Conservapedia:AFD Premarital sex
From Conservapedia
Premarital sex
Page shows clear bias and obscene amount of negative criticism regarding very personal matters. - davwav02
Also, it does not exactly seem family friendly, does it? - Splark
Delete- I agree. ColinR 21:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Delete Generally I'd say leave it and flesh it out giving it a well-rounded discussion. But seeing as there isn't a sex article having one on premarital sex seems silly.Crackertalk 21:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Save Premarital sex is a sin, and people must be warned about it. Not having such an article is ignoring something that occurs in this world.
Save It needs to be reworked though. A family-friendly slant would be needed for it though, sort of like the sex page. Or perhaps just include it in the theoretical future sex page, which would make a lot more sense thinking about it.--Ronnyreg 22:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Delete- What sort of encyclopedia has an entry on premarital sex? In any case, the only relevant part of the definition is the first sentence. The rest shows a confusion between defining a thing and approving or disapproving of it. --Horace 22:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- The Catholic Encyclopedia talks about it a fair bit. --Mtur 22:37, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- To teach that all Christians, Jews and Moslems have always regarded it as sinful is appropriate, and we can start building pages on human sexuality here. The various ways in which Ezekiel has been interpreted belongs on a more specialized page. Let us simply delete that part for now. DDG 23:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- Aschlafly has already said "no" to these types of articles, and I will be deleting it soon, unless someone can go persuade him quickly. --Hojimachongtalk 23:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Save It's kind of funny that homosexuality has an entry but discussions of other sexual topics are forbidden here. Talk about a Freudian irony! --MoeLarryAndJesus 19:43, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- So, even though at the top it says "kept" it has been deleted? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Comment
Looks like a delete and protect of some sort. --Ed Poor 21:43, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
