From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Not a family friendly article

I'm as against homosexuality as the next conservative, but really, a lot of this article is disgusting, let alone family friendly, particularly all the language about @n@l $ex. Do we want our children to read this?--Conservateur 12:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Why do you assume that conservatives must be against homosexuality? I happen to be a non-hetero Republican.--M 10:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Frankly, I don't think user:Conservateur is very family-friendly with his bigoted attitude. See, I'm as accepting of homosexuality as the next reasonable man...-AmesGyo! 20:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Bible Quote

Funny thing about the passage in Corinthians, the passage after it says you should have disobedient children stoned to death. If God's word is law, what happened to this eh? Opacic 09:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

the third commandment

"Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think "Anal Sex and Disease" is the name of the next Disney movie.

Misquoting the Bible

The verse 1 Corinthians 6:9 reads: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind", not what the article says: "Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality". If you quote the Bible, quote it correctly.

It is helpful to keep in mind that different versions of the Bible produce different wording of verses. The above excerpt doesn't prove blatant misquoting on any persons part, simply that a different version had been consulted.--Fpresjh 21:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

There are not different versions of the bible, only different translations. The translation chosen for this article seems to have chosen a very narrow interpretation of the original text. There was no word which consistently translated to "homosexuality" in ancient Greek. -zerba

The King James Bible - the true an right Bible states as follows:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
JC 10:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Surely Conservapedia must refer to an American English translation, not a British English translation? Also, many newer translations are translated from older original texts that were unknown at the time of the King James, leading to more accurate interpretations of the original author's meaning. --Scott 10:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

That is a good point. Which translation would you suggest?

"My zeal hath consumed me, because mine enemies have forgotten thy words." (Psalm 119:139)

JC 10:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

"Rare" in animals

It's not rare at all. Ask any farmer why they say cows are "bulling" when they come into estrus. Dpbsmith 18:09, 24 February 2007 (EST)

Extremely clear in the Bible?

There's a delicate balance here, and this is Conservapedia. I'm glad to see the article saying there are "comparatively few references" to homosexuality in the Bible, which I think is objective and relevant. So I don't mind seeing it balanced.

But I think Extremely clear is overstating it.

Extremely clear is "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife."

Extremely clear is "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

There's no reason at all why the Bible couldn't have said "Thou shalt not lie man with man and woman with woman," or whatever the appropriate wording would be.

The passage in Leviticus seems to say nothing about female homosexuality. And, as has been frequently been noted, "abomination" sounds strong, but it is the same word used about eating shellfish and sacrificing a blemished bullock and so forth. The passage in Romans seems clear, but it seems clear both to conservatives and liberals, each of whom thinks it is clearly saying something different. It's a very puzzling passage if you don't have a commentator beside you "explaining" it. And it's not really about homosexuality, homosexuality just sort of comes in the middle of a whole bunch of stuff which is intended to show how "they" knew God but turned away from him. It's just one more indication of their corruptness, and it builds up to a peroration which is not about homosexuality at all.

And it's all about "they." He doesn't say in so many words "homosexuality is sinful." It's implied, yes, but because of that "they" you have to reason indirectly: "He wouldn't have used homosexuality as an indicator of 'their' decadence unless he thought homosexuality were sinful. He didn't actually say it because he just took it for granted that his audience already thought homosexuality was a sin." Plausible inference? Sure. Extremely clear? No.

It's as if a person in a book said "The Manson family! They wore their hair long, they didn't wash, they did drugs, and they committed murders" and someone interpreted this to mean "The book calls long hair sinful."

Extremely clear? I don't think so.

I'd be OK with leaving the word "clear" and dropping the "extremely." Dpbsmith 18:09, 24 February 2007 (EST)

  • For the record: it was JoshuaZ, not I, who recently removed the sentence "Even so, the Bible is extremely clear in its stance on this topic."
To me the Bible is "extremely clear" on this issue (after all, I am the one who posted that). If you truly believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God (Jesus says you must believe this to be a Christian) then you have to believe that the Bible is against homosexuality. There are no two ways about it. God would never "imply" something. He says what he means and he means what he says. People who practice homosexuality "will not inherit the kingdom of heaven." If that's not enough to persuade someone than I don't know what is. PhilipB 22:00, 24 February 2007 (EST) PS. I too would be OK with putting it back up without the "extremely"

If the bible is extremely clear about homosexuality being a sin, then it is equally extremely clear about eating shellfish being sinful. Why don't modern conservative Christians pay more attention to the horrible abomination of shellfish eating that goes on every day in this country?--Zerba 15:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No, the Bible is clear that there is some form of homosexual behavior that is in general unacceptable. In particular, the verse referring to inherting the kingdom of heaven is sometimes taken to be referring to pedophilia or similar Greek-style behavior. The OT verses are not obviously referring to non-Israelites. It is thus not "extremely clear" (I might be inclined to agree with "clear" but to claim this is extreme is just not accurate). JoshuaZ 16:28, 1 March 2007 (EST)
Well, you cannot reason with a homosexual. This is because God has given them over to their perversion and a reprobate mind, such that they cannot think clearly about anything. Don't even waste you time. For an example of what will happen to you if you support, endorse, tolerate, or engage with homosexuals, here is a great story told by God's of the eventual "reward" any person or society will receive for tolerating homosexuals -> Sodom. RightWolf2 15:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Wow. Nice job of misinterpreting the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. It has nothing to do with punishing homosexuality and everything to do with punishing inhospitality towards your fellow man.--Dave3172 15:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, I can only say that I quoted the bible and presented the homosexual "twisted, reprobate mind" view and the literal fundamental view. That lava looks awful hot in that picture. I wonder if God "loved" the homosexuals in Sodom? I guess not -- that lava looks rather unpleasant. Do you think God killed all of them for being "rude to guests" or for being homoexuals? The bible says because they were "abominable" = homosexuals. RightWolf2 15:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
RW, I will repost here what I said to someone else on this very topic:
The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom, or the people of the city, the people of Sodom. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.
Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.
But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality--Dave3172 16:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
You are flatly wrong. Please go and read the bible verses quoted at the end of the article. The homosexual inhabitants of the city tried to GANG RAPE the angels of God. No where else in all of scripture does any other group of sinners stoop to such vile lowliness to sexually assault Angels except Sodom -- very wicked indeed. RightWolf2 16:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)'re saying that Ezekiel was either mistaken or lying, then?--M 10:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Do you not think that the gang rape is more of a problem for god than whether the gang rape was gay or not? I think that the fact that the Sodomites wanted to rape visitors would be enough on its own to merit God's wrath. Who they wanted to rape os pretty irrelevant. Rape on its own is enough of an abomination.
Actually Wolf, it's not that he's wrong, but rather that he's relaying the story from a different belief. The idea that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah NOT because they were dens of homosexuality, but rather evil in a more general sense, is a Jewish belief. The Jewish believe that Sodom and Gomorrah were towns rife with inhospitable people, and Lot did offer up his daughter to them to attempt to save some of his guests. Also, rather than try to gang rape the angles as you put it, they tried to destroy them.--Elamdri 16:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm no biblical scholar but I'm absolutely sure that picture is not in it. Myk 15:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, that picture was apparently inspired by God through a Christian artist capturing the "heat" of the moment. God always uses the medium of fire to describe homosexuals. The word "faggot" means a burning bundle of sticks. That is described in the Bible as "homosexuals BURN in their lusts, and KINDLE God's wrath, and will BURN in the lake of fire forever". RightWolf2 15:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Produce that Bible verse right now.--Dave3172 16:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
They are listed at the end of the article. Go read them. I will pray you are freed from your pro-homosexual views and delivered from this confusion. RightWolf2 16:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I couldn't find any bible verses at the end of the article.. You're the one quoting, perhaps you could give us the citation? Myk 16:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
That's because you did not read your bible. The verses are listed. Go and get a bible and read them. Here is a link to some of them.
  • sodomites are wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly (Gen. 13:13)
  • are violent and doom nations (Gen. 19:1-25; Jgs. 19)
  • are abominable to God (Lev. 18:22)
  • are worthy of death for their vile, depraved, unnatural sex practices (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32)
  • are called dogs because they are filthy, impudent and libidinous (Deut. 23:17,18; Mat. 7:6; Phil. 3:2)
  • produce by their very presence in society a kind of mass intoxication from their wine made from grapes of gall from the vine of Sodom and the fields of Gomorrah which poisons society's mores with the poison of dragons and the cruel venom of asps (Deut. 32:32,33)
  • declare their sin and shame on their countenance (Isa. 3:9)
  • are shameless and unable to blush (Jer. 6:15)
  • are workers of iniquity and hated by God (Psa. 5:5)

RightWolf2 16:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

In response to some of your verses:
  • sodomites are wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly (Gen. 13:13)
  • are violent and doom nations (Gen. 19:1-25; Jgs. 19)
- Sodom and Gomorrah is not a story directed at homosexuality, but inhospitality, as Ezekiel 16:49-50 makes clear. The story in Judges is a basic re-telling of the Genesis story. But, as in the first, it is directed against inhospitality, not homosexuality.
  • are abominable to God (Lev. 18:22)
- This refers to the rite of same-sex prostitution in Pagan temples. It's not directed towards homosexuality in general.
  • are worthy of death for their vile, depraved, unnatural sex practices (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32)
- Lev. 20:13 also refers to the practice of same-sex prostitution in a Pagan temple, not homosexuality in general. It was a law against practicing pagan religion. Rom. 1:32 does not mention homosexuality.
  • are called dogs because they are filthy, impudent and libidinous (Deut. 23:17,18; Mat. 7:6; Phil. 3:2)
- Deuteronomy, again, refers to the religious practices in Pagan temples. Matthew makes no mention of homosexuality. (And perhaps you should read Mat. 7:1-2 "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.") Phil. 3:2 also makes no mention of homosexuality.
  • produce by their very presence in society a kind of mass intoxication from their wine made from grapes of gall from the vine of Sodom and the fields of Gomorrah which poisons society's mores with the poison of dragons and the cruel venom of asps (Deut. 32:32,33)
- again, refer to my earlier statement on this story.
  • declare their sin and shame on their countenance (Isa. 3:9) * are shameless and unable to blush (Jer. 6:15) * are workers of iniquity and hated by God (Psa. 5:5)
And so on and so on. What you have cited are misinterpretations and non-issues. Nowhere does it condemn homosexuals for simply being homosexuals. --Dave3172 16:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Still looking for that lake of fire. I have a bible, I have read it. Thank you though. The psalms passage is clearly circular. It mentions nothing about homosexuals being workers of iniquity... and if the bible really thinks gay people can't blush, then there is one of those elusive errors in the bible. Myk 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep going like you are, and one day you will get to see it in person. :-) RightWolf2 16:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Sigh, Wolf, could you NOT threaten people?--Elamdri 16:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
He's not threatening me with violence, he's alleging that my eternal soul will be burned in a lake of fire. Of course, this runs counter to most interpretations of hell where it is merely the absence of the presence of God. But hey... I suppose it could be a lake of fire. Myk 17:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Eliminated liberal tripe about homosexual behavior in animals with more conservative views

Here is what I replaced the former material with:

"In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay stated that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

 (Er, what exactly is a "homosexual scientist"? --Zerba 15:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT))

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[1]

In addition, Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, wrote:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[2]"

Conservative 22:42, 24 February 2007 (EST)conservative

Added section on: Homosexuality in Humans and Genetics and Environment

I added the following material: "Statistical studies give ample evidence that homosexuality is not caused by genetics, although it is influenced by environment. For example, research has shown that adoptive brothers are more likely to both be homosexuals than the biological brothers, who share half their genes. In the journal Science it is reported that, "this . . . suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families" (Science, Vol. 262, page 2063, December 24, 1993). [3][4] " Conservative 22:59, 24 February 2007 (EST)conservative Someone shrink the photo please, it is way too big, and i do not know how to resize it. --TimSvendsen 22:34, 9 March 2007 (EST)

This section is not accurate. There is evidence that genetic factors contribute to homosexuality, specifically a locus at the q28 region of the X chromosome. See, for example, Hamer et al. Genetics and male sexual orientation. Science 285: 803a-b 1999, or Mustanski et al. A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. Human Genetics 116: 272-8. 2005.--Murray 02:28, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Furthermore, scientists have produced homosexual behavior in fruit flies in gene alteration. The animal experts observing the experiment were quite sure/100% sure that the results were genuine "gay" preference, and not the result of excess sexual energy being transmitted. Results such as these downplay the belief that homosexuality is caused soley by environmental factors, though that still plays a part. Also, these studies show that, dispute claims otherwise, homosexuality is not a "choice" in many cases, though it cannot prove this for all cases. It simply adds credence to "gay's" stating that they didn't choose their sexual preference.--Fpresjh 21:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Pop culture

Should there even be an entry on gay celebrities? I thought Conservapedia was steering clear of popular culture entries in favor of true encyclopedic content.


Can I delete the section on homosexuality in animals? It seems superfluous at best, ignorant at worst, but most likely just useless.--AmesG 23:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

One part of being fair and balanced is the word balanced, showing one side of a political issue is completely stupid. It seems you would rather delete everything in the article except the biblical section. Just because something is not aligned in your views does not mean that it is stupid. If anything, we should delete the entire section about the bible.--JamesLipton 16:47, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Biblical relevance

Is this not a page about homosexuality? I think the only sentence purely about homosexuality in the article is the first sentence and the latter sections. Why are there so many references to the bible? Shouldn't that be written in a "Homosexuality in relation to Christianity" article? I suggest a removal of all biased parts of this article especially the second sentence and first section. MatteeNeutra 19:14, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Some of the article needs to be copy edited for spelling and grammatical errors. Unfortunately, I cannot do so. --ColinR 05:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh yeah, this page is locked to prevent liberal bias. Good job theres a nice chunk from the bible there to give us the facts! Any ideas when the page will be unlocked admin team? MatteeNeutra 13:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

These Old Testament verses in Leviticus are not actually about homosexuality....

  • Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.
  • Leviticus 20:13 - If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

These verses are about two men lying down on the same bed that they sleep with their wife. This is a common practice when the day of working became to stressful and they just wanted to lie down for a minute. You see, when people other than a husband and wife lie on the same bed it can get quite unhygienic. Germs can spread quite easily, especially when coming back from working all day. Also, other men may have viruses or even plagues, which can often cause bloody lesions and scarring, so this is why it says, "their blood will be on their own heads", so to stop blood getting on the beds and spreading germs. These Leviticus verses were just a matter of public health like many other bible verses, not at all about sex. (Andy1024 02:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT))

It is telling that the Bible is invoked regarding Homosexuality (for which the references are scant and tenuous) but the wealth of biblical literature on Love, the central motive of Christianity, is completely ignored.--I am the Lord 13:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Sexual orientation

Is there an explanation as to why Dean Hamer is defined here as a "gay researcher", unless it is intended to imply that his sexual preference may hinder his scientific objectivity.

That's obviously the implication, ridiculous though it may be. The person who wrote that section appears to have had difficulty understanding the research. For one thing, Hamer's results have been replicated. Also, 32 pairs of brothers who were not related? How does that make any sense?--Murray 20:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I think there should be some mention as to homosexuality in a cross-cultural perspective. There are many different cultures through out the world and through time that have no problem with gays. See the modern day Pokomo of East Africa for very strong lesbian traditions. Also see American Indian Berdaches, and ritual homosexuality among some Melanesian tribes. -Gasmonkey

Wouldn't it be better to describe them as "researchers of homosexuality"? Although more likely they work under the title of "sexologist" assuming that's the field they work in. Either way, the way they are names seems a bit misleading. Assuming they aren't actually gay. --Ronnyreg 05:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Hamer is a geneticist.--Murray 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
More importantly, is he a gay geneticist? Myk 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Why is that even remotely important?--Murray 18:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Another Locked Page

Wow, how surprising. Gosh, can't imagine who's editing it...--Dave3172 21:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Nice little admin revert war going on now. JamesK 22:00, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
John seems to be pointing out that wiping all the other cited information is wrong. Sadly, Conservative seems genetically incapable of recognizing that. --Dave3172 22:03, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

animals and homosexuality

John, how can you say that animals engage in homosexuality when you don't know the behavior is sexual. Agression is not necessarily sexual pleasure. I will be back with a quote. OK? Conservative 22:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Here is my quote:

In addition, Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, wrote:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction. Conservative 22:39, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

To interpret this as saying animal homosexual behaviors are in dispute is to suggest that homosexual behaviors exist at all--of course the reproductive instinct must be directed towards members of the opposite sex, whether in humans or animals! We still see homosexual behavior, though. What he's saying is that the animals aren't necessarily "gay." That doesn't mean they don't engage in homosexual acts. You grossly misinterpreted this statement. --John 22:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

The word homosexual means it is sexually driven behavior in at least my mind. It could be just aggression and showing the other animal who is boss. Do you see my point? Conservative 22:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Yeah. What the quote was saying is that the homosexual acts observed do not inherently mean that the animals are homosexual, i.e. that they only engage in sexual behaviors with the same sex. That does not mean their actions towards other animals are not sexual in nature. If a male animal, say, rapes another male animal in an expression of dominance, is rape not a sexual act because the intent was to show dominance? We might as well say that if the male animal had struck the other animal in a show of dominance, it was not a violent act because the intent was to show dominance. In other words, it may be aggressive and social-order-enforcing, but that doesn't mean it's not sexual. --John 22:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

John, neither you or I or scientist can read the animals minds in my opinion. How would you know if it was just dominance driven for example? Do you see my mind reading dilemna? Conservative 22:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Of course we can't read the animal's mind. However, we can plainly observe a sexual act occurring. It may not have the intent of passion (since we can't read their minds), it may have the intent of aggression/dominance (since we can't read their minds), but it was clearly sexual. To call a sex act between two animals "not sexual" is ridiculous. --John 22:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This article is one of the most disgraceful pieces of "literature" that I have ever seen. The scientific inaccuracies are astounding. Please review the following topics: actual spellings of STDs (Furthermore, why are these specifically mentioned in this article? That is entirely inappropriate.), homosexual behavior amongst animals (see especially the bonobo, for example), and the actual link between genetics and homosexuality (the quotation from the ONE Science article was taken out of context).

John I am pressed for time and ....

John, I am pressed for time. Do what you want with the animal behavior material. Astute readers will look at the talk/page. But please don't mess with my disease/mental health/ etc stuff. Conservative 22:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Exactly, thank you Conservative. This is the way an encyclopedia should be run- with strict discipline and a keen eye on facts, as seen through the lens of His opinion. I recommend that you lock the page - but PLEASE, before you do so, re-insert your views in full. Then lock it. It's about time that we stop the liberals constantly editing these well-known and hard-to-access facts. GodisGreat 13:38, 21 March 2007 (PST).

Sorry 'godisgreat', but an encyclopedia is there to give information from many aspects of one subject, and the idea of a wiki is for a group of people to collaborate and edit ideas, info and facts. To lock a page because you don't/won't/can't accept the view point of others is extremley ignorant. If 'Conservative' does "re-insert his views in full. Then lock it", then he's going against the fundamental idea of a wiki. --Joobs 17:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Someone please do some research on homsexuality and promiscuity

Someone please do some research on homsexuality and promiscuity. Here is what I found so far: [5] Conservative 23:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Why? I mean, who is going to do research for a page that THEY CANNOT EDIT? --Crackertalk 17:00, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Diggs is not known for his (shall we say) objectivity on this subject. The study to which he refers is enormously flawed; its subject sample was drawn solely from places where only the most promiscuous would hang out (bath houses, truck stop bathrooms, and so forth). More reliable studies indicate that heterosexuals and homosexuals have roughly equivalent number of sexual partners. WJThomas

The information about promiscuity seems suspect. Most, if not all (no date is given for the Journal of Sex Research Study) of the studies described took place before AIDS. I don't know this specifically but it seems highly likely that things have changed in the past 30 years. Also, as pointed out above, since the author is apparently trying to make the point that gay people are more promiscuous, there needs to be a comparison. What proportion of straight people do you think have only had sex with one person? Finally, what does APA's listing of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder 35 years ago have to do with marriage? Its inclusion is not useful in an encyclopedic sense.--Murray 18:07, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I cited more recently research plus some addition info. If anyone wants to offer other studies I would be interested. I think making vague allegations regarding studies but not offering your own studies is not very helpful. For example, please show me that Diggs in not known for his objectivity on this subject. Known by whom? Please show me a source which says the study was flawed that Diggs cited.Conservative 20:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

WJThomas, I just looked at the study by Bell and Weinberg and I agree with you that the chose of recruiting respondents was poor. I removed it. Conservative 20:43, 16 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Okay. I wasn't trying to sweat you; I was just giving my impressions based on a bit of quick googling. I also saw mentioned a couple of other studies that allegedly indicated that the mean number of sexual partners is roughly equal for gay and straight men. Another supposedly found that while gay men are more likely to have had multiple partners, they are also much more likely to be celibate(!). (J Billy-1993: Family Planning Perspectives 25:52-60 / R Fay-1989, Science 243:338-348 / D Binson-1995: Journal of Sex Research 32: 245-54 / M Dolcini-1993: Family Planning Perspectives 25: 208-14). As for Dr Diggs, my quick googling certainly indicated that his conclusions were strongly disputed, but I didn't mean to suggest that he is dishonest or purposely twisting the data (I am not an expert on any of this, by any means). For whatever that may be worth... WJThomas

Hatchet Job

Conservative, make sure you took out ALL the sourced facts that disagree with your pre-determined conclusions. It'd look bad to actually have some non-biased discussion on this page. Also, could you lock down some more pages? People are still able to contribute their viewpoints elsewhere. Thanks. --Dave3172 16:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

How many articles have I locked? Can you show that I locked more than 2 articles? Conservative 20:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Let's log. You've locked Dinosaur, Earth, Young Earth Creationism, Macroevolution. So that's 4. You've refused to unlock numerous other pages.--Dave3172 00:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Pages written or edited by a sole author or editor ought to be signed

If this article is to be a work of sole authorship, it should say so; User:Conservative should put at the bottom of the page "by User:Conservative" or "under the editorial control of User:Conservative."

And s one of the complaints about Wikipedia is the irresponsibility encouraged by anonymity, User:Conservative should at least consider using his or her real name. Dpbsmith 18:09, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

This is apparently a wiki only on issues that have no possibility of controversy - those that are, it becomes a blog with a search engine that claim to speak for the community. --Mtur 19:00, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Fine, but the blog-entry-like-content should be signed, as most real blog entries are. In the Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th Edition are "signed" with initials, but in the front of each volume is an index showing the names and credentials that go with each set of initials. Dpbsmith 12:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

He certainly spends a lot of time on this topic

Wait it's coming to me...The Lady doth protest too much, methinks. (From Hamlet (III, ii, 239). --Crackertalk 18:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Not funny. Not funny when Ann Coulter does it, not funny when anyone else does it. Dpbsmith 18:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
That's not what Ann Coulter did. Ann Coulter used an offensive epithet. Had she merely been gay-baiting, she would not have gotten the attention she wanted. - Factcheck 18:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Ok, then. Modifying my comment above accordingly. Dpbsmith 10:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality and pedophilia

I just found this: "Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa reported: "According to the literature, findings of a two-to-one ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles have been documented." [6] Conservative 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. What are you trying to say? --Crackertalk 22:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is the new version: "A study on pedophilia that was in the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa reported: "According to the literature, findings of a two-to-one ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles have been documented." [8] The same study notes: "Researchers have variously estimated the incidence of homosexual pedophilia between 19 percent and 33 percent of reported molestations..."

It just says that the number of heterosexual pedophiles is twice as many as the homosexual pedophiles in the general population. Of course, there are far more heteros and homosexuals in the population. The other sentence is pretty clear. Conservative 22:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Cracker, since you had a hard time understanding it I removed it because others likely would to. Here is what it now reads: A study on pedophilia that was in the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa reported: "Researchers have variously estimated the incidence of homosexual pedophilia between 19 percent and 33 percent of reported molestations..."[8] Conservative 22:36, 16 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Will there be an item on the heterosexuality page which reads, "Researchers have variously estimated the incidence of heterosexual pedophilia between 67 percent and 81 percent of reported molestations..." ? Myk 22:41, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Given that homosexuals make up a small percentage of the population, I don't think that would be significant. [7][8] Conservative 22:47, 16 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Perhaps a reference from some time more recent than 1988? Myk 22:58, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Feel free to supply one from a reputable source, but I don't think the percentage of homosexuals has radically changed since 1988. Conservative 23:00, 16 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Oh, I didn't realize Exodus Ministries was a reputable source. Good to know.--Dave3172 23:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure you understand pedophiliacs, there really isn't "homosexual pedophilia" and "heterosexual pedophilia"; pedophiliacs will prey on whatever sexed child is available. Putting it here is non sequitur. --Crackertalk 23:07, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Cracker, I merely put in the percentage of pediphilia offenders who were homosexuals. Lets not over complicate it.
Dave, why don't you give a reputable source rather than whining about my source. I don't think you are being too constructive. Besides, the Exodus page merely cites the GSS survey which is a responsible survey that gave people the chance to anonymously answer.Conservative 23:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Conservative, for someone who blocks numerous pages, "constructive" should be the last word you use. As for your sources, the problem with determining an accurate count is that each side tends to be biased in their surveys. Most pro-gay surveys trend to the 10% level; most anti-gay surveys trend to the 1-2% level. My problem with this page (and frankly, with others you have blocked) is that you only show the surveys and numbers and quotes that back YOUR pre-determined viewpoint. If you showed both and then made the convincing argument, I'd have more respect for your work. But you cite Exodus Ministries, which is as biased a source as you could find on this subject. So why should I, or anyone else, take your work seriously?--Dave3172 23:47, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I think it'd be a generally good idea to rely more on unbiased sources--i.e. NOT advocacy groups for either side. At present, this article is almost nothing but advocacy groups. --John 23:44, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Actually, conservative, you merely put in the percentage of pedophilia offenders reported who were homosexual. And your source doesn't provide the methodology they used to get the number. Myk 23:46, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Erickson et al. (1988). Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 77-86. This study was based on a retrospective review of the medical records of male sex offenders admitted to the Minnesota Security Hospital between 1975 and 1984. Apparently, 70% of the men abused girls, 26% abused boys, and 4% abused children of both sexes. (The paper is unclear in that it doesn't explain how perpetrators with multiple victims were counted.) The paper asserts in passing that "Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (p. 83). However, no details are provided about how this information was ascertained, making it difficult to interpret. Nor did the authors report the number of homosexual versus bisexual offenders, a distinction that the Groth and Birnbaum study (described above) indicates is relevant.

You might find the entire article interesting, Conservative. And Pedophilia is spelled with an o. Myk 00:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I am rather clueless and I need to ask a really dumb question. What is sexual orientation? I hate to quote a liberal but Bill Clinton did say he did not have sex with that woman - Miss Lewinsky. I believe that Bill was referring to "oral sex" as not being sex. I believe he is correct. Bill knows this is an act of sodomy - oral sodomy. From a law perspective, Bill is a lawyer, sodomy is defined in two flavors: oral and anal. So I ask the question about sexual orientation and I keep coming to the same answer, sex requires one man and one woman. Two men or two woman can only engage in sodomy. They are no different than my desk and the floor lamp in my office. A desk and a floor lamp cannot engage in sex either. By definition this group of people are not engaging in sex and are non-sexual. The non-word homosexual should not exist. The non-word heterosexual should not exist. People are either sexual or non-sexual. Whether one looks to the Bible or to evolution sodomy is not sex. Sodomy is just masturbation in stereo. Marriage is an institution created to protect the children who are the products of sex. Sodomy is must less than sex and is actually a selfish activity for the creation of orgasms. The performance of sodomy by two men or two woman seems to fall in the category of a hobby. People have many types of attractions in their lives, food, nicotine, drugs, alcohol, and orgasms. I don't see where "attraction orientation" is being created by soft-headed judges - yet. I would like "conservative pedia" to stop playing the gay mafia's game and use the above argument to fight this nonsense that "homosexuality" exists.

You're arguing semantic. As soon as a "non-word" is put into general usage it becomes a word. That's how language evolves is designed. Myk 01:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I would say how language is misused or abused. I'm sure language can undergo adaptation...

"Sodomy" doesn't have any well-defined meaning. As it falls under the category of things that are regulated by the states, the definition of "sodomy" varies from one state to another. Dpbsmith 12:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Sodomy is defined in the Bible and its definition has been around for quite a while. The sodomites have a website that actively argues for the repeal of laws against sodomy regardless of who is envolved (e.g. same sex or opposite sex couples.) Continuing to use the definitions and words defined by the left only provides legitimacy to them. George Orwell's book 1984 taught a clear lesson, he who controls the dictionary can control the masses. The left does this daily, "lawmakers" is used on NPR to refer to elected representatives,probably in hopes that the people will eventually stop voting, "wetlands" is used to refer to swamp land, "rain forest" which is redundant, a forest without rain is a desert. NPR missuses "gender" in referring to people. Words have gender while people have sex.

I decided to remove the pediphilia material. If anyone wants to do more research on this material it would be appreciated. Conservative 19:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

This article should be renamed... "A selective collection of everything User:Conservative could dig up that is negative about homosexuality."

I can't think of any practical value such material has except to serve as a handy source for people trying to make similarly polemic compilations.

It is a point of view that is held by many within the Christian conservative community. It is appropriate for Conservapedia to give more weight to the views of that community than Wikipedia does. That still does not make this article "fair" or "balanced." It does not, for example, acknowledge the existence of any differences in opinion that exist within the Christian community about the morality of homosexuality.

If its purpose is to shape the opinions of youthful readers, it probably will fail. The material Conservative has added is so obviously and wildly over-the-top that it reminds me of the anti-marijuana films they used to show in the days when it was spelled "marihuana." Telling kids that one in ten heavy smokers will get lung cancer doesn't stop them from smoking. Saying that 35 in a million people who engage in anal sex will get anal cancer is not going to turn a gay person straight.

Given its length, it is also an unkind article. What is the range of opinion in the Christian community about what you should do when you discover, as is pretty likely, that somebody important to you is gay? Stone him? Slap him into aversive therapy? Shrug it off and accept him as one might accept other imperfect human beings? Give him a hug and support him in whatever direction he chooses to take? The article does not address this question at all. Dpbsmith 18:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Even the first sentence is wrong. It says, "Homosexuality is a sexual attraction between members of the same sex. It is condemned by the Bible as explained below." The Bible does not condemn a sexual attraction. RSchlafly 18:57, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Drbsmith, I believe in this section you failed to mention one other option that is mentioned in the "Homosexuality and Reports of People Leaving Homosexuality". There are reports of people leaving homosexuality forever. Conservative 17:28, 18 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Anal sex and disease

I added a new section called "Anal Sex and Disease". If anyone wants to additional research on this topic it would be welcomed. Conservative 18:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I'm no expert in this field, but where is the real connection to "Homosexuality" aside from "They do it, too"? This is an issue of anal sex and the risk of disease, not of homosexuality. --Sid 3050 18:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I added a sentence regarding the prevalence of anal sex and homosexuals as reported by the Centers for Disease Control. Conservative 20:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Like I said: "They do it, too." Anal sex is not a homosexual-only thing, so this should be covered in an article about anal sex. Or are you going to add another section called "Driving cars and deadly accidents", citing some study about how homosexuals also have driver's licenses and how driving a car is a considerable risk? (To pick a consciously over-the-top example) --Sid 3050 22:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality and Reports of People Leaving Homosexuality

"Many people have reported leaving homosexuality and becoming heterosexual through their Christian faith." The web pages cited include a total of less than ten people. "Many" seems a stretch - "some" or even "a few" would be a more accurate representation of the sources cited.

I know of at least 3 people personally. I could have given more websites that I found. If anyone wants to suggest more websites it would be appreciated. Conservative 19:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I added two more footnotes. Conservative 19:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I know of at least four people who personally who told me they had quit smoking, but all but one of them was smoking again within a couple of years. Dpbsmith 20:03, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
All oral fixations are toughies. Crackertalk 20:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the footnotes. Now we're up to a max of 81 people. Taken along with dpbsmith's comment, I'm still not sure we're up to "many". "Some" would put the idea out there without making a claim that is not really supported by the data cited. In addition, I'm not sure "becoming heterosexual" is quite accurate - my understanding (which could be wrong - I'm not an expert, just a careful listener when this is debated on TV) is that there is a difference between reduced same-sex attraction and actually becoming attracted to the opposite sex instead, and that the former is a more accurate representation of these people's collective experiences. --Hsmom 23:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I increased the number of footnotes. In addition, here is one man's story: "I also found many men and women who were able to walk away from homosexuality, which offered me hope and confirmed that change was possible." [10]
And that is just one man's story. I personally know 3 people who walked away from homosexuality through their Christian faith and I don't even belong to a large church. Conservative 19:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Washington Blade

"The Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper" Can newspapers really be homosexual? Myk 20:48, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the suggestion. I removed the phrase as it wasn't really needed. Conservative 21:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Hey Conservative, when are you going to start on the heterosexuality page?
I don't really see anything wrong with the reference. That's what the Washington Blade is, for better or for worse. I guess you could say a newspaper of the homosexual community or something like that. MountainDew 02:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality/pedophilia/Catholic priests/young boys/Roman Catholic Church

I know the whole Homosexuality/pedophilia/homosexuals/Catholic priests/young boys/Roman Catholic Church issue is a hot topic albeit it not as hot as it used to be. Anyone have any suggestions? Conservative 22:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

As a starting point, choose an encyclopedia or similar reference work that you trust. Not a magazine article, not a Christian evangelical website. Find an article that treats of the topic of "homosexuality" as a whole. See what it thinks are the important things that need to be said about the topic of "homosexuality." Your article here doesn't need to be an exact parallel, but you need to have an explanation, at least in your own mind, of why you decided a certain subtopic was more important or less important than they did.
The Catholic clergy sex-abuse scandal has been a major continuing news event of the 1990s and 2000s that has shaken Roman Catholics in the U. S. and subjected the dioceses in several cities to lawsuits that theaten their financial existence. But what's the reason for including it here? Is it more than just "homosexuality in the news?" Dpbsmith 07:49, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Looks like something thrown up here as a smear attack on the Roman Catholic Church.

Hey Gasmonkey it's customary to sign your posts, especially nice to do when you're making an accusation. Anyway...
I don't think it's a smear on the RCC, Conservative is just trying to pin as much dirt on the "Joe Average" homosexual as he can, I'm surprise he hasn't already mentioned John Wayne Gacy and Jeffery Dahmer just to sweeten up his little tour de farce. Crackertalk 13:30, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
It is a minefield. It will indeed have the appearance of anti-Catholicism if User:Conservative does not tread very, very carefully. Using casual language like "a hot topic albeit it not as hot as it used to be" does not suggest sensitive footwork. A appearance of being anti-Catholic will alienate a group that might be otherwise be expected to be supportive of Conservapedia. Dpbsmith 13:49, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Women Who Have Sex with Women Commonly Have Sexual Relations With Men

In this section, you have cited a web page, which sites a newspaper article, which cites a study. The newspaper article is no longer available at the given URL, and there is no information about the study other than the name of the journal in which it appears. If we are going to be scholarly here, especially in the field of medical research, we need to provide a citation to the actual study - the primary source. My experience has been that medical studies are often misunderstood and/or misrepresented, usually not out of malice or bias but often simply because the person writing about them does not have a scientific or medical background. You have written A 1998 study in the Journal of Infectious Diseases stated that "the study's data confirmed previous scientific observations that most women who have sex with women also have had sex with men." [14] The study also stated: "sex with men in the prior year was common, as were sexual practices between female partners that possibly could transmit HPV." [15] I am somewhat skeptical about this study. In order to put the information you have presented in context, I would like to know who the study group was, how many women were studied and so on; information that would be in a primary source. When it comes to STDs and public health, understanding the population of the study is quite important! We need to set an example for the students who are using this site, and cite primary sources. --Hsmom 22:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree that information has to be verifiable. I will delete it. Conservative 22:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Thanks!--Hsmom 23:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

From a gay man's perspective

At the risk of being censored or blocked from the site, I'd like to make two observations about homosexuality that would explain the conclusions drawn on the main page. First off, as far as the spread of disease is concerned, you have to understand what the colon is used for primarily and understand that a greater percentage of men don't use condoms since guys can't get pregnant. Secondly, as far as promiscuity is concerned... uh... we are the ones with the higher sex drive. What were you expecting? It all comes back to sexual education. I would agree that there is a slight bias in the facts, but that *some* of the conclusions are accurate nonetheless. Conservative, I know you have to be worried about vandalism, but you should consider opening the page to trusted contributors.

Edit: I meant to make a comment on mental disorder. The study focuses on homophobia and discrimination as a source of mental disorder. But there is a whole array of other psychological pressures that comes from being gay. I would suggest that stress, as well as the general pressure of "identity crisis" has a huge impact. While homosexuality is "accepted" it is not considered "normal". There is a significant difference, even in countries such as the Netherlands and Canada. Regards, --TrueGrit 00:22, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for contributing. I, like you, wish Conservative would open up this article to editing. But he's proven intractable and fairly stuck in his ways, so while I wish you luck, I would not expect much. But again, your commentary would be very welcome... if Conservative cared about neutrality :-( --AmesG 00:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
This isn't Neutrapedia... --TrueGrit 01:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Nor is it FundamentalistChristianopedia. --Hojimachongtalk 01:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
The commandment dealies seem to militate in favor of Neutrapedia. Or at least Teachthecontroversepedia. I personally think Wikipedia is neutral, btw, but, meh.--AmesG 01:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I also see Wikipedia as neutral. However, here, it has to be "Neutrapedia" when there is a significant scientific or philosophical viewpoint (i.e. Gays aren't all bad) that aren't being represented. --Hojimachongtalk 01:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I wonder how frequnt mental disorders are among homosexual men and women in "gay" enclaves like Provincetown, Massachusetts; Greenwich Village, New York; and San Francisco. With a supportive 'brotherhood' around them, the effects of a supposedly "homophobic" culture would be filtered out. --Ed Poor 16:09, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

removed from Marriage

I removed the following text from the top of the marriage article, and wanted to add it to the marriage section of this article, but it's protected so that I can't:

In the civilized Western world marriage as an institution between one man and one woman has been a cornerstone of community for many hundreds of years. Recently there has been a push by liberals for "same-sex marriage". A large portion of the reason for this push is because of the benefits married people gain in the United States, especially in regard to property rights. Same-sex marriage has no basis in scripture. In United States law, marriage is defined by each state and same-sex marriage is allowed only in Massachusetts. It might be worthwhile to note that interracial marriage was illegal in most states during the 19th century[1].

--Scott 04:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

The benefits angle is important to the "gay marriage" debate. I believe the gay rights position is (1) marriage is a "benefit" granted to certain couples. (2) It's unfair to give any benefit to one class of people but not to others. (3) Therefore it's only fair to provide this "benefit" to homosexual couples.
Conservative rebuttals to this argument generally include any of the following ideas:
  1. Marriage is not a benefit granted by society as much as it is an institution which contributes to society.
  2. Marrigaes are recognized and protected, to encourage men and women to marry - because it benefits society when they do.
  3. Homosexuals do not really want to be "married" to their same-sex partners.
  4. The gay rights movement is merely using the issue to destroy the institution of marriage.
  5. Homosexuals hate the stigma of being branded fornicators. "Outside the city are the dogs and fornicators" (Rev. 22) If they have the right to marry, they can claim the same social standing as heterosexuals and shield themselves from this stigma.
  6. The push for 'gay marriage' is part of an agenda (i.e., campaign or movement) to outlaw criticism of homosexuality. Note the definition of "homophobia" at Wikipedia and elsewhere, and the identification of "any criticism of homosexuality itself" as hate speech. (This ignores or repudiates the dictum, "Hate the sin, love the sinner.")
I would like to see both sides of the argument over 'gay marriage' in Conservapedia. But let us be cautious to identify sides and not state "as fact" any position which is merely one side's point of view.
It is a fact that AIDS originally spread in the homosexual population much, much more than among heterosexuals. It is an opinion that AIDS is a punishment from God. Etc. --Ed Poor 07:39, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

"Many People"

"Many people have reported leaving homosexuality and becoming heterosexual through their Christian faith."

That's a section? One sentence is a section?

Many people? How many is many people? 10? 10,000? It implies that there are a large number of people that have swapped over since becoming Christian, but 3 could be "many". It needs to be changed.

Also, I'm sure many people have left homosexualily through other faiths too. Infact, I've just googled it and found that a few people have indeed left it through other faiths.

You can hardly have a neutral encyclopaedia if it's "locked" away, like this page. Somebody needs to unblock this page. I know there's a concern for vandalism, but people have contributions to make to this article, this encyclopaedia.

I shall return, I'm eagar to start editing. --O2mcgovem 17:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I increased the number of footnotes. In addition, here is one man's story: "I also found many men and women who were able to walk away from homosexuality, which offered me hope and confirmed that change was possible." [11]
And that is just one man's story. I personally know 3 people who walked away from homosexuality through their Christian faith and I don't even belong to a large church. Lastly, if you want to have a statement supported with footnotes that people left homosexuality through other faiths with testimonials then please give the footnotes.Conservative 19:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
What I would prefer is actual proof that they stopped being homosexual, not just stopped having homosexual sex. Myk 19:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's an interesting discussion of it from a legal group.-AmesGyo! 19:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberal and conservative interpretations of the Bible

A lot of ink has been spilled trying to make the Bible excuse homosexuality, but this view ignores Christian tradition. For example, the Evangelical Presbytarian Church says:

  • Jesus did not refer directly to homosexuality. However, our Lord made clear that He came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. He not only fulfilled it, He strengthened it. For example, it was not enough to refrain from the act of adultery. Jesus declared that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:27,28). He authoritatively interpreted the Mosaic Law, rather than dismissed it, as some exegetes contend. Thus Jesus affirmed the continuing validity of the Old Testament moral law, including prohibitions against homosexual behavior. [12]

And there is case of a law appling only to men and not to women, so the idea that male homosexuality is wrong but lesbianism is okay doesn't hold water.

Not to say that God "wants to condemn" people who commit sin (another common Liberal misconception) - just that God did specify certain things we must not do. Whether we listen to Him is up to us, "reap what you sow", etc. --Ed Poor 20:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

"Him"? I didn't know G/d had a penis? Well... I guess that's the sort of thing you miss out on when you've had an Oxford Scholar teaching you theology for 4 years. ~ O2mcgovem 19:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Incorrect Citation under Promiscuity

The Rotello citation regarding promiscuity is incomplete. The statement attributed to Rotello is his quote of another author, per the source. As the article is locked, I have no recourse but to bring this to the attention of those with the power to ensure the site's accuracy. Would suggest unlocking the article to registered users, so that information herein may be expanded and proofed in order to present "the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but...".

Could you be more specific? What is the exact quote? Conservative 23:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Yes, all source material has to be vetted by our resident expert. --Crackertalk 23:52, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Um, there is exactly ONE Rotello quote in the article. How can you be MORE specific? But to help you along (since we all know how hard it is to actually read sources beyond the interesting quote), here is the snippet from the source you reference (bold emphasis mine):
Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that "Gay liberation was founded . . . on a 'sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,' and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a 'communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.'"4 Rotello's perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results.


4. Gabriel Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, p. 112, New York: Penguin Group, 1998 (quoting gay writer Michael Lynch).
Is this specific enough for you? --Sid 3050 10:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Actually, now the citation is completely wrong, since you have simply plagiarized the site you are citing in order to get at the words you are trying to quote. Seriously, this is "educational"? I'd be more than happy to fix the article, quote, and citation - but the article is locked to prevent further...ummm...(education would be my guess)...PKBear 19:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I deleted the quote. If you want to suggest a way to put it back in I can do it for you. Conservative 19:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Homosexual Subculture

For Homosexuals and other sinners, Bear is a term for a bearded and otherwise hirsute (possessing of much somatic hair) individual engaged in various sexually immoral acts and activities outside of Marriage and God's Law. In many cases, the secularist media makes light of these horrendous fetish activities. [13] Noted homosexual commentator Andrew Sullivan has admitted that he, personally, considers himself a bear. [14]

This should be added, as these mating interests are an important contribution to immoral behavior. DunsScotus 14:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

How, precisely? The last sentence is the one that really needs a cite.--Murray 20:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Two see also sections

There are two see also sections, one with Bisexuality one with Homosexual agenda. Still nothing for heterosexuality? My bad, there it is. Myk 16:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yeah... there are still two see also sections. That would be soooo easy to merge. Myk 15:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
This is fun... can a sysop please merge the two see also sections? I'd do it, but... you know, it's locked. Having two see also sections makes the article a little silly(er). Myk 23:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Been a while since I bumped this. Maybe I should move it to the bottom? Myk 01:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Some days I wish upon a star that a sysop who can edit this page will notice the two see also sections and merge them. But it never happens. *Sigh* Myk 14:21, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Praise be! Myk 17:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
And it took only... ten or eleven days or so? Good to know that the Talk page is so closely monitored. --Sid 3050 17:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Ancient Greece

Activists sometimes point to existence of homosexuality in Ancient Greece as some kind of "proof" that it is morally okay for modern people to perform homosexual acts. This is as lame a view as the idea that the Old & New Testaments contain no prohibitions against homosexuality.

Here's a bit of history:

  • "Of course homosexuality existed in Greece, just as it has existed, and will continue to exist, everywhere and at all times in human history. However, while it did exist, it was never legally sanctioned, thought to be a cultural norm, or engaged in without risk of serious punishment, including exile and death." [15]

See also "Abuse of Boys and Slaves by the Homosexual Patriarchs of Ancient Greece and Rome" [16] --Ed Poor 20:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Problem with making generalizations based on a study of a non-random population

Under "Promiscuity", I have noticed a statement that cites an article that cites a study, rather than giving a citation to the original study. We need to cite the original study, so that readers can understand the population studied, the number of subjects, and any limitations on the study. This understanding is *critical* if we are to use medical studies in a responsible, scientifically accurate way.

This conservapedia article states: "A study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1.5 years on average. [11][12]" Both citations are articles that cite the same Dutch study. It fails to point out that this study was done on ***PEOPLE WITH AIDS***. It is not unreasonable to assume that a population of people who have a sexually transmitted disease have a higher rate of promiscuity (multiple partners) than the general population. In fact, couples who are completely monogamous will be disease-free, and thus NOT represented in the population studied AT ALL! You clearly *CANNOT* extrapolate from the population in this study to the population in general.

As I have mentioned before, my experience has been that medical studies are often misunderstood and/or misrepresented in articles about them, usually not out of malice or bias but often simply because the person writing about them does not have a scientific or medical background. If we want people to take this site seriously, *especially* when it comes to scientific matters, we *must* adopt at least the basic methods of scientific inquiry, which means citing *and reading* the original study (the "primary source") before making a statement based on the results of that study - it's the only way we can be scientifically accurate. Clearly, the statement "A study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1.5 years on average. [11][12]" is *NOT* an accurate representation of the study data. This statement should be removed from the article. Thank you. --Hsmom 09:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I fully agree with you, especially with your more global point. Sources have to be tracked, read, cited properly, and integrated into the article without misrepresenting what the source actually says. --Sid 3050 09:58, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I deleted the 1.5 year material. Conservative 02:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Conservative - thank you for deleting the 1.5 year material. However, the other two items in the promiscuity section each cite an article that briefly references a study, instead of citing the original study. I am concerned about "errors in translation" similar to those found earlier. In the case of this topic in particular, it is especially critical to know the makeup of the population studied in order to know if it is appropriate to extrapolate the study's conclusions to the general population. I understand your efforts to build this article, but it's important not to take shortcuts if we want this article to be taken seriously. If you are going to mention the conclusion of a medical study, again, it is very important for you to ***read and then cite the original study***. Otherwise, it is very easy to mistakenly draw conclusions that are not supported by the original study. (After spending some time looking at the actual studies referred to in articles, you will find that it is not at all uncommon for members of the media to misinterpret medical studies, again perhaps not out of malice or bias, but simply because reporters are not scientists.) When dealing with a subject as important as this one, and when this site is, in part, an educational example for high school students, it is critical to get the science and the academic methodology right. Please consider taking some time to go through this article to verify that each section which mentions a study cites the original study (including the name of the article, name of the author, name of the journal, issue number, month & year of publication, and ideally a link to at least the abstract if not the full article), and that the statements made here accurately reflect the results of the study cited. I know this will take some time, but it will be worth it to be accurate on this very important entry. --Hsmom 09:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

AIDS statistic

My younger brother, who is a non-conservative high school student, was looking at Conservapedia after he saw me editing it, and he told me that he thought the statistic on the amount of AIDS patients who are homosexual was blatantly wrong. The source given could be better, and the statistic given is almost 10 years old. Perhaps somebody who has been involved in writing this article should take a look at it. At the very least, we could use a newer statistic. MountainDew 02:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I am guessing if someone digs around the CDC site that a new statistic could be given. Conservative 02:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I don't believe the CDC askes AIDS patients whether they are homosexual. In any case, such statistics are unreliable. The statistic should be removed.DavidB 02:45, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Biblical injunctions

Cut from article:

it is not a topic mentioned by Jesus in the four gospels, and the only reference in the New Testament is in the letters of Paul.

This makes the argument that "Jesus didn't condemn it, so it's okay." But who was it who said in Revelations 22, "Outside the city are ... the fornicators"? This is generally interpreted by Christians as a condemnation of all extramarital sex. --Ed Poor 20:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Which is an excellent reason not to allow "gay marriage"; if they think it's legitimate marriage they might think they're "okay" by Jesus? -- Rob PommerTALK 20:50, 28 March 2007 (EDT)


I note that four quotes from the Bible are used in support of the proposition that homosexuality is condemned by that august tome. Whilst the first two quotes from Leviticus seem pretty down on male homosexuality they do not mention lesbianism at all. The quote from Corinthians merely says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. I don't think you could properly characterise that as condemnation. We are left with the quote from Romans. That quote refers to lesbianism as unnatural and abnormal. Again hardly condemnation. Would you like me to draft the appropriate amendments? I see that the page is locked and I can't change it myself. --Horace 20:47, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

This is such a tired old recycled argument, that the horse it rode in one has lame feet and saddle sores.
Homosexuality includes Lesbianism, which is merely the female variant. Don't start quoting from the dozens of books written by gay rights activists re-interpreting the Bible to justify their proclivities.
On the other hand, the article should mention the existence of dissenting views. Conservapedia should not be like *cough* other wiki-based encyclopedias which (1) claim to be unbiased yet (2) censor opposing views.
The traditional view is that homosexual acts are forbidden, along with incest, etc.
BUT I do not intend to let conservatives off the hook. Adultery, racism, greed, indifference, all the sins of the Pharisees are "couching at the door" if they try to claim the moral high ground too quick!
I will close tonight's sermon with a simple homily: "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of the Lord". --Ed Poor 23:37, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

That's all very well Ed but you didn't answer my proposition (which I am proud to say I thought up myself without the aid of any gay rights activists (or their tired old horses)). --Horace 23:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
  1. Marriage in the March of Time