Difference between revisions of "Talk:Homosexuality and Scotland"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Erm, what?)
(Erm, what?)
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 29: Line 29:
  
 
I will edit this page to remove the unproven allegation of a homosexual conspiracy, and the things that would be irrelevant to this conspiracy, even if it exists. If anyone can actually come up with a reasonable answer to any of the above questions, feel free to re-add the relevant parts.  I've also removed what seems to be the same thing being said twice in the list of bullet points. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 17:59, 13 January 2008 (EST)
 
I will edit this page to remove the unproven allegation of a homosexual conspiracy, and the things that would be irrelevant to this conspiracy, even if it exists. If anyone can actually come up with a reasonable answer to any of the above questions, feel free to re-add the relevant parts.  I've also removed what seems to be the same thing being said twice in the list of bullet points. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 17:59, 13 January 2008 (EST)
 +
 +
:::I have other things to do, so this is a blatent 'sockpuppet' created to make this point.  I edit this page, as described above, then this edit is reverted in minutes, quoting a rule about 'not deleting cited claims without getting permission on the talk page', which, as far as I can see, has been created on the spot for the purposes of enabling the sysops to revert my edit, plus, of course, all bar one of the 'cited claims' are totally and utterly irrelevant in any way to the subject of homosexuality and Scotland, and this one relevant claim is disproved by the very source it cites.  I revert the reversion, giving this as the reason in the summary box, so this gets reverted again, and I am blocked, being told to 'cool down'.  I can only conclude from this that Conservapedia has zero interest in it's pages being factually accurate and relevant to the subject the page is supposed to be about. [[User:Zmidponk2|Zmidponk2]] 20:40, 13 January 2008 (EST)
 +
:::Also, the very fact I can find eleven problems with a page that is three sentences and ten bullet points long really speaks for itself. [[User:Zmidponk2|Zmidponk2]] 20:47, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Revision as of 19:47, 13 January 2008

How are athiest teachers part of the homosexual agenda? Maestro 15:16, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

And for that matter, how are pedophiles part of the "homosexeual agenda"? --transResident Transfanform!

Erm, what?

To the various people who entered the information on this page:

Firstly, the alleged 'homosexual agenda'. Please provide proof that this vast conspiracy has a wing in Scotland. Or even exists, anywhere, come to think of it.
Secondly, provide proof that the Church of Scotland is sympathetic to this international group of conspirators. The 'evidence' in the citation is a discussion of the various arguments on all sides of the debate about homosexuality in the Church which completely fails to mention anything about that Church having contact with or being sympathetic towards some machiavellian group of homosexual conspirators.
Thirdly, what does a bill that proposes to,' permit civil marriages to be solemnised at locations other than registration offices, authorise local councils to approve locations for that purpose and to charge fees to meet related costs and enable the Registrar General for Scotland to give guidance on the above to local councils', have to do with a 'homosexual agenda'? Or, indeed, homosexuality, in any way?
Fourthly, the claim that this bill introduced 'secular marriage' is totally and utterly wrong. The actual bill that introduced secular marriage as a legal status was passed in 1939. However, secular marriage, in practice, has been around in Scotland more or less for as long as there has been such a country as 'Scotland'.
Fifthly, by this site's own definition of 'affirmative action' there is NOT affirmative action for gay Army personnel or policemen. The quote from Warrant Officer Lutha Magloire, taken from the cited source, says that, "We don't really care what sexual orientation you are if you want to come and join us in the Army. I'm not prepared to say if I am gay or not. The Army does not care and does not ask that question to recruits. Whether straight or not, it does not really matter." Sounds like true equality, not 'affirmative action', to me.
Sixthly, what has a decision allowing an atheist to become a teacher at a religious school got to do with this alleged 'homosexual agenda'? Or homosexuality?
Seventhly, you fail to notice that even the CATHOLIC CHURCH OF SCOTLAND agrees with the court's decision.
Eighthly, what has the 'protection for paedophiles' got to do with this alleged 'homosexual agenda', or, indeed, homosexuality?
Ninthly, you have failed to notice that this is about a different method of monitoring and treatment for convicted paedophiles once they have served their sentence and have been released. Are you suggesting they be not monitored and not treated at all, so they go and molest more kids?
Tenthly, you fail to notice the same article mentions that the automatic early release of all sexual offenders is now ended. Hardly 'protecting paedophiles'.
Eleventhly, what has an increase in emergency calls due to increased consumption of alcohol at New Year got to do with this alleged 'homosexual agenda', or, indeed, homosexuality?

I will edit this page to remove the unproven allegation of a homosexual conspiracy, and the things that would be irrelevant to this conspiracy, even if it exists. If anyone can actually come up with a reasonable answer to any of the above questions, feel free to re-add the relevant parts. I've also removed what seems to be the same thing being said twice in the list of bullet points. Zmidponk 17:59, 13 January 2008 (EST)

I have other things to do, so this is a blatent 'sockpuppet' created to make this point. I edit this page, as described above, then this edit is reverted in minutes, quoting a rule about 'not deleting cited claims without getting permission on the talk page', which, as far as I can see, has been created on the spot for the purposes of enabling the sysops to revert my edit, plus, of course, all bar one of the 'cited claims' are totally and utterly irrelevant in any way to the subject of homosexuality and Scotland, and this one relevant claim is disproved by the very source it cites. I revert the reversion, giving this as the reason in the summary box, so this gets reverted again, and I am blocked, being told to 'cool down'. I can only conclude from this that Conservapedia has zero interest in it's pages being factually accurate and relevant to the subject the page is supposed to be about. Zmidponk2 20:40, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Also, the very fact I can find eleven problems with a page that is three sentences and ten bullet points long really speaks for itself. Zmidponk2 20:47, 13 January 2008 (EST)