132
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: + + + +
no edit summary
:Important to consider the cultural etiolation of these behaviors in promoting sexual immorality and sexual license. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Important to consider the cultural etiolation of these behaviors in promoting sexual immorality and sexual license. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::But that's not what "Origins" implies and that's not what the article is about. Origins implies that this is where bisexuality started. Bisexuality is not something that just starts, I mean, someone didn't invent bisexuality. I agree that a section on historical examples of bisexuality is appropriate, and maybe even there is justification for describing how this affected Greek culture, example. But "origins"?, no. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Where are the citations for the first section 'The Bible on Bisexuality'? How can this site claim to be an encyclopaedia of any worth if it does not cite it's sources?
Where are the citations for the first section 'The Bible on Bisexuality'? How can this site claim to be an encyclopaedia of any worth if it does not cite it's sources?
*DunsScotus, would you please remove the section on sexual immorality in young women. It's in appropriate and little more than a rant. Whatever you think of "Joe Francis" and "Girls Gone Wild", it has no place being here. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)