not written) by Benedict have been considered a step back, since they seem to indicate that there is indeed something wrong with homosexuals even if they stay chaste.
What do you think of this, Alexanderr? I think there is a lot more you could be writing in the Catholic section before needing to stray out at all. Remember, the Latin Wikipedia, unlike most other languages, is very fond of quotation. Or at least footnoting. --Iustinus 15:51, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Well I don't mind your suggestions, and now that I see some problems I might be willing to re-organize the Catholicism bit, and add anything I may have left out (Benedict's Catechism? Where did you find out about this, and where can you access it?) Also I agree that Biblical Quotes probably should be in a generic Judeo-Christian Section. Alexanderr 16:19, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Nonono, Benedict doesn't have his own Catechism, right? I said "instructions", meaning the Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders that you originally linked to. --16:24, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Oh, well I don't necessarily believe that that is a step back by any means, nor in contradiction with anything the late holy father, JPII, said. I mean by deep seated homosexual tendencies I think Benedict is talk about people that have had homosexual relations and identify themselves as part of the Homosexual Pride Community - people in contradiction with the catholic church. Not those who struggle with homosexuality (for one reason or another) and are sorry for any sins in thought or action which they may have commited, and want to surrender their life to god. Alexanderr 16:31, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps not in outright contradiction, but do note that the full quote is '...cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture."' Apparently the tendencies are enough of a problem, even in a celebate, because "Such persons ... find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women." I'm really not interested in debating you, so I will engage in praeteritio, rather than say what I think of this. --Iustinus 04:15, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Okay, you might not want to debate it but having read the entire quote, I can say that my view of what the holy father is saying hasn't changed. He is simply warning that we should not allow people who support a view contrary to the church to become priests, and I see nothing uncharitable about this. Would the pride community let a "homophobe" come into any position of power within their group? Would the republican party put a democrate up to run for them? Of Course Not! It is the same here. Alexanderr 04:47, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
<<...sigh...>> Once again, you brandish your pov about like a toy. You vs them. Inquisitor vs inquired. Hater vs hated. iustinus is not the only whom you tire emotionally with your diatribe.--Ioshus (disp) 05:04, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
This is a talk page not the article its self so I don't see why I can't express a POV, which is clearly stated as such. And I'm not always against someone. I was simply stating what I felt, because his "so I will engage in praeteritio, rather than say what I think of this." speaks volumes. And if my use of analogies is incorrect show me where I am wrong. Alexanderr 05:10, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Audiatur et altera pars[fontem recensere]

Quid est veritas de legibus "nuptiarum? Quaestio difficilis est. 'contra sanctitatem nuptiae' est una diversarum opinionum. Necesse est scribere de ista opinione, sed etiam de opinionibus differentibus. Negotium Vicipaediae est scribere modo neutralitatis (modo scholastico - sic et non?). "Audiatur et altera pars" vel "sine ira et studio"!

Auctor principalis huius paginae non tibi consensit, ad dolores nostros... Temptavimus eum lucem videre facere, at iram studiumque et mea sententia metum tanta in animo habebat.--Ioshus (disp) 17:23, 28 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Etiam, vide tabularium huius paginae ad summam disputationis paginam.--Ioshus (disp) 17:24, 28 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Archival[fontem recensere]

This talk page is getting long enough to be unwieldly. Would anyone mind if I archived part of it? I guess the logical place to put the division would be when I first joined in the fray, or perhaps better, when I locked the page. There is a natural division in the conversation somewhere in that general period. --Iustinus 16:24, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't, just not the most recent sections. Alexanderr 16:31, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Comment from an LGBT leader[fontem recensere]

To an LGBT leader in Washington, DC, I copied the outline (subheadlings) of the article in its current state, with a translation of the definition, and received the following response.

"I don't have time to devote to teaching people this stuff in English, much less Latin, and I fail to see the importance of it. Obviously, somebody has some issues and an agenda that they are trying to push. The definition is ridiculous. No reputable "anthropology professor" would teach any such drivel. Western culture consists of much more than just sado-masochistic Islamic and Roman Catholic cults. And the governments of many nations have passed laws respecting the sanctity of love regardless of whether it is between opposite sexes or the same sexes. I think those involved in this exercise would be happier if they replaced "veni, vidi, vici" with "veni! veni! veni!" :-)"

You'll note that once again, someone has objected to the definion. I asked what definition he'd prefer, and he emailed this:

1. Sexual attraction to persons of the same sex. 2. Sexual activity between persons of the same sex. 3. God's gift to bigots who need SOMEONE to hate.

The first two definitions correspond, in the same order but not the same words, to the definitions in the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary. IacobusAmor 19:18, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Iacobus, I have no problem adding a section on homosexual actions, and homosexual feelings, however I don't see how the current article - especially the opening paragraph written by Iustianus - is offensive. I also don't see how religious views are "drivel" or why they shouldn't be added. Your LGBT leader obviously has alternative motives, and isn't involved anyway so why bring his opinions into it (to justify your own?)? By the way I've noticed that none of your colleagues seem to have a conservative bone in their body - maybe you should e-mail some other people to get more diverse results? Alexanderr 19:31, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
1. "I don't see. . . . I don't see. . . ." To see, we need to look—which is why I've posted "alternative" angles, ones that may not readily have been in view. I hold no position on this issue, except an unalterable opposition to unreasonable restraints on human freedom. Call that libertarian if you like. The political stance of contributors is irrelevant if their texts are truthful.
2. In my opinion, the article remains unbalanced: the best procedure would be to scrap the whole thing and restart by translating, in its entirety, the English-language Wikipedia article. Then, one would have a solid platform from which to hang apt additions, such as quotations from and discussions of Latin literature, and, if people like, the proscriptions & celebrations that emanate from religions and other organized traditions. IacobusAmor 21:49, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
I am looking, and to say anything to the contrary is quite judgemental. All I was saying is that there is nothing wrong with the majority of the article, and that your sources (A liberal protestant priest, and a LGBT LEADER) are not exactly neutral in and of themselves. And frankly I do NOT believe that we should scrap the article (which I worked quite hard on) or translate everything that is on the en article. The reason for the second opposition is that the Latin Wikipedia is quite a bit smaller with less editors, and we'd be leaving out content from other homosexuality related articles. Also it'd be kind of silly because most of the articles on this subject are phrased differently from wikipedia to wikipedia. Anyway in closing, add information on biology or whatever if you wish, but don't complain about it being biased if you don't even TRY to edit it or contribute. Sorry if that sounds rude but I'm a bit tired of this. Alexanderr 22:02, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
  1. That the article remains unbalanced is my fault: I have not gotten around to finishing what I intended to write, leaving Alexanderr to do his thing. I'm sorry, but I suffer more than a little from ADD, which means that I tend to work in large bursts, with long periods of nothign in between. And quite frequently I never get back to the projects I start. It sucks, and I apologize. I will do my best to at least get the ball rolling again. (I confess that one of the reasons I stopped was the rather silly excuse that I can't find my damn Oxford Classical Dictionary, which has a lot of relevant loci classici to crib).
  2. I get the distinct feeling that your LGBT Leader thought this article was written by one person. I have done my best not to grind any axes, except to get both sides of the argument represented, and to quote as much Latin as possible (again, the fact that I stopped before I was done has rather fowled that up). As for his comment on "western society"... well, as I said above, I need to change the organization a little, and that will somewhat diminish that problem. There is however a systematic bias: given that wikipedia is especially historically oriented compared to other wikis, we will end up with a lot more coverage of all that medieval bullshit. Sorry. But hopefully we can counter it with some good Classical stuff.
  3. I am very sorry that you feel the article needs to be scrapped. I have been doing my best. The reason I havent' simply cribbed the English article is that IT'S REALLY LONG. Most of what I wrote paraphrased the initial sections though. I woudl advise against scrapping this unless we all want to work together on translating the English, because it seems like an awful lot of work for any one of us.
  4. God dammit, not the opening sentence again. I for the life of me can't see what's wrong with it. It does not, in substance, say anythign other than what your LGBT Leader said, just in more words. Clearly if two people have objected, something is up. I just wish we could put our finger on what it is. Do you have a theory? I did invite two friends, who are openly gay, and brilliant Latinists to peruse the article (and disputatio). Only one has responded so far, saying:
Thanks for alerting me to both the article and the discussion. I found the one satisfactory--or at least, not unduly offensive to my ears and eyes, and the other interesting and sometimes hard to follow, since I'm not an experienced Wikipedia-disputatio reader.
His only suggestions beyond that were grammatical in nature. --Iustinus 04:35, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Well anyway, I did want to ask you what you think of the new "Positio Ecclesiae Catholicae Romanae per Medium Aevum" section. I am trying to go with what you suggested (the developements of the beliefs throught the ages kind of thing...) and just wanted to see what you thought. Alexanderr 04:40, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Alexanderr: I haven't had time to look at it yet, and honestly working on this page wipes me out emotionally, so I'll need to take a rest before I even look. --Iustinus 04:47, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I should specify that my friend wrote that comment on August 31, and of course much has changed since then. --Iustinus 08:21, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Qui sunt hi docti?[fontem recensere]

Sub "Anthropologia," qui sunt hi docti "qui de homophylophilia disserent"? (Etiam: disserent est in tempore futuro. Melior disserunt?) IacobusAmor 01:33, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Secundum versionem Anglicam:
Numerous researchers studying the social construction of same-sex relationships have suggested that the concept of homosexuality would best be rendered as "homosexualities." They document that same-sex relations have been and continue to be organised in distinctly categorical ways by different societies in different eras. These variations are grouped by cultural anthropologist Stephen O. Murray into three separate modes of association:
Num modo mihi subnutas necesse esse nomen Stephani O Murray addere? Siquis rogat "qui sunt hi docti", saepisime dubitant: dubitas tu, an modo vis me ut fontes citem citare? --Iustinus 04:42, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Oh wait... is this what your GLBT Leader was complaining about when he mentioned the "introduction"? That would make some more sense. But since I got it directly from en: it's pretty assured to be fair already. And the tripartite division seemed highly relevant to the ancient world, so I made sure to include it. --Iustinus 05:31, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Work in progress[fontem recensere]

We should clarify, if it is really necessary that an article is consistent or balanced from the first edit on. If someone reads this discussion, he might have this impression. I think we should allow articles to be imperfect. Of course we have many of them and nobody cares. So, for articles which have a good chance to be disputed, we should have a template which tells the user what defects the article has and that we are aware of them. We have some templates, but we should have more. We have

We should have

  • "This article does not have a NPOV."
  • "This article is not well-balanced. It lacks that information: ..."
  • "This article is disputed."
  • "This article needs sources."
  • etc.

We should be more flexible in creating new templates when there seems to be a need. And we should have some "positive" templates like

  • "This article is informative, well-balanced, it's Latin is correct, overall it is ok."
  • "This article is better than just ok."
  • "This article is really good."
  • "This article is suited for being used in teaching Latin."
  • etc.

--Roland (disp.) 18:29, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

"Hadrianus Augustus et Antinous"[fontem recensere]

WTF? This image looks merely like porn, albeit artsy and with a classical-themed title to give it the 19th-century equivalent of "redeeming social value." Also, why is a picture of a rape still Vicipaedia's prime picture of homosexuality? That's way off the mark! IacobusAmor 16:35, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

1) The picture is commons.
2) It is about the historical era we often deal with, and provides some information on that time.
3) Rape? Can't see that.
( 4) It's now removed by another user.) --Alex1011 18:40, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Re "It is about the historical era we often deal with, and provides some information on that time."—It provides good material about imagination in the 19th century, but it tells us nothing necessarily truthful about Hadrian & Antinous. We don't know what, exactly, they liked to do, and who to whom, so to speak. It could be totally misrepresenting their erotic interests & behavior. Or do our sources give the precise details? IacobusAmor 19:15, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Re "Rape? Can't see that."—Not sure I do either, but the caption says unequivocally: "Hyacinthus, Apollinis amasium invidus rapit Zephyrus." IacobusAmor 19:15, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
( 1) This "Hyacinthus, Apollinis amasium invidus rapit Zephyrus." is the caption of the ancient Greek picture Alexander has used to replace the one of the 19th century.) 2) Info about the 19th century, how in those days, by some people, antiquity was seen or used, is also info - perhaps needing more explanation. --Alex1011 19:56, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I wrote that caption, and I should have said Hyacinthum. --Iustinus 20:01, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Am I the Alexander you meant? I'm confused because I don't remember replacing any images, only adding our new hide template (which I guess isn't all bad...) Alexanderr 23:26, 28 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Template[fontem recensere]

Roland, it's fine that you want to discuss this, and I will discuss this, but why should I be reverted straight off? Can we not discuss just as well with the image hidden? What if I reverted your edit before asking you to discuss? I could reason that there are already enough images for instance. Anyway, I actually do feel that this image should be removed because we already have two images of homosexual acts, the rape one, and the other one a ways down that Alex added. There isn't much need for more, IMHO. Also I don't see what information it conveys that the others don't. So I think it should be remove entirely. Alexanderr 07:17, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Alexander, again: Before we start to talk, I ask you to put in the image again. --Rolandus 07:42, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
But wouldn't that be showing a bias towards your version? You didn't consult anyone before adding the image, nor discuss it on the talk page, so why should it be the default version? Alexanderr 07:47, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

A problem with this image, and with all "nonexplicit" images, is that it doesn't illustrate the subject: for all we know, these could be straight boys embracing. (They're presumably models, hired for a photo shoot, and we don't know what they really intend.) A hug is not necessarily an expression of erotic desire. Or is it? IacobusAmor 13:49, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

When they're in a shower, and naked, I think its a bit more than a "hug". Alexanderr 15:48, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Alexander, again: We cannot discuss something which you have deleted. Or was that your intention? Please restore the image. --Rolandus 18:19, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Was that your intention? --Rolandus 23:46, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
No answer? --Rolandus 11:03, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
I too find it rather difficult to discuss an image that is not currently in the page and visible. --UV 20:11, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

res peccoris[fontem recensere]

Care 129.125.106.173, quid significat haec vox, peccoris? IacobusAmor 15:08, 30 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Recensionem reverti. --UV 21:01, 30 Maii 2008 (UTC)

De fonte nominis[fontem recensere]

Vocabulum "Homophylophilia" nusquam credo attestari, nisi in vicipaedia. Vocabulum "homophylophilus" autem, in mythohistoria Stephani Berard nuncupata "Capti" legitur. Jeanthorlon (disputatio) 19:16, 17 Iunii 2019 (UTC)