Talk:Homosexuality and Wicca
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
This article sounds like it's written on the subject of Wiccan views of homosexuality. Perhaps a more neutral wording would help. // Liftarn 13:49 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)
The following has been merged from Talk:Neopaganism and homosexuality:
- Many Dianic Wiccans are lesbians, extending their religious beliefs into everyday life.
I removed this because it is silly. 1) It is not noteworthy that someone would extend their religious beliefs into everyday life; 2) somehow, I doubt that these women are lesbians purely as a result of their religious convictions. - Montréalais
- It's not completely impossible: monks have sworn chastity based on religious convictions, so it's not unheard of for sexual behaviour/orientation to be strongly influenced by religion. At the lighter end of the scale, a bisexual Dianic Wiccan might swear off men based on her religion, in the same way that a bisexual Catholic female might swear off women based on her religion. However this is all idle (if fun) speculation... -Martin
A principle is an idea; a principal is the chief person. Is it the principle of masculinity that's being removed, or is it the principal male being who gets left out? --Uncle Ed
- I'm guessing, but I think it's the male principal - the Wiccan God. Other Wiccans believe in and worship both a God and a Goddess, so the Dianic Wiccans differ in this respect. That's what the original writer put anyway, so assuming sie knows what sie's talking about... -Martin
-
- Ah, well since I believe in a God who is a "harmonized being of masculine and feminine characteristics" I had to ask. --Uncle Ed
-
-
- I am a Wiccan and have always seen it as the male and female principle [sic]. - Montréalais
-
Contents |
[edit] I don't understand
I don't understand this sentence: "There are probably around the same or greater percentage of homosexuals practicing traditional Wicca, as the percentage of homosexuals in the population at large." Can someone clear it up? Exploding Boy 04:08, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)
I think that means that the percentage of gays to gay wiccans is the same or more as the percentage of gays in the total population. It could be written a bit more clearly. Anyone?
[edit] What about non-Wiccans?
This entire article seems to be working under the impression that Wicca and Neopaganism are the same thing, which they are not (Wicca is part of Neopaganism, but Neopaganism is not Wicca. Like all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.) I mean, even a touch something with Ásatrú views would be SOMETHING. (The splits there, man...Folkish and non-Folkish and everything) Or the recons, or the Druids or...
...Yeah, I should probably do it. I'm lazy. But it's something to think about. - El Juno
no, it should just be moved to another title. There is no "Neopagan view" of homosexuality. Syncretist groups are generally friendly, traditionalist groups generally hostile towards homosexuality. No need to treat unrelated viewpoints in the same article. Unsourced as it is, I don't see any encyclopedicity in this article in particular. We could as well have Neopaganism and alcohol, Neopaganism and sports or Neopaganism and bestiality. dab (ᛏ) 21:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Brotherhood of the Phoenix
This section of the article seems to HAVE BEEN direct copy from here but was slightly reworded. This needs to be fixed a lot more.--Vidkun 14:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, but it's a good start
[edit] Quotes
This section is significantly unbalanced, and borders on being an anti-gay rant. All the quotes are from a single secondary source wherein they are taken completely out of context. Furthermore, it's not actually possible to verify the original context. Look at this attribution from the last item:
- "- quoted from a wiccan magazine, exact source unknown.".
There is no way that can be considered reliable and verifiable. Finally, this section gets a "score" of (6/0/0), meaning it has 6 negative quotes, zero positive quotes, and zero neutral. It seems the entire section should be either radically rewritten for verifiabilty and balance, or removed entirely. Doc Tropics 17:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I put it in. I think it needs to be "radically rewritten". Don't delete it, modify it. FK0071a 18:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion
This article is basically an essay and does not cite sources. On these grounds it qualifies for deletion. Should we delete the article, or source it and improve it? Either way, the original research in this article would have to be removed.Lotusduck 04:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You source it and improve it. We would need articles that deal primarily on the subject. If you found a few, then the article would be as stub and be merged into the wicca page. I have found Queer articles that casually mention wicca and Wicca articles that casually mention gays, but nothing I could build even a part of an article from without being crazily interpretive in my reading.Lotusduck 04:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- As always happens, my Queer Pagan books are all 1,000 miles away from me at the moment <sheepish grin>! But I'll see what I can find. ISBN 0304704237 is a good one - I'm sure I can find more sources. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
