Difference between revisions of "Talk:Homosexuality"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Conservative (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
::::::Can you show us outstanding well researched works you have composed already? If so, where are they? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 27 January 2012 (EST) | ::::::Can you show us outstanding well researched works you have composed already? If so, where are they? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 27 January 2012 (EST) | ||
::::::::In journals you've never heard of and books you'll never read. More seriously, you have offered a friendly competition. It is audacious, but I accept your challenge. Out of sportsmanship, we should let the articles speak for themselves instead of starting an argument on the talk page. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 01:44, 27 January 2012 (EST) | ::::::::In journals you've never heard of and books you'll never read. More seriously, you have offered a friendly competition. It is audacious, but I accept your challenge. Out of sportsmanship, we should let the articles speak for themselves instead of starting an argument on the talk page. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 01:44, 27 January 2012 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Pediatricians Renew Call for HPV Vaccine for Boys== | ||
| + | *''The HPV vaccine has been available and recommended for girls and young women since 2006, because it's highly effective at preventing cervical cancer. Since then, other cancers thought to be caused by HPV have increased, including anal cancer and some head and neck cancers....If we include both girls and boys, we could have a potential impact on HPV transmission.'' [http://healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docid=662176] | ||
| + | '''Question:''' if homosexuality is genetic, and not a choice, why would ''all boys'' need to be vaccinated? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:06, 28 February 2012 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 13:06, February 28, 2012
length of article
This article is very long, making it inconvenient to read. Most of the sections here seem to have their own pages. Editing is locked for regular users, so I can't do it, but has there been any discussion condensing the article to make it more reader-friendly? --JHunter 16:25, 26 January 2012 (EST)
- I was actually thinking of adding some material: Black pastors confront Southern Poverty Law Center for smearing as ‘hate groups’ pro-family organizations opposed to homosexual agenda. [1] Reverend Dr. Patrick Wooden declared that it is wrong to compare “my beautiful blackness” with homosexual perversion.Conservative 18:41, 26 January 2012 (EST)
- I fail to see how that, or much of this article for that matter, is pertinent to an explanation of the general concept of homosexuality. Reading through an article with 29 sections of text is just laborious. Especially when most of the sections appear to already have their own articles. This is one of the flagship articles here, making it so over the top that newcomers are discouraged from reading it might be counterproductive to the cause. --JHunter 23:23, 26 January 2012 (EST)
- Why don't you write an alternative article and see if the owner of the site likes it better? Show Conservapedia how it's done. I wish you the best should you decide to pursue this endeavor. Conservative 23:51, 26 January 2012 (EST)
- I'll take that bet. --JHunter 00:06, 27 January 2012 (EST)
- Can you show us outstanding well researched works you have composed already? If so, where are they? Conservative 00:41, 27 January 2012 (EST)
- In journals you've never heard of and books you'll never read. More seriously, you have offered a friendly competition. It is audacious, but I accept your challenge. Out of sportsmanship, we should let the articles speak for themselves instead of starting an argument on the talk page. --JHunter 01:44, 27 January 2012 (EST)
- Can you show us outstanding well researched works you have composed already? If so, where are they? Conservative 00:41, 27 January 2012 (EST)
- I'll take that bet. --JHunter 00:06, 27 January 2012 (EST)
- Why don't you write an alternative article and see if the owner of the site likes it better? Show Conservapedia how it's done. I wish you the best should you decide to pursue this endeavor. Conservative 23:51, 26 January 2012 (EST)
- I fail to see how that, or much of this article for that matter, is pertinent to an explanation of the general concept of homosexuality. Reading through an article with 29 sections of text is just laborious. Especially when most of the sections appear to already have their own articles. This is one of the flagship articles here, making it so over the top that newcomers are discouraged from reading it might be counterproductive to the cause. --JHunter 23:23, 26 January 2012 (EST)
Pediatricians Renew Call for HPV Vaccine for Boys
- The HPV vaccine has been available and recommended for girls and young women since 2006, because it's highly effective at preventing cervical cancer. Since then, other cancers thought to be caused by HPV have increased, including anal cancer and some head and neck cancers....If we include both girls and boys, we could have a potential impact on HPV transmission. [2]
Question: if homosexuality is genetic, and not a choice, why would all boys need to be vaccinated? Rob Smith 08:06, 28 February 2012 (EST)