Talk:Homosexuality obsession

Oh goodness. HelpJazz 19:15, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Goodness it is indeed. -Foxtrot 19:58, 14 November 2008 (EST)

What then, does that make this and this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CPAdmin1 (talk)

Depending on the article, more of the same, I'd say. HelpJazz 20:16, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Seriously, though. This article has no citations and has a LOT of statements which need them. HelpJazz 20:19, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Tim, we may have several articles on homosexuality, but that's because we're exposing the liberals and the gay agenda. It's hardly our fault that they've aided the infiltration of homosexuality into the mainstream, but it's our duty to point out how this infiltration is occuring and the dangers of letting it proceed unchecked.

HelpJazz, many of these points are taken up in the other articles. As my edit summary said when I created this article, it's more of a place to collect the general observations. -Foxtrot 21:28, 14 November 2008 (EST)

If that's true then we either don't need this article, or you can port over the references from those articles (assuming those articles have references...). HelpJazz 21:53, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Cite, cite, cite. HelpJazz, again, it doesn't take much work to find these references. The subject is pretty pervasive. I've added some cites to give the article some grounding, I'm sure others can find a wealth of other citations. It's nothing to obsess over :-P -Foxtrot 00:10, 15 November 2008 (EST)

It's a little better, but still a long ways to go. I'd explain what I mean, but the page is locked so it won't matter for a week.

The reason I let you do the work is 3-fold, but the most important reason is that if I teach a man to fish he can feed himself for a lifetime :) HelpJazz 13:29, 15 November 2008 (EST) <-- Dreams of a day when people cite things without having to be asked

I woke up and found the article locked. NO FUN! :( I was going to touch it up today. -Foxtrot 15:36, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Too big a target for ironic vandalism, it seems. It should settle down when they get their kicks. HelpJazz 17:50, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Sigh. They don't give up, do they? -Foxtrot 06:32, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Latest vandalisms

I must say, they had a point. Maybe the section on Wikipedia should be removed? --Vittu 12:17, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Kind of ironic, huh? HelpJazz 12:29, 26 November 2008 (EST)

The real irony is the liberal vandals obsessing over this article. Now THAT's funny. -Foxtrot 16:36, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Moral equivalence

Pointing out evil is nothing at all like pushing people to tolerate it. The two are as different as night and day. Discuss major changes like this beforehand. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:42, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Irony

At the risk of being labeled obsessive like someone in the above discussions, does anyone else see the irony in this, this, and this? I really, honestly hope there's another active editor out there who gets this. --SStaples 22:52, 16 March 2009 (EDT)