From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

empty sections

What's the point of all the empty section headings? I'm not sure whether to ask why they are there, or why they are not complete (e.g. there are not sections for "heterosexuality and the common cold" or "Heterosexuality and inanimate objects"). --Scott 04:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Bit weird isn't it? Is it a spoof?--British_cons (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I think the intention is to end up with an article as informative and well balanced as the one on homosexuality.
JC did say "Content needs to be added. Its kinda science stuff I can't do it.". Unfortunately I don't know any better either.
One can only assume content will be forthcoming.
"Be strong and of good courage, and do it: fear not, nor be dismayed: for the LORD God, even my God, will be with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee, until thou hast finished all the work for the service of the house of the LORD." (1 Chronicles 28:20)
BillyBoy 06:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)


Why were my good faith edits reverted without discussing them first? AppliedFaith 16:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

You're not going to convince me it was good faith. The Bible does NOT say that sex within marriage is bad. 1 Corinthians 7:5 MountainDew 16:15, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Not sinful, no, but it does say it's better to remain single and celibate, and that marriage is only for people who would otherwise be tempted to commit fornication (1 Corinthias 7:8-9). AppliedFaith 16:26, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
If celibacy is the prefered thing, wouldn't we pretty quickly go extinct? Don't you think god would like us to keep on having babies?! Silverfish 16:38, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't pretend to know the mind of God. But I do know that Jesus was unmarried and celibate, and that Christians are called upon to be as like Jesus as they can. It's always worth striving for perfection, even though we know we will never achieve it. There will always be enough people who cannot resist temptation and therefore get married, so there's no risk of humans becoming extinct. But that doesn't mean that Christians who are unmarried (especially Christian children and teenagers who we are hoping will be the target audience of this site) should be looking forward to marriage. Rather, they should learn that celibacy is the ideal that they should strive for, and only if they can't resist sexual temptation should they consider marriage as a last resort. AppliedFaith 16:49, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Saying why did you do that to me is not much of a rationale for your actions or intentions. The burden of proof here is the same as at Wikipedia, and you have to leave the article alone unless you can prove to your peers that your change is worthwhile. Changing it back merely because they haven't convinced you that you are wrong just heads us toward an edit war.

To use your own logic, I could simply edit your name out of the list of approved contributurs simply because you can't convince me to keep you around. --Ed Poor 16:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


The definition of heterosexuality has been changed from "sexual attraction" to "sexual activity." Some interesting results emerge from this new concept:

  1. I am evidently not a heterosexual. Not tonight, anyway.
  2. In fact, anyone not actively engaged in sexual activity seems to lose heterosexuality as a trait.
  3. One may change from heterosexual to homosexual to bisexual to asexual, being whichever -sexual one prefers on any given night.
  4. No virgin may claim to have ever been a heterosexual, since the quality is dependent upon the activity. Heterosexuality springs into existence upon the initiation of sexual activity.

Needless to say, I find this particular definition wanting.--All Fish Welcome 00:49, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

The article doesn't actually define "heterosexual". You may find those results interesting, but other definitions have more confusing results. RSchlafly 01:20, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
"sexual activity" could include kissing etc, but probably doesn't include sitting on the other side of the classroom watching the girl of his dreams/boy of her dreams. I'm on the "orientation" side of the orientation/activity fence. --Scott 10:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Don't be lured into this debate. It's a typical tactic of homosexuality advocates to quibble about such definitions. What they want to imply is that it's okay to "be homosexual" even in terms of Christian values as long as they don't violate church rules on behavior.
Jesus covered that with his "look of lust" rule in Matthew 5:27-28 which says:
  • 27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
  • 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
When I have time, I'll explain more about why homosexuality is a sin - both as a desire (sinful desire and as an act (sinful act). --Ed Poor Talk 13:37, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
We need to distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual activity. A heterosexual person is a person who is attracted to a member of the other gender *regardless* of whether that person has ever actually had sex. A heterosexual virgin is *still* heterosexual. The same is true in reverse. A homosexual person is homosexual even if that person never in his entire life has sex with a member of the same gender. If a homosexual has sex with a person of the opposite sex, or vice versa he is *still* a homosexual, he has simply engaged in heterosexual activity.--Porthos 13:44, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Heterosexuality is not "the" natural sexual attration - it is a natural sexual orientation

I changed that. I'd change your crap article on homosexuality but you locked it so nobody could put real neutral facts in there. GayMan 17:12, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Huh? What's a neutral fact, when it comes to religious values? --Ed Poor Talk 13:31, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Skewed Statistics and Biased Views

Ummm...I'm just wondering why there are no statistics about STD's and mental disorders listed under this topic. It seems like all the negatives that are associated with homosexuals were posted on the Homosexual article, but I don't see anything saying that heterosexuals have mental disorders and sexually transmitted diseases and the statistics showing their promiscuity. I mean...I understand that this is CONSERVApedia....but I don't think many article writers take into account the non-Christian, non-white, non-heterosexual community that consider themselves "conservative."

Meaning of Heterosexuality

The first sentence describes heterosexuality as the means by which humans and animals reproduce. That's not technically true. Heterosexual sex is the means by which reproduction occurs. Being heterosexual but not having sex will not produce offspring.--Porthos 11:02, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

In response to Learn together over the defenition of the term

LT asked "You believe it's inaccurate to say that people reproduce through heterosexuality?"

You seem to be confusing the term 'Heterosexuality' with the term 'sexual reproduction'- human beings reproduce via the latter. 'Heterosexuality' refers to an attraction to members of the opposite gender and has little to do with reproducton at all. --Falcifer 18:13, 16 January 2008 (EST)

  • Some lower forms of life such as worms have both sex organs and can reproduce apart from having a partner.

We only need terms like heterosexuality when discussing aberrations like homosexuality. When it comes to animals, there's only one way of reproducing, so the term never comes up; it's just called sexual reproduction.

Biblical teachings

LT, you removed some quotes which were obviously being used against Conservative morality, but can we not find a way to place these quotes in their proper context?

At Wikipedia, I once worked with some writers on Old Testament rules on marriage and so forth. --Ed Poor Talk 11:19, 30 August 2008 (EDT)


People have complained that the use of the term "sexual orientation" implies a false moral equivalency between homosexuality and bisexuality and heterosexuality. What alternative categorization is more acceptable to use in place of "sexual orientation"?