Difference between revisions of "Talk:Heterosexuality"

Revision as of 04:49, April 24, 2007

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?

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)

Activity?

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)