From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Do we need an entry on the origins of this? If we do not need an entry on the "origins" of homosexuality, then why bisexuality? airdish 20:20, 14 March 2007 (GMT)

Important to consider the cultural etiolation of these behaviors in promoting sexual immorality and sexual license. 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. Airdish 14:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Just a note...not all religions view bisexuality (or even homosexuality) as immoral. This doesn't seem to be as clear-cut a distinction as, say, murder or theft. (The "hookup" culture is just plain foolish, though...a perfect breeding ground for disease.) --M 10:52, 16 April 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?

  • 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. Airdish 14:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Airdish, if you were aware of current events, you'd know that a number of recent books on sexual morality, the 'hookup' culture, and the harm that this license does to young women have been published recently. [1] I don't think it is inappropriate to consider the harm that negative aspects of secularist culture does to our young. DunsScotus 14:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Skeptic's Annotated Bible

To (mis)quote Martin Luther, "Show me where the error is." If you're going to chuck them, it should be for a better reason than "I don't like them". --BDobbs 17:43, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

If that's the only thing somebody is citing, including at the expense of the Bible itself, eight times in their article and they're claiming it's for "biblical accuracy", something is up, obviously. MountainDew 17:44, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry; it's the only online Bible source I know of off the top of my head. Would citing BibleGateway be OK?--M 10:56, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

You know, the Bible only forbids male homosexuality. Odd, that. --BDobbs 17:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I see no way around Romans 1:26. MountainDew 17:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

So Jewish lesbians are all right, then? --M 10:56, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Why was the reference to ancient Greece removed as "dubious science"? That had nothing to do with science. DanH 01:21, 24 April 2007 (EDT)