Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sex"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Hojimachong (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
I too find it interesting that [[abortion]] is considered family friendly but sex itself isn't. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 23:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT) | I too find it interesting that [[abortion]] is considered family friendly but sex itself isn't. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 23:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I think this needs to be taken up with Aschlafly. It is clean, can be family-friendly, and is biblically described (we can use the song of Solomon, perhaps?) --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 23:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 03:46, March 12, 2007
I'm confused as to why this page has been blocked. I am aware that its probably subject to much vandalism, but there is a valid reasoning behind allowing it.--Elamdri 22:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- Even though the page could be an informative article, it is forbidden (currently) under commandment 3 of The Conservapedia Commandments. It's not "family-friendly". --Hojimachongtalk 22:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Funny, isn't that how families are made? :D --Gulik 22:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- Quite XD. --Hojimachongtalk 22:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Personally, I feel its possible to make a family-friendly page about sex, but I respect the decision.--Elamdri 22:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- I concur. --Hojimachongtalk 22:53, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
This page is linked to from The Ninteenth Amendment of the US constitution, and from Choice, but not from abortion. Which of these are "family friendly"? --Scott 23:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
I too find it interesting that abortion is considered family friendly but sex itself isn't. Sulgran 23:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- I think this needs to be taken up with Aschlafly. It is clean, can be family-friendly, and is biblically described (we can use the song of Solomon, perhaps?) --Hojimachongtalk 23:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)