Conservapedia:AFD Gay Bowel Syndrome
Gay Bowel Syndrome, which has also been referred to a gay bowel disease, was named as an illness in 1976 by a group of New York City physicians in a private proctologic practice and it describes a number of male homosexual anorectal disorders that male homosexuals are more apt to encounter.  Glen Hastings and Richard Weber in 1993 wrote the following regarding gay bowel disease in the peer reviewed medical journal American Family Physician: "The 1980s brought a recognition of gay bowel disease and its similarities to inflammatory bowel disease." The abstract for the 1976 journal article published in Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science entitled The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases describes gay bowel syndrome in the following manner:
- Keep The article Gay bowel syndrome cites a 2004 article by Medscape saying that gay bowel syndrome is still a concern. More importantly, given the lethality of HIV and its connection with proctitus/gay bowel syndrome the article could save lives. I know Wikipedia would definitely censor this article because the liberal gay activists hate the term "gay bowel syndrome" and have been trying to get the medical establishment to not use the term because it strong associates homosexuality with disease. However, I do think that Conservapedia should warn its readers of the dangers of homosexual activity especially since the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong.Conservative 19:30, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
- Keep. Another instance of the corruption of "science" and the professional healtcare community to serve a politcal agenda. Rob Smith 20:34, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
Delete. Everybody already knows that homosexuals are at higher risk for HIV/AIDS and other diseases; there is no reason to belabor the point by inserting pornographic content on a website viewed by many young people. DanH 19:31, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
- I quoted medical journals. There is nothing pornographic about medical terminology. Also, I don't believe that homosexuals know they are at greater risk in respect to certain practices. The media certainly doesn't tell them this and mainly conservative websites and medical journals and medical websites do. Conservative 19:36, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
Delete because it was abandoned as a term by the medical community in the 1980s. It described symptoms that were not limited to gays, not limited to the bowels, and not actually a syndrome.ConserveATory 19:38, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
- Conservatory, the term was not abandoned by the medical community. The article Gay bowel syndrome cites Medscape which used the term in 2004. Also here are two other present sources which mention the term: http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?gay+bowel+syndrome and http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Gay_bowel_syndrome Conservative 19:44, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
- TK, like this one? Could you be more specific? What is wrong with directly quoting medical journals? Is there anything pornographic about quoting medical journals? Do perverts hang out in medical libraries anxiously awaiting the next Journal of the American Medical Association publication? Lets be realistic here. I am certainly not for creating pornography on Conservapedia and quoting medical journals is not pornographic. I think this is especially so since the article merely gives the effects of activities and doesn't describe those activities. Certainly we should not censor the effects of immoral activities (for example, Gay bowel syndrome or AIDS ). Conservative 19:54, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
DELETEIf something like this, this inflammatory, and this disgusting, is to be put up, it should be put up by a doctor. If Conservative can front medical credentials, keep it. Otherwise, this does nothing more than anger people. Conservapedia's (unwritten) POV shouldn't be allowed to run rampant over the "family friendly" commandment.-MichaelS 20:21, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
- DELETE If only the article gave some clear indication of that, Rob. But it doesn't.
Conservative, I have suffered from Irritable Bowel Syndrome in the past, and presently from Lupus. Will you also be adding scholarly articles about those maladies as well? Or is the idea here to merely be provocative, to titillate and give a wink and a nod because you have a friend, or read on some page that titles with "Gay" in them bang web hits? Given your past production, I don't see a great interest on your part on medical issues. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 20:37, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
- DELETE The only saving grace for this article is that it means that atheism is not currently the worst on the site. The more I read, the more convinced I am that there are parodists in senior positions on this website. If this malaise is the same as IBS, then if we must, let's have an article on IBS and maybe (maybe!) mention this as a side issue. If it's something different, let's have an article on all the leading bowel problems - we appear to have a resident expert. Seriously though, TK you should skip this step and just delete - I'm sure Andy will back you up. The discussion is almost as embarrassing as the article. -- Ferret Nice old chat 06:33, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
- TK, I was about to cite that the symptoms of gay bowel syndrome are not only suffered by male homosexuals but these symptoms are suffered disproportionately by male homosexuals like AIDS. For example, male homosexuals get parasites more often but that doesn't mean if you have parasites that you are a male homosexual. I will put that in now. I just had to finish some other things with the article to show that the term is still being used today as can be seen in the Gay bowel syndrome article presently. Conservative 21:01, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
- I just don't see the point, Conservative. Is it the term you object to? --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 21:07, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
Delete Not family friendly. We already know that homosexuality is wrong, we don't need to know about everything that goes on with their bowels. SSchultz 21:13, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
- Delete' for reasons stated above. Maestro 21:31, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
- I don't see how "bowels" are not family friendly. Do we have to delete a future diverticulosis article too. There is nothing not family friendly about saying that if you engage in homosexuality you can get various diseases. In fact, I would argue that telling kids this is important. The homosexual activists don't want kids to know that homosexual behavior increases disease in a significant way and I think we should tell them. I believe I showed in the article that homosexual activists don't want kids to know about Gay bowel syndrome.Conservative 21:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
- TK, i took your feedback. I specifically stated in the article that "gay bowel syndrome" is a condition where you get certain maladies with unusual frequency as a result of homosexual activity and that homosexuals are more apt to get this condition but that these maladies are not solely exclusive to male homosexuals. Conservative 21:36, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
- Delete This is a disgusting topic for a conservative encyclopedia. I don't care if it's medical, etc. I think it deserves a mention in the Homosexuality article, but I don't believe it deserves its own article. --Crocoite 01:42, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
Liberal bullying of the medical establishment plus other prominent conservative websites mention gay bowel syndrome
I dislike it when the liberals bully the medical establishment or other entities and I showed in the Gay bowel syndrome article that the liberal homosexual activists were doing this in regard to the medical community and other entities.
A number of leading conservative websites mention "gay bowel syndrome" and here is just 3 three very prominent conservative organizations but I could come up with more. The disease "gay bowel syndorme" can signficantly increase the risk of dying of AIDS in homosexuals. For one symptom of "gay bowel syndrome" for example it increases your chance of getting AIDS by 9 times.
The homosexual activists are bullying the medical community and reference works to not mention or discuss "gay bowel syndrome" which medical authorities still use today. I think as a conservative encyclopedia we should mention it.
The article does not say anything racy and merely quotes medical journals.Conservative 22:16, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
I'm reading 6 to 2.-MichaelS 23:30, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, but some people were mistaken in their criticism. The medical term is still used today and the article now reflects that. Secondly, TK was not aware that the liberal homosexual activists were attempting to suppress medical science and now the article reflects that. I do think it is fair that people give editors a reasonable amount of time to create an article and not throw out objections as an article is being created. As the final article may address those points shortly as mine clearly did. In short, if I had been given just a little more time the vote would be 4 to 4 and possibly be in my favor as one person said same as above. Conservative 23:37, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, we should give you time to make the article worse. Coming along nicely, I see.-MichaelS 23:38, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
- MichealS, I believe you are a liberal that is unreasonable and your posts here and your user page shows this.Conservative 23:42, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
- That's an ad hominem attack, not an argument. If you have something to say, please make the argument.-MichaelS 23:43, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
- I quoted medical professionals and cited them. Your request for my medical credentials was a fluff objection as the people who are cited are clearly medical professions and qualified. You clearly have an agenda and are not interested in evidence. You are unreasonable.Conservative 23:46, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
Your articles are all links to pay portals. Have you read every one of those sources (not just the quoted parts, mind you), as in, the whole articles? If not, I wouldn't include them. Linking w/o having read the article is a case of deceit :-O.-MichaelS 00:02, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
- Isn't this the object, though? Since those are pay sites, Conservative has given a free access summary. And this single article has more educational value than all the rap, punk, and pop culture articles combined we have on this site. Rob Smith 00:06, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry, but I don't trust Conservative to have accurately cited the articles. Further, I think it best that ::::his sourcing and citation be open for critics and admirers to see. Also, it's extremely unencyclopedic to just take his word for it.-MichaelS 00:11, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
- Traditional values Coaltion and Concerned Women for America are precisely the sources we should be using and linking to for articles. Rob Smith 00:21, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
Leaving aside questions of trust, it is clear that the vote is squarely against you, Conservative, with several sysops opposing the article. I believe that unless there is a significant change to the vote tally over the next day or so, the article should be deleted. SSchultz 00:23, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
- We've been down this road on the discussion surrounding the AMA's decision to stop treating people seeking treatment for homosexuality. The APA's position statement says presiciely the decision is based upon social & political factors, not medical and scientific. So sorry, Maestro, that argument not only does not wash, it missed the point.
- And SSchultz, we're not a mobocracy; if you wish to begin removing links we have in all the our pop culture articles to the home pages of rock groups that are Satan worshipers and begin replacing them with links to the TVC or CWA, somebody may pay more attention to you. Rob Smith 00:49, 4 October 2007 (EDT)