61
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 24:
Line 24: − − == Offensive? == − − Is there anything offensive in here at all? It's simply an article on sexually transmitted diseases. What's to be expected, someone to look in on this article and go "Oh gracious! This is too offensive for my over-protected eyes"?- [[User:Blozrav|Blozrav]] − − : Actually I was arguing for more of the same. Noting that condom and intercourse are protected. It leaves a hole in conservapedia. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 03:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT) − − :: note that I didn't add the offensive line...sorry I thought your comment was to me. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 03:30, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Talk:Sexually Transmitted Disease (view source)
Revision as of 03:59, July 1, 2008
, 03:59, July 1, 2008Ridding a contribution to this page I once made that I am taking back.
Intercourse is protected from being created as is condom. I understand this is a family site but if we're going to describe abstinence we'll have to describe "from what" and the ineffectiveness of condoms then we'll need to describe what they are. Lastly, information useful for marital procreation is morally acceptable. Surely a clinical explanation can be engaged in without being indecent. What do ya'll think can we have tasteful reproduction articles on some of these? [[User:Richard|Richard]] 03:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Intercourse is protected from being created as is condom. I understand this is a family site but if we're going to describe abstinence we'll have to describe "from what" and the ineffectiveness of condoms then we'll need to describe what they are. Lastly, information useful for marital procreation is morally acceptable. Surely a clinical explanation can be engaged in without being indecent. What do ya'll think can we have tasteful reproduction articles on some of these? [[User:Richard|Richard]] 03:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)