Difference between revisions of "User talk:Gays r people"
From Conservapedia
Nematocyte (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
:Okay, fine. You're homophobic and it's not going to change. But surely you agree that it's not the business of the state to enforce God's will.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT) | :Okay, fine. You're homophobic and it's not going to change. But surely you agree that it's not the business of the state to enforce God's will.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::This still doesn't address why we have a glaring paragraph on anal sex in a wiki that is supposed to be family friendly. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 16:29, March 23, 2007
I can't agree with blocking this username. I don't think it's per se offensive or against the site's intent, unless bigotry is the site's intent.--AmesG 10:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- I didn't impose the block, but I completely support it. The user name is inappropriate--Aschlafly 10:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- When I made the block I was torn because though the name is inappropriate, it could have been a serious user. I couldn't figure out how to block the username but not the IP. Is there any way to do that? Might be useful to know for future reference.NSmyth 10:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- If you uncheck the box that says block account creation from this IP or something like that. --CPAdmin1 10:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- Sweet, I hope his IP gets unblocked.-AmesG 10:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- Done--CPAdmin1 10:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- What makes it inappropriate? Let's say what we mean, and mean what we say. But not blocking the IP is a super idea. -AmesG 10:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- The user name implies that we think that gays "r" not people.--CPAdmin1 10:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- Does it? I don't think that logically follows. -AmesG 10:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- It doesn't, and having a screenname on the site which says that gays are, in fact, people, poses no threat to them. If anything, it proves that they are willing to tolerate a diversity of views, are skeptical of content-based speech restrictions, and are interested in an open discussion of ideas. Given even a cursory exploration of this website, it's clear that the creators aren't really interested in any of these three things, so their choice to ban the name should come as no surprise.--Bflan 10:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- Why do we have a large section on anal sex in the homosexuality article then? Nematocyte 12:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- Homosexuality is neither sex or sexuality.
- "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)
- As the holy scriptures tell us it is abomination.
- JC 12:11, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- Homosexuality is neither sex or sexuality.
Hatred against one's fellow man is also an abomination. And homosexuality is not a choice. Listen to anyone other than Pat Roberston.-AmesG 12:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- Who said anything about hatred?
- "Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins. "(Proverbs 10:12)
- Body parts just shouldn't be used in a manner God didn't intend.
- JC 12:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- Okay, fine. You're homophobic and it's not going to change. But surely you agree that it's not the business of the state to enforce God's will.-AmesG 12:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- This still doesn't address why we have a glaring paragraph on anal sex in a wiki that is supposed to be family friendly. Nematocyte 12:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
