SkipCaptcha
3,261
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: +
Reply
::::No. Let's discuss it here. It is common sense that young impressionable minds should not have their heads filled with filth like human sexuality, despite what the [[lamestream media]], [[Wikipedia]], or the [[public school]] system and their [[Common Core]] balderdash may think. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:43, 6 June 2014 (EDT)
::::No. Let's discuss it here. It is common sense that young impressionable minds should not have their heads filled with filth like human sexuality, despite what the [[lamestream media]], [[Wikipedia]], or the [[public school]] system and their [[Common Core]] balderdash may think. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:43, 6 June 2014 (EDT)
:::::*I understand your point, but I thought if [[Homosexuality]], [[Bisexuality]], [[Bestiality]] and [[Pedophilia]] have articles, Object sexuality should also have one.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 16:38, 6 June 2014 (EDT)
:::::*I understand your point, but I thought if [[Homosexuality]], [[Bisexuality]], [[Bestiality]] and [[Pedophilia]] have articles, Object sexuality should also have one.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 16:38, 6 June 2014 (EDT)
::::::When looking at this, there is no educational value for children and adolescents in learning about any of these topics. Them learning about sexuality is like them learning about advanced particle physics: it is absolutely impractical below the collegiate level and Conservapedia does not seek a collegiate audience but a secondary school audience. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 17:38, 15 June 2014 (EDT)