Difference between revisions of "Talk:Homosexuality/archive Set1"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Replaced content with 'Archive 1 Archive 2')
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Talk:homosexuality/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:homosexuality/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:homosexuality/archive2|Archive 2]]
[[Talk:homosexuality/archive2|Archive 2]]
Please remove the internal link to pedophilia.  It's a locked article and clogging up the wanted pages list.  [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 17:49, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:I removed it. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:23, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::Please add the template <nowiki>{{DivineComedy}}</nowiki> at the end of the article. I'd do it myself but the article still seems to be locked. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:51, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
:::P.S. Do we need a Homosexuality template to link the articles together? I could make one up if it is deemed a good idea. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:53, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Would there be an issue with the long names of articles? Many of them are of the form "Homosexuality and X", but not all and many involve multiple words. Before I weigh on whether it would be useful, I'd like to know that there would be a way to do it without adding a lot of clutter to the pages. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 21:04, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Foxtrot - I did a similar thing with Liberal. It's not necessary to use the full article name for the link text. So for [[:Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence]] it would only be necessary to have a link called "Domestic Violence". [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:41, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::I hadn't noticed that. I'm impressed, it actually looks pretty good. Okay, I'm game--let's give your homosexuality thing a try. If we don't like it we can always switch back. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 01:03, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::::::P.S. We'll probably need Conservative's cooperation on this to make it work -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 01:05, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Having seen the article's history, that seems sensible. However, his/her talk page is locked. Conservative, if you read this, could you unlock your talk page please?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:53, 2 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::I think Conservative has made it pretty clear that he doesn't actually want anyone's help in making this a better, easier to use article. ----[[User:ToJones|ToJones]] 13:07, 2 November 2008 (EST)
Is it possible to let someone at least edit this page for style? There's a lot of "in regards to" and "in relation to" that comes off as really clunky and unnecessary. Also someone could make the page flow a little better and improve organization to make it a bit more user-friendly. ----[[User:ToJones|ToJones]] 11:06, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::TOJones, to make things administratively easy,  please copy a section of the article with proposed stylistic changes here: [[User:conservative/homosexuality-stylistic-changes]]  We can incorporate the changes if they are improvements and then erase your copied section.  The process could then be repeated.  Please use small sections and not multiple sections. Please do not copy the whole article because that would make things more cumbersome as it would require more scrolling.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:41, 2 November 2008 (EST)
::::I need to run out for the day, I'll work on this tonight ----[[User:ToJones|ToJones]] 13:58, 2 November 2008 (EST)
::::::ToJones, I am going to be very busy for the next 14 days, so please be patient.  I certainly do not mind your good faith efforts to improve the article and I promise to follow up. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:08, 2 November 2008 (EST)
== Length, Organization, and Flow ==
Forgive me, but this article is ridiculously long. It has a lot of unnecessary junk in it. You should consider removing the legal stuff. It's not really that important. Maybe, you could also shorten the paragraphs in general.  You also have too much stuff over the controversy on homosexuality. You should really tone it down. Clean it up some, and make it flow better. It's pretty random. The organization could be a ''lot'' better. I mean, I'm not trying to be rude, it's just REALLY HARD TO FOLLOW THE ARTICLE. Maybe you could rewrite it, OK?
:::You have a rather vague critique for someone who supposedly wants to provide additional clarity. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 12:24, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::::Okay. You use in regards to and in relation to far too often, part of a general trend of having no transition between any section. Rather than using long block quotes, it would be better to simply summarize this information with citations, and include more extensive information in the linked pages. This simple change, using a summar rather than "in regards to," - block quote - new section, would make the article much more accessible. ----[[User:ToJones|ToJones]] 12:33, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:::TOJones, I believe I used "in relation to" and "in regards to" and "in respect to".  If you have other variants you wish to suggest, I certainly would not mind you sharing them.  I suppose I could vary the sentence placement of these phrases within sentences as well.  Any suggestions with this related matter would be welcome as well.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:13, 2 November 2008 (EST)
There also needs to be some work done on the references. A lot of them are simply links to other websites - this is not appropriate to an encyclopaedic work - we can't simply take everything that someone posts on the Internet as a valid source for referencing. Some of the points which cite references (such as simply stating what is in the Bible) don't require references anyway; others which link to sites which are (often by their own admission) simply opinions should be removed. If this is to become a site which can be referenced for school and university work then the academic standards need to be more rigorous. {{unsigned|BarrySw19}}
:There is nothing stopping you from finding the references and posting them, so save your <s>breath</s>keystrokes and post them instead of complaining. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 23:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Barrysw19,  if you could be more specific, then perhaps you would be taken more seriously. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:45, 28 December 2008 (EST)
== Navigation box? ==
I'd suggest producing a navigation box template to help readers find their way around the various articles on homosexuality. Would this be a good idea? I'd like to get a consensus before I do anything because some of the pages are protected. Also, it will probably look better if someone other than me does it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:39, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:BrianCo has already suggested the navigation box idea just above on this talk page. We'll count this comment as further support for the idea. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:04, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks - hadn't seen that. I do think it's a good idea perhaps a sidebar along the lines of [[Template:Bible]]?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:09, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:::I think a sidebar at the top of the article would be helpful and please have it hightlight the major issues: causes of homosexuality, homosexuality and choice, health, domestic violence, teenager homosexuality, ex-homosexuals, homosexual agenda, homosexuality and the Bible, homosexual marriage, etc.    [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:20, 2 November 2008 (EST)
::::Done - see [[Template:Homosexuality]]. Please comment/improve as you see fit.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:11, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::Botheration, I've spelt it wrong - it's at [[Template:Homesexuality]]. Could someone possibly move it please?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:13, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Not to worry, I've simply created the correct spelling and copied everything over. We're good to go!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:59, 3 November 2008 (EST)
== Animals? ==
I found this article on homosexuality in animals on Wikipedia--[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior]--should we mention this in the article? Or is it another example of Wikipedia's liberal bias? [[User:StelaeD|StelaeD]] 21:56, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:::Read the homosexuality article at CP which addresses this matter and decide for yourself. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:43, 28 December 2008 (EST)
::::Homosexuality has been well documented in many animal species. I recommend doing your own web research if you care to find out.  Articles presented in any wiki are not reliable enough in general to be used as the only source of information. {{unsigned| Shinri}}
:::::I suggest you read our insightful article on the [[homosexuality in animals]] myth. "well-documented" is hardly the case. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 17:29, 1 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::I have read that page, thanks.
:::::::I suggest you do a bit more research on the web =\--[[User:Shinri|Shinri]] 23:17, 1 January 2009 (EST)
== Why ==
Why is this article locked and is only being edited by one person?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 10:14, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::Because liberals are desperate to stop the truth getting out, so we have to stop their petty vandalism by locking it. I'm glad it's being written by someone who's so intelligent and honorable. --[[User:RightWingAndProud|RightWingAndProud]] 19:32, 11 December 2008 (EST)
::::Change "stop the truth getting out" to "help the truth get out", then you've got it right.
::::P.S. Also, note that homosexuality actually isn't a sin. Learn2Bible. --[[User:Shinri|Shinri]] 15:56, 1 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Actually, it is. Examples: [[Leviticus 18:22]], [[Leviticus 20:13]], [[1 Corinthians 6:9-11]], among others. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 17:35, 1 January 2009 (EST)
::::::Do you eat pork?  Shellfish?  Shave?  Guess what: Christians don't have to follow Levitican law. 
:::::::Acts 10:10-16, NIV, Mark 7:14-19, NIV, Acts 15:24-29, NIV.
::::::EDIT.  Might as well mention Corinthians, though it's in the thread link.  The sin was lust, not homosexuality.  As with Sodom and Gomorrah(Genesis 19:4-30, NIV, Genesis 18:20-21, NIV), that was for sexual immorality (in the form of rape) and inhospitality.  The men were offered his daughters, too, giving the option of consenting sex rather than rape..  Note Ezekiel 16:48-50, NIV and Luke 10:10-12, NIV which regard Arrogance, gluttony, apathy, and inhospitality.  Also, God condones all forms of love here: 1 John 4:7-12, NIV.
::::::EDIT 2.  I was addressing a different part of Corinthians, though it still stands.  The part you mention is a mistranslation.  Here is the section in Greek:
:::::::ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε: οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε "μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται" οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ μέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.
::::::The part in quotes is what is translated as "nor immoral men, nor homosexuals". There was no Greek word for homosexual back then, and the current word is ομοφυλοφιλικός, or omophulophilikos.  Is this word in the text?  Nope.  What ARE there are two words, malakoi and arsenokoitai.  Though the meanings are unclear, Greek scholars have decided that malakoi most likely means male prostitutes and that arsenokoitai, which is a bit more obscure, refers to the customers of these "malakoi". 
:::::::Try out this very informative thread: http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/extended-discussion/homosexuality-is-not-a-sin-what-christ-said-and-more/t.22055569/--[[User:Shinri|Shinri]] 23:27, 1 January 2009 (EST)
== Homosexuality and Liberals ==
I was thinking about this the other day; about why Liberals support homosexuality. You see, my reasoning is thus:
Liberals, mostly being atheists ,deny the existence of God and seek alternative explanations such as Evolution; in other words, they are Darwinists. However, hand in hand with Darwinism goes the concept of 'survival of the fittest'. And it's here that their hypocrisy comes up. Homosexuality contributes nothing to the human race; it does nothing to produce a new generation. As such, it should have died out, and the liberals should be saying 'rightly so'. However, they support the homosexual agenda, and I came to two absurd conclusions about this (they were the only ones I could think of). Either the liberals support homosexuality to cover up the hole in 'survival of the fittest', or they support it purely to annoy Christian Conservatives (is it possible that they base their policies on sheer obnoxiousness?). Thought I would post this here, to see if I can get any more sensible conclusions. Or have I hit this absurd, twisted nail on the head? [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)
They might simply sympathize with the homosexual cause, just as they do for the cause of the poor and women (or so they claim). I don't think that all liberals are Atheists--that is simply too broad a generalization to be accurate. There may be many, but not all of them are Atheists.
And if Homosexuality should have died out, why hasn't it? It's had the last 1500 years to do so, at least.
But I fear that if we go into the "Homosexuality should have died off, it contributes nothing to the human race" debate, that we risk venturing into Social Darwinism, which I believe was used to justify "pacification" of the "savage" native peoples in Africa and the Americas, at least during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. [[User:StelaeD|StelaeD]] 19:19, 1 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Homosexuality and the theory of evolution is mentioned in the article and the incompatibility of the two notions.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:14, 1 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Etrundel, you have a warped view of evolution.  Indeed, it is based on principles of 'survival of the fittest' - but that doesn't trump morals.  Since there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and everything wrong with subjugating homosexuals of course any decent person would support gay rights.  Liberals do not ''support'' the wiping out of parts of or entire species; they merely know ''why'' it happens.  --[[User:Yorpa|Yorpa]] 09:49, 15 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Generalization, much? Not all liberals are atheists, and not all people who believe in God condemn homosexuality. I'd to point out Romans 2:1, which states "Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things." --[[User:MikeEtc|MikeEtc]] 14:01, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Mike, an [[unpenitent]] sinner has already cast his own judgment. Until he is willing to repent for his sins and work to stop himself from committing them anew, then he cannot shake his guilt. Also, your muddled arguments with [[excluded middle]] won't get you far here. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 16:07, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
==Category suggestion==
I feel like the new category [[:Category:Social Problems]] is appropriate, especially given the article's detailed description of the effect of homosexuality on society. Can it be added? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 09:51, 4 March 2009 (EST)
== Psychology ==
I'm a high student of psychology at the moment, and have access to a lot of research. For one, I've noted that studies have shown that--
* People are more likely to be gay if they are the younger siblings of older brothers; This is the result of hormonal changes within the womb after the first male birth, meaning a second male child is subject to these altered hormonal conditions, resulting in a higher chance of the child developing gay.
* Gay people are statistically more likely to have counterclockwise hair whorl patterns.
From a biological standpoint, this heavily indicates an innate, unchangeable biological basis for homosexuality. Should such research be included? It shouldn't be censored, and it's in the interest of giving both sides of an argument. -- Dollfuss.
== sources are confusing ==
Hello. It says that the canadian government found that gay couples are twice as likely to be domesticly violent as straight couples. Can someone tell me which section of the study it's in? The study's pretty confusing.
== Homosexuality as a genetic defect? ==
A few days ago I came across the Wikipedia page for down-syndrome or maybe it was dwarfism or some condition like that and I was quite taken aback that it was defined as being a "genetic defect". A "defect" sounded very offensive to me, so I looked on the Wikipedia guidelines for offensive and apparently, being offensive doesn't matter, especially if there's a scientific slant it.
Personally I DO NOT believe that homosexuality is a genetic defect. I think it's far more likely that it's a choice, as is seen in all of the world's creatures. But I think we should be open-minded even if a claim seems ridiculous.
So I put in Wikipedia that homosexuality is either a choice or as some homosexuals claim rather a genetic defect. It clearly is as it doesn't allow them to mate.
Sure enough as I could almost guess, I was blocked for I think the first time ever from Wikipedia.
Frankly I'm completely sick of the liberal elite controlling Wikipedia, allowing offensive or supposedly clinical scientific things only when it suits them. It's disgusting. So I think it should maybe be put here instead if they can't handle it. [[User:SuperInfinity|SuperInfinity]] 13:07, 15 May 2009 (EDT)
==errors in article==
the section contains the sentence 'A 2004 article by Michael Proust regarding homosexuality and promiscuity'
the correct name is Michael Foust not Proust as the link itself shows [http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17458], also this part should be written to be make sense 'due out this spring', in fact the book came out in 2004, and should be so changed, since the article is protected I cannot fix these errors [[User:Lerseffigy|Lerseffigy]] 12:52, 31 May 2009 (EDT)
:::::Thanks for the sharp editing eye!  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:17, 13 June 2009 (EDT)
== Religious condemnation ==
What are the reasons for the religious condemnation of homosexuality and homosexual activities? My interest is in the authors of the Bible who prohibited a social activity that was acceptable in Greek, Roman, Japanese, etc. cultures. Was it health concerns? Social concerns? Also, in Christianity, is only homosexuality (the act of being attracted to the same sex), only homosexual activities, or both the homosexual state and homosexual activities condemned? We can discuss our findings in the article. [[User:Accountholder|Accountholder]] 08:51, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Revision as of 01:19, 13 June 2009

Archive 1 Archive 2