Talk:Homosexuality

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives

8 major identical twin studies demonstrate homosexuality is not genetic

Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way. http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic Conservative 05:28, 15 January 2015 (EST)

Cleaning up

There are WAY too many sections and subsections on this page, I'm going to see if I can combine the major information and remove the subsections with little content to make the Table of Contents readable. There are actually sections with two sentences or less right now. That kind of material would be better left in subpages or just referred to in the See also section; perhaps mentioned briefly in another section. I'd like to clean up the page so it is more readable though. --Joshua Zambrano 20:35, 25 January 2015 (EST)

User:Conservative I saw the page was recently protected. If you dislike the edits being made, can you tell me what exactly you disagreed with? By and large I just moved material around to trim unnecessary categories or duplicate sources, and added sections on xenoestrogens and polling.[1] My next edit by the way was going to involve moving the Ex-homosexuals section into the Personal Choice section. Just through categorizing, moving sections with little to no content into other areas, I had reduced the number of total sections from 35 to 16 and was about to reduce it to 15 so that the Table of Contents would be readable. --Joshua Zambrano 23:20, 25 January 2015 (EST)
JZambrano, I admire your zeal. At the same time, at this juncture, I have multiple demands on my time and I am unable work with you on major revisions to this article. And wouldn't be fair to the people I made promises to for me to get involved in such a project. It would cause unnecessary delays which they would not appreciate.
At a future time, perhaps we can revisit this matter. In the meantime, I suggest contacting User:Daniel1212 and perhaps you two could discuss your suggestions as far as improving article. Daniel1212 created a lot of homosexuality related content to Conservapedia. Conservative 23:53, 25 January 2015 (EST)
I notice Daniel hasn't done much editing since 2012 and none since October. Will he be online enough for that? I did leave them a message just in case. --Joshua Zambrano 00:23, 26 January 2015 (EST)
It is going to have to be enough for now. And another person who edits using the User: Conservative account has a demanding job and is now a part-time business owner too. So I know that person cannot help as well. It is a particularly busy time for that person.
Second, you wanted to give a strong emphasis to xenoestrogens in the article and place the material near the very top of the article. I don't foresee such a change happening.
Lastly, I know you want to discuss this matter further right now, but I politely decline to do so given my present commitments. Conservative 01:02, 26 January 2015 (EST)
Alright, I was just curious where the objection lay. I have no problem with moving the xenoestrogen material further down on the page. Were there any other concerns about the proposed edits? --Joshua Zambrano 23:26, 29 January 2015 (EST)

It should be illegal

I am tired of seeing fellow members of my community being converted into homosexuals. The countries of the world should just ban homosexuality and make it a crime so as to prevent younger minds with potential being indoctrinated by this evil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoaoV (talk)

A user that one of your collective have blocked user:conservative. Why block him then restore his edit after JoeyJ has removed it? Davidspencer 12:05, 1 March 2015 (EST)
Cons, I don't often agree with you, but I must give credit where credit is due. (Ooh! Another idiom article to write! I'm way behind.) You did exactly the right thing in restoring Joao's edits. You of course used the principle that talk pages are ongoing journals of a discussion, and edits are not to be removed unless they are libelous. I don't agree with Joao's comment, but I think it's within the realm of acceptable comments here. By the way, I used to have a coworker generally called John, but his real (Hispanic) given name was Joao.
While I'm heaping praise on you, you recently replied to something underneath a paragraph, by someone else, that had two of the grammatical and stylistic errors that I used to accuse you of.
And now I see that you have unblocked him. Congratulations. Joao will now have the distinction of having been unblocked by the person most hated at RW probably CP's most interesting admin, one who does not often unblock people :-) SamHB 16:37, 1 March 2015 (EST)

JoaoV's response

Thanks for unblocking me. My intention is to use this wiki for educative purposes, I don't want to cause trouble. Concerning homosexuality, I am glad that you are trying to undo it and these articles are very informative. I beg you to forive me though for having a more cynical view of it however as my experiences with homosexuality in my neighbour have been purely negative. See, here is my problem: I have seen good, upstanding neighbours that were previously heterosexual (I do not believe that "I was in denial" myth) and had girlfriends and went to church being converted. We all got along well and even though in my neigbourhood there were differences among various denominations, we never criticized each other. We were all Christian after all. Then one day a number of college-age deviants start going door to door and asking us to answer to bizarre questionaries (at one point I heard one of them ask (and I joke you not) "What's your wildest sex fantasy?". You notice that I previously used the word "converted". Well, you see, most of us either tried to tell them about The Lord when the weird questions started and a few of us didn't bother to answer, but a young male member of our community not only answered them earnestly but actually invited them inside. After that day, everything went downhill in our community as apparently the deviants were there to "inform" our neighbourhood and others about various laws concerning homosexuality and other deviations and how the law protected such degeneracy. It began with the male neighbour (whose name was Joaquim). He began to flaunt that he was "no longer going to lie" and "that he was going true to his self". He, who had been a model citizen and neighbour up to that point, had been successfully converted into the religion of the homosexuals. I do not know what tactics they used or why they did it, but I know that Joaquim was not "born that way". He openly challenged God by behaving like a sodomite and trying to coax others into joining him. As Joaquim was not just a neighbour but my friend I tried to convert him back to the true faith, but my efforts were in vain. I don't know what tactics the deviants used, but my friend had a spiritual death that day. His faith died. The one before us afterwards was just another deviant of the bunch - worse, he had become a missionary of their wicked cult. And what had once been a great neighbourhood suddenly became a den of degeneracy and corruption. A man a few streets below started to wear womens' clothing, a few more started to preach the homosexual lifestyle and a worrying number of adolescents were admitting to "trying things". Those of us who still cling to tradition tried to show them the light but they would not listen - the alure of the flesh was greater to them than the word of The Lord. That day my hope for peace died. I stopped turning the other cheek. I started shunning them and others even condemned them in public. At the very least we managed to keep them away from our homes and children. Others are doing so as well and although our neighbourhood is not the same at least it's purifying itself. The reason I want homosexuality banned is not to persecute homosexuals. It is to prevent good people, like Joaquim, from being corrupted. Every time I recall this story I feel like I have failed myself because Joaquim was a long time friend. Our group of friends had shared with him movies, church goings, sports, and videogames. He had made our lives better by being our friend. But because he couldn't resist temptation - and because he was tempted in the first place - there is now an empty seat whenever we try to make a group activity. This saddens me. What could I have done to convert him back? Is there still hope for him? Doubt started to linger in my heart. "You're not my friends. Friends don't judge their friends." Joaquim said. But he was wrong. If a friend commits a crime and you are called to judge him, God demands that we answer with the truth. We must show mercy and compassion, but we must not lie. Well, thanks for reading my story. I'm sorry to have let it out here, it's just... I wish homosexuality didn't exist. I want our group of friends to be complete as it once was. --JoaoV 23:52, 5 March 2015 (EST)

"Causes of homosexuality"

The section entitled "Causes of homosexuality" does not address its purported topic at all, but merely serves as a brief introduction to several topics to be addressed later in the article. This section (along with most of the rest of the article, IMO) is in need of a serious rewrite. IsabellW 23:19, 13 May 2015 (EDT)

God's Greatest Commandment

I would, as a God fearing conservative, like to have the sentence that refers to homosexuality being condemned more than any other act in the Holy Bible to be removed. Yes it is condemned, but I think that this view ignores God's greatest commandment: Love your neighbor as you love yourself. If that is his greatest commandment then NOT loving your neighbor as yourself would be the greatest sin. Do not mistake me here, homosexuality is a sin, but just not quite the most evil of them all. - Anonymous poster (check edit log to find username)

You make a good point--I haven't read through this entire article yet, but Jesus did say:
'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ (38) This is the first and greatest commandment. (39) And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ - Matthew 22:37-39
It seems that he's actually saying that "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" is the first and greatest, but in any case, if these are the two greatest commands, breaking them would logically be the two greatest sins. It looks like the user (and admin) Conservative wrote this. He's not as available as he used to be, but you can wait to see if he responds. If he doesn't in a few days or maybe a week, try asking Jpatt or Aschlafly on their talk pages to consider making this change. Unfortunately, this page was often attacked, so they locked it to prevent this. Therefore, we can't change it ourselves, even if they did agree. --David B (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2016 (EDT)
Anonymous Poster, I reviewed your request previously and edited out the material you wanted to be removed. Conservative (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2016 (EDT)
Thanks Cons. Also, thanks for catching my mistake with the signature...obviously, I got a bit confused there! --David B (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2016 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, saw video on Conservapedia. Keep up the good work

Mr. Schafly,

I saw the Conservapedia on the hour video.

You said about Conservapedia's homosexuality article: "On Conservapedia your going to get the other side of that. You going to get evidence against evolution. Same thing for homosexuality. We bring in all the health harm that is caused by homosexuality. All the biblical quotes against it. You get that at Conservapedia. You're not going to get that sort of fair treatment at Wikipedia."[2].

Keep up the good work Mr. Schlafly.Wisdomcriesout (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2016 (EDT)

Debunking gender

The article doesn't go into explaining the gender theory fraud (probably because most editors are American and raised brainwashed into it unknowingly).

Here are some documented facts (which weirdly enough you can also find on wikipedia). Whereas "sex" (male/female) is an incontrovertibly proven biological truth, "Gender" is a political construct coined by John Money, a pedophile far-left feminist in 1955, made mainstream by 60-70s feminists. John Money also used the theory to justify pedophilia, his quote:

"If I were to see the case of a boy aged ten or eleven who's intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual ... then I would not call it pathological in any way."

The primary goal of "gender" was to normalize homosexuality and transexualism as natural choices, and is now being purposely used as a replacement for "sex". Even the Wikipedia article outlines this fact:

"The popular use of gender simply as an alternative to sex is also widespread In the last two decades of the 20th century, the use of gender in academia has increased greatly, outnumbering uses of sex in the social sciences."

There is even a sentence explaining how usage of "gender" in place of "sex" is used to virtue-signal subservience to feminists:

"Among the reasons that working scientists have given me for choosing gender rather than sex in biological contexts are desires to signal sympathy with feminist goals"

Ultimately, gender theory is the "academic validation" of the far-left's theory that being a man/woman/homosexual is just an identity to play with, if you don't debunk gender you can't even start to debate homosexuality or transexualism.

Much like communists used "economic equality" as a weasel word to undermine the idea of private property, "gender" is used by feminists to sleazily erase biological sex.

This is why when conservatives try to debate lefties on this issue saying things like "there are only two genders" they get rolled, because you're unknowingly playing with their cards.

If you want an easily-shareable recap for your friends here's a pic: http://i.imgur.com/gtPLU7a.jpg

Article on Sodomy?

To me "homosexuality" is kind of an ambiguous term and might include persons who merely prefer the company of the same sex, like boys who prefer to play with boys at some stage of their life (nothing sexual). The Apostle Paul seems not to have been attracted to women (or anyone else) sexually because he had the gift of celibacy (no itch, 1 Cor 7). Biblically the sin is men-lying-with-men and women-lying-with-women, not even the temptation is a sin, though lust is also a sin. So I am thinking that an article needs to be written on sodomy, persons practicing sexual activities characteristic of the city Sodom, which was destroyed, though I realize that sodomy in modern English may mean other things as well.

The language used in a controversy is important; I think that liberals typically try to win arguments by controlling the terms of the debate, typically coming up with "talking points" like "love" in this case, or "non-discrimination." If we speak about fornication, that is quite different in connotation from being sexually active (who wants to be an inactive bore, not involved in life?) If we debate the ills of insertion of the membrum virile into the posterior orifice, that is quite different from debating "gay" (happy & carefree) vs homophobia (a phobia being an irrational fear).

So what do you think? Should there be an article on Sodomy, focusing on the actual acts done with their physiological and spiritual consequences?

Please create these articles on Sodomy and Sodomy law. In addition, you can create articles related to sodomy laws for various regions such as for various countries, Africa, etc. Conservative (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2016 (EDT)