90
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 175:
Line 175: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 04:28, October 14, 2007
, 04:28, October 14, 2007→Homosexuality
Whether or not there is validity to the notions that homosexuals are defined by [[sexual identity]], or [[sexual orientation]] or [[sexual preference]], the fact remains that homosexual ''behavior'' is sinful. When the temptation comes, you must dispel it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:07, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Whether or not there is validity to the notions that homosexuals are defined by [[sexual identity]], or [[sexual orientation]] or [[sexual preference]], the fact remains that homosexual ''behavior'' is sinful. When the temptation comes, you must dispel it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:07, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
:Now that you've beaten a straw man, soaked it in gasoline, and burnt it on top of the highest hill in your general vicinity...
:The MSM article was just an example, it was not my core argument. If you would like to argue against me, I suggest you instead argue against these three sentences:
:#Wikipedia uses the Gay and Queer articles in a proper manner by giving an in-depth explanation of use of the words, both original and modern.
:#Decent coverage of the subjects related to homosexuality could not comfortably fit into a single article.
:#Some terms, such as '''L'''esbian '''G'''ay '''B'''isexual '''T'''ransgendered, are separate concepts and therefore require separate articles. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 00:28, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
==No Entry for liberal==
==No Entry for liberal==