Talk:Quaker views of homosexuality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), an attempt to better organise and unify articles relating to the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of mid-importance within Quakerism. |
This article earlier mentioned that FUM and EFI had taken official stances condemning homosexuality. I was unable to find any reference for an official condemnation in any FUM document available on their website. Unfortunately, the wikipedia article, which seems to be the source of the statement that FUM and EFI had offically condemned homosexuality, has been copied by so many other sites that it is hard to dig up anything of fact via google.
I've done my best to describe the FUM view on this (not at all a unified one), but this article could use a good amount of editing and expansion by people more familiar with the debates in those meetings.
Contents |
[edit] North America and FUM
FUM has condemned gays and lesbians being in leadership roles. They have done this in several minutes, including one in 1988. Most recently, FUM has experienced some division from the three original FUM-FGC yearly meetings; most notably this is the case with Baltimore Yearly Meeting. In 2002, BYM's then presiding clerk was excluded from leading a worship sharing group because he is in a committed relationship with another man. This resulted in deep hurt for Baltimore Yearly Meeting, resulting in BYM bringing forth a minute expressing this hurt and concern. FUM responded stating that its minute in 1988 states that gays and lesbians in active relationships are to be excluded from leadership positions. From that point, Baltimore Yearly Meeting has been trying to continue a relationship with FUM while staying true to its position of equality for people regardless of sexual orientation. At this time, BYM is developing an intervistation program. Artsygeek 09:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hey Artsygeek -- can you provide links to online versions of these minutes and any news coverage of these issues? We would need them before we can put any of this info in the article. Thanks! Sdedeo (tips) 10:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- No Problemo....here's an epistle BYM sent out concerning the issue [1], Here's the minutes of the 2002 Annual Session, (see page 12), wherein BYM begins wrestling with this issue: [2]. See Minute Y2003-32 on this page for a note about a minute from FUM in the works: [3]. See Minute I2003-35 on this page for said minute from FUM: [4]. BYM Friends Meetings began sending minutes to BYM around the time of Interim Meeting sessions in 2004: [5]. Several issues come up in the Summer Interim Meeting in 2004: [6] and at Annual Session 2004: [7] (Y2004-28). At fall sessions, 2004, Friends began considering how to fund FUM without funding its discrimination: [8] (I2004-35), there are reference to an Intervisitation program in Spring of 2005 (I2005-3) as well as the four-committee-committee convened to deal with budgetary issues related to this issue (I2005-7) [9]. At summer 2005 IM, [10] I2005-50, discusses other meetings' responses [11]. I'll dredge up more of the stuff as I find it. (I may have to scan in (or, more likely just copy by hand) minutes from other Yearly Meetings on the issue if I can't find them on the net) Artsygeek 17:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Several Yearly Meetings and one Monthly Meeting have expressed concern on this issue. Saint Petersburg Monthly Meeting: [12], Southeastern Yearly Meeting expressing concern in their annual epistle: [13], Canadian Yearly Meeting wrote a minute to FUM: [14], New England Yearly Meeting wrote up a "Minute of Exercise" on the issue and reiterated it in 2005, followed by a revision: [15](05-37, 05-47, 05-49, 05-60). Hope that helps Artsygeek 22:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- No Problemo....here's an epistle BYM sent out concerning the issue [1], Here's the minutes of the 2002 Annual Session, (see page 12), wherein BYM begins wrestling with this issue: [2]. See Minute Y2003-32 on this page for a note about a minute from FUM in the works: [3]. See Minute I2003-35 on this page for said minute from FUM: [4]. BYM Friends Meetings began sending minutes to BYM around the time of Interim Meeting sessions in 2004: [5]. Several issues come up in the Summer Interim Meeting in 2004: [6] and at Annual Session 2004: [7] (Y2004-28). At fall sessions, 2004, Friends began considering how to fund FUM without funding its discrimination: [8] (I2004-35), there are reference to an Intervisitation program in Spring of 2005 (I2005-3) as well as the four-committee-committee convened to deal with budgetary issues related to this issue (I2005-7) [9]. At summer 2005 IM, [10] I2005-50, discusses other meetings' responses [11]. I'll dredge up more of the stuff as I find it. (I may have to scan in (or, more likely just copy by hand) minutes from other Yearly Meetings on the issue if I can't find them on the net) Artsygeek 17:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey Artsygeek -- great. I'm actually kind of busy for the next couple of days. I encourage you to go ahead and add this stuff in yourself; if you don't have time, I'll probably get around to it later. Thanks! Sdedeo (tips) 01:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC) -Okay, I'll start working on it tomorrow if I can get access to the net (I have no access whatsoever at home). I suppose it'll be an exercise in objectivity; I'm actively involved in the issue and have very strong feelings. Artsygeek 03:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Good luck! If it helps, take a look over things like WP:NPOV, and do your best to stay very close to just reporting what others have said (e.g., any value judgements should be attributed to an outside source.) Also, do your best to not let the discussion run on too long; try to find external sources that provide a fuller discussion and summarize them briefly -- the article has to cover the entire world! Anyway, I'm sure you'll do an excellent job. Sdedeo (tips) 03:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
-I started work on it tonight with a brief statement of facts. I also plan on setting up a page on BYM. In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I'm co-clerk of the Religious Ed committee at BYM and a member of the Ad Hoc Committee for Gender and Sexual Diversity Concerns at BYM, and have taken public positions on the FUM-BYM issue. Artsygeek 06:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
-I'm not comfortable doing this for reasons of avoiding writing POV, but there probably should be something next to the bit about FGC that links to [16], which is the minute that FGC's Central Committee wrote in 2004; it's a pretty unambiguous statement.
In the interest of the testimony on truth I've changed ""with the majority (mostly Friends affiliated with programmed meetings) not approving" to "some..." I have no evidence before me to indicate a "majority" view one way or the other, nor is that how Friends decide things. --K6ncx 06:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] more on NA and FUM
I have taken out the section specific about the history of the BYM, FUM discussions. I am of the opinion that it is too specific an event for this article. It is also not yet resolved, we don't need a running commentary on the very deliberate progress of Quaker process. Guardian 4 March, 2006
- In general, be careful of deleting a paragraph wholesale; I have no problem with reducing its length or altering its content, but we should respect other's contributions and try to work with them unless they are totally useless -- not the case here I think. Sdedeo (tips) 19:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agreed. To simply delete a paragraph wholesale because it is involved in ongoing discussion would nullify much of Wikipedia's content. To say that "we don't need a running commentary on the very deliberate progress of Quaker process" as applied to this situation, or really any other is faulty on two points: one, the actions taken by BYM are not "progressing", they've been initiated and decided and thus need to be spoken of; two, this would prevent much of the content that was spoken in Quaker history about abolition, women's rights, and many anti-war action from being spoken. Further, the issue of being "too specific" cannot be arbitrarily decided by one individual.
[edit] Africa, Latin America, Asia
Missing any info at all. My feeling is that Latin American and African meetings, being of the programmed sort and mostly under the care of FUM and EFI share the views of those two meetings. But it would be very interesting to get some real information on this!
- I have visited with Friends in Africa and Latin America and can confirm that almost all who are part of ("under the care of" is incorrect terminology in this case) FUM and EFI believe that homosexuality is a sin. However, there are small and scattered unprogrammed meetings that tend towards the beliefs of European and liberal North American Friends. I will look for some references and post this, if you like. --Shadowfax37 23:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do your best to improve and source this stuff, we have nothing on it yet. And definitely correct terminology where it's wrong! Sdedeo (tips) 23:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copyvio
please refer to this users talk page for details. - R Lee E 
(talk, contribs) 21:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- sigh, i need to learn the viable syntax for the edit summary. Heh, sorry. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 21:30, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] liberal vs. conservative
I found the language in the intro section to be confusing. It sounds like liberal = unprogrammed and conservative = programmed, which is not necessarilly true. And it sounds like liberal unprogrammed meetings are somehow "liberal" within the context of Quakerism, while programmed meetings are "conservative" within that context. But the programmed meetings are not conservative within that context, since they represent a departure from tradition and long-standing Quaker values of how a meeting should be. Those meetings which continue to be unprogrammed ("just like my momma and my grandpappy and my great-grandpappy before him") are actually "conservative" within the context of Quaker Sunday morning behavior. I think it will be good to make the point clearer that liberal/conservative are meant within a political context. So I am going to edit. Read it, somebody, please, and make sure it makes sense. Sean Lotz talk 17:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
