From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please Update

Please note that more recent studies have been done than the one you cite from 1994. Please reference the following study from the Salk Institute:

Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, CA 92186.

The anterior hypothalamus of the brain participates in the regulation of male-typical sexual behavior. The volumes of four cell groups in this region [interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH) 1, 2, 3, and 4] were measured in postmortem tissue from three subject groups: women, men who were presumed to be heterosexual, and homosexual men. No differences were found between the groups in the volumes of INAH 1, 2, or 4. As has been reported previously, INAH 3 was more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the women. It was also, however, more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the homosexual men. This finding indicates that INAH is dimorphic with sexual orientation, at least in men, and suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.

PMID: 1887219 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Thank you for your 1991 study. Are current medical researchers heralding this study as a past breakthough or dismissing it? Conservative 22:38, 26 November 2007 (EST)
Please look at this article: Conservative 22:43, 26 November 2007 (EST)

We all chose to be gay and chain-smoke?

Whatever turns you on... TheDeludedCruscader 15:07, 4 March 2008 (EST)

General Structure

Now granted, I disagree with lots of the content in this article, but I respect your right to present your opinions and interpretations of various sources. However, this article is INCREDIBLY poorly structured. Information is repeated and there are obviously related sections which should be combined or repositioned. Further, there are sections which should not even really exist as they are composed solely of lengthy quotes from a single or a few sources. These probably do not have enough information to be given their own heading. I'm not going to fix any of it since as noted I disagree with much of the content in the article, but someone really should. As is the article is nearly unreadable. The information could be presented much more concisely and effectively. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WaveMN5 (talk)

What did you disagree with and why? Can you support your disagreements? Also, please be more specific in regards to your criticism of the presenting of the material because if you are going to criticize the presentation, you should at least do it with more clarity. Conservative 22:34, 26 November 2007 (EST)

From another person who sees this article as, at best, slightly biased and poorly researched:

1) 'Homosexuality' is under the category of 'sin'. Why is it a 'sin'? What is a 'sin', and according to whom?

2) You cite much data from the 1990s. In this modern world, information changes on a monthly basis. Please cite more present research and remove sections flagged as outdated.

3) This is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". When I'm reading an encyclopedia deemed 'trustworthy', I expect to be exposed to BOTH SIDES of an issue. Maybe you haven't noticed (hah), but this article is entirely anti-homosexuality.

It's good to be open-minded. =)

Dear Conservapedia,

Putting aside the fact that this article is completely neo-con and right wing biased, which of course is not only your prerogative but also your purpose, I was wondering why when good Christians wish to provide foundations for their disapproval of a practice or group of people we so often must quote only old testament and secondary texts of the bible and not our Lord Jesus' words. Jesus himself was a loving and good man, the son of god, who did not advocate practices of hatred when spreading his message. I also wished to point out that the reason why you may find so few homosexuals in small towns and suburbs and in orthodox Jewish and conservative Christian communities in comparison to cities and liberal communities may be because anyone who did have homosexual feelings decided they would rather suffer in silence than suffer the inevitable ostracizing and eventual expulsion from the families and communities they not only love so much, but crave love and acceptance from. Not to mention the enormous amount of self-hatred these societies often engender in homosexual members. Obviously these suggestions very likely fall on deaf ears, but as you feel compelled to voice your own side of the "facts" under the banner of truth, so do I feel compelled to declare mine.

Thank you for outlining at least one side of the debate clearly and concisely and allowing me this space to respond. Gratefully and Sincerely,


Emily, is it wrong for me or anyone else to tell the couple speeding down the highway that the bridge is out? Would telling them such be based on love or hate?

And if it's just as right to tell them that the bridge is out and possibly SAVE THEM FROM CERTAIN DEATH, is it love or hate that we tell the sinning homosexual person that if he continues doing it, he faces CERTAIN DEATH IN HELL AWAY FROM GOD? As a Christian, how can you explain your situation to God when He's looking at you as a claimed Christian, knowing that you need to spread the Gospel, you need to preach the effects of sin and what could happen, and you're refusing to do it! Karajou 17:19, 27 November 2007 (EST)


Insofar as you wish to approach this matter with distinctly Christian criteria, what you call "secondary texts" (by those, I presume you mean the writings of Paul) are pretty clear in their re-affirmation of what has been consistently mentioned throughout the Biblical narrative. Certainly negative connotations to homosexual practice are seen as early as the Old Testament, but by no means are Christians limited to that part of the Bible alone to justify their position on homosexual conduct.

Jesus did not specifically mention a lot of things that we know to be wrong, like bestiality or torture, but that doesn't mean He approved of them. What Jesus does do is quote from Genesis to affirm God's pattern for marriage as the basis for His own teaching on divorce. In Mark 10:6-8, He says,"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one."

Now, it's fair to say that we should have no sympathy for the person who has no compassion for someone who is unable to be attracted to the opposite sex, and yet does not want to be alone. This is definitely something that needs to be addressed, but it is by no means clear that opposing sexual misconduct in any form (including homosexual) is at all hateful or mean. This can only be so if one starts mistaking what one does for who one is, and if people are no longer capable of telling the difference on that, then the culture in which we live is truly sick. Alexander 10:14, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Jesus frequently employed the tactic of name-calling when criticizing his opponents. Modern day political correctness would call this "hate speech" and brand his fiery rhetoric as "hate-filled". For example,
  • Woe to you, hypocrites! (Matt. 23-15)
It's important to separate the emotionalism of a warning from the logic of it. If someone screams at you, "Get out of the f'ing road, you moron!" Is this really a good time for you to stop, plant your feet firmly in the road and confront the screamer? "How dare you take that tone with me, young man! I'll have you know ..." could be the last thing you say on earth, as you foolishly ignore the frantic pleas of a bystander to save you from being run over by a speeding truck.
It's sometimes worse than foolishness which motivates a change of subject from logic to emotion. Supporters of sin deliberately choose this tactic. They claim it's "impolite" to criticize homosexuality. But to claim that Jesus would never "be rude" is at best, silly, and is usually just deceptive; see liberal deceit.
Heaping scorn upon stupid or sinful actions is a perfectly legitimate educational tool, you jackass! ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 12:56, 1 December 2007 (EST)

I would have to agree with putting Homosexuality in the category of sin. As a person with an alternative lifestyle myself, I have to agree with Conservapedia's judgment on this issue. Their category of "sin" is based on their own operational definition, which is that from their bible. While to some this definition is rather narrow minded, it is not our place to judge their beliefs. But, please feel free to contribute to the best of your abilities within the scope of their rules. For, if by some miracle you are able to open the eyes of but one user with a skillfully crafted article, then you have been successful. But please don't come in here trying to change core values; it won't work. --TrueGrit 14:28, 6 December 2007 (EST)

I removed the immature comment from TrueGrit's response that stated he was a "filthy sodomite." Come on, boys and girls, can't we have a discussion without somebody resorting to childish pranks? --Terra 08:04, 12 December 2007 (EST)

So, self-deprecation isn't allowed then? --Acronym

I have a difficult time seeing how tolerating homosexuality is the same as allowing a guy to speed off a bridge/cliff etc. If a man has been told from birth that the bridge was out, and reminded every day that the bridge was out, told by innumerable social influences that the bridge was out, and decides he wants to speed down toward the bridge, I don't think there's much you can do by yelling and screaming and picketing on the side of the road. I would exhort the dear reader to realize that CONSIDERABLE evidence has been provided by the scientific community that supports the view that homosexuality is not a choice but is in some way genetically founded. That is to say, there are two roads, one with a bridge and one without a bridge, and our poor driver was born on the wrong road, and no amount of harassment and shouting scripture will do him much good. I'm sure our lord Jesus will, in all of his divine benevolence, take into account our driver's inborn "illness" or pre-natal sin.

Do you honestly think that a person would take the hate, insults, and ostracism from the public, willingly? Some homosexuals do try to change their sexual orientation, but such attempts are just as effective as trying to convince a straight man to be gay. I think Emily wrote a beautiful letter and I agree with her wholeheartedly.

I will also echo the cry that this article of Conservapedia, the epitomy of trustworthiness, has far too much Biblical bias, and does not account for the views of other conservative religions.

Thank you, FlightlessOstrich 16:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I do not suggest to remove the bias, since beeing biased is more or less one of the stated goals of conservapedia. But this article is a poorly structured concatenation of litanys and has not even enough structure that i could identify what to criticize with a reasonable effort. I would say what i would have said to students i supervised: Just rewrite it completely. --Stitch75 01:00, 23 March 2008 (EDT)


I would like to thank the people of Conservapedia for putting together a wonderful page calling homosexuality an abomination. You are going to argue that you don’t, that the bible does, and that you certainly never side it was, at least not directly, but we know that is what you were going for. I didn’t have a few things to ask though.

1)Per Exodus 21:7, a man can sell his daughter into slavery…sounds like we may have found a solution to America economic problems.

2)I go to this wonderful mom and pop diner after church every Sunday, I was wondering if we should put the cooks, waiters, and dishwasher boy to death for working on the Sabbath as stated in Exodus 35:2

3)I also love to watch football, but according to Leviticus 11:7, touching the skin of a dead pig is unclean or is it ok since they are wearing gloves.

4)One last question; is it ok to burn my mom for wearing a dress she just bought from the store…its tag says it is made from cotton and silk.

You’re probably thinking these are really silly questions and are out dated for our times. I would agree. I ask that you look at the back of a one dollar bill….it’s ok, I will wait for you to pull one out and look. On the right hand side you will see an unfinished pyramid with the “all seeing eye” of God. Above it is the Latin phrase, Annuit Coeptis; “He (God) approves of our undertakings” We, as a nation, are still very young. We as a society should continue to explore all ideas, use all references and be open to more than one line of thinking. While I understand the people at Conservapidia’s right to an opinion, is it not also the right of a homosexual to have their own? It was too far back that African Americans were pursicutied simply for being black. Jews were killed by the millions for simply being Jewish.

My point is this, in a time when so much information from our past is so readily accessible, why is it that we continue to get caught up in such minor issues as a person’s right to love someone they chose. In the 50’s and 60’s it was unheard of that a white person could marry a black person, and we overcame that. Yet we find ourselves repeating history over a person’s right to love someone they choose to, because a group of people think it is morally unacceptable. Who gives you that right to judge? If I am not mistaken Mathew 7:1-5 speaks about judging others. It says, and I am paraphrasing, that before you judge others, judge yourself. As a Christian, I know that I cannot pass judgment on others, as I am not perfect myself, and honestly never will be. If you want to quote the bible, that’s fine, but don’t use it to judge others with. There are other faiths that follow other standards. You want to help people, do like Jesus and walk with the sinners and the “harlots” as the Bible says and give them the word, if they wish, but don’t force views of narrow mindedness on to people and call them abominations. I am sure Jesus wouldn’t have…I think he would hug sinners (even gays) and welcome them into his house to learn. You want to change people….start from within yourself first.

Thank you, A Christian, Soldier in the US Air Force, and a homosexual who believes in God and His love.

Homosexual Health Issues

I will not dispute the facts in evidence for your article. I would however, ask that you include information on the underlying causes of the health issues. That is to say, there are social issues underlying the spread of disease among homosexuals. This "article" neglects to inform the reader of these issues. One major cause, is the view of uninformed homosexuals taking part in unprotected sex "because they can't get pregnant". I would argue that given the proper address in health education, these numbers could be greatly reduced by informing the homosexual population of the dangers of unprotected sex. --TrueGrit 14:19, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Huh? Rob Smith 17:18, 6 December 2007 (EST)
Sorry. I'll use smaller words. The article on Homosexuality regurgitates all sorts of statistics about gays contracting various diseases. The article does not address underlying causes. But, I suppose the only real cause is an angry God? --TrueGrit 22:16, 6 December 2007 (EST)
There is a Conservapedia article on Causes of Homosexuality. Does that help? Feebasfactor 22:23, 6 December 2007 (EST)
I'd like to point out for the sake of argmument that HIV/AIDS in heterosexual relationships are still on the rise despite the fact that current graphs show AIDS/HIV in homosexual relationships are declining. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Themadscientist (talk)
There are more health issues associated with obesity. I suppose obesity should be banned, then, as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjac1103 (talk)
I suppose "obesity" can find a place under gluttony. We should picket them and come up with offensive nicknames and threaten them with hellfire!! Sound good? FlightlessOstrich 17:08, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
In fact, we ought to warn them that the bridge, that they are speeding rapidly towards, is out. FlightlessOstrich 15:07, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

A new form of the bug MRSA has appeared in gay men in San Francisco. It is resistant to most antibiotics. It causes fatal septicemia, large boils under the skin and also necrotising pneumonia which eats away the lungs. Researchers say the bug is 13 times more prevalent among gay men then among the general population. See BBC News Article Breadan43 14:09, 15 January 2008 (EST)

It seems that has been made irrelevant by the New gay plague article already here, which seems pretty well researched. Misterlinx 16:52, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Think about it

How could you compare two guys kissing to murder, cannibalism and rape? Your arguements on this page don't work. Besides there's just as much chance of STI's through vaginal sex than there is from gay sex. I think you guys are missing the point entirely. Gays don't want to hurt people, they want the same things that all of us do, a good job, a decent wage and compionship. Not every gay man is a slut, you know? and as for what Leviticus says, if we listened to him we would think that mixing cotton and wool is a sin. I don't understand how poeple percieve being gay as a moral threat. When there are people like Osama bin Laden out there executing people and laughing about it. I think most of this fear comes from the lack of understanding. If you talked to a gay person, you'd see that they were very normal people, like everyone else. Not that I'm condoning or praising them, I just feel that they deserve a little empathy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Julianne (Bynightshesales) (talk)

It's not a single kiss which is at issue. It's acting like a male-male relationship can take the place of a heterosexual marriage. The Bible says not, and I'm in no position to argue. Perhaps we need an article on complementarity.
As for STD's, you simply have the facts wrong. The most deadly of STD's is much more easily passed through " gay sex", as you put it; in fact, the physician who called AIDS a "gay disease" was homosexual himself, so it has nothing to do with prejudice.
I don't agree that homosexuals don't want to hurt people. The near-murderous beating administered by one homosexual man to another in As Good As It Gets is typical of the depravity of the "gay community". Homosexuals do not stick together as a rule, except to unite on political issues. And while not every homosexual is a slut, the promiscuity of homosexuals (especially men) is well known (again, see gay disease).
The modern abandonment by Christians and most Jews of rules about mixing fibers does not mean we should abandon the moral teachings of the Old Testament. What if the kosher laws were based on invisible microbes being in pork? Would you say murder was wrong, too?
Homosexuality is more of a threat to marriage and to Christianity than bin Laden is. The slow erosion of morality within society is more to be feared than any sudden blow.
The most ridiculous thing you say is that mere conversation "proves" that homosexuals are normal. Are you implying that opposition to homosexuality comes only from "those who don't know them"? I have never knowingly spoken to a murderer, but I still oppose murder.
Homosexuality kills normal love. Yet, as you say, Julianne, they do deserve empathy. I can hate the sin while loving the sinner. In fact, two of my "gay" friends like me precisely because I am upfront about my religious convictions while personally being rather affable (with them, anyway ;-) and I think that reparative therapy advocate Richard Cohen would be the first to say that empathy is the key to a cure. --Ed Poor Talk 16:46, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Why are homosexual males associated with sluts? Why does homosexuality kill "normal" love? Who are you to define normal?

What arrogant words...

No actually, depending on you're perspective many consider males in general to be "sluts". You are ignoring a huge, huge community of straight men that have sex with full knowledge of their stds, men with dozens and dozens of sex partners. There is a problem of male (and female) promiscuity in general, it is not related to gay men any more than straight men. This point, again is misinformed and has no validity.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kingdragoon (talk)

Do Your Research

I was reading this article, mostly just to see what kind of factual (in)accuracy was here, and I immediately found a statement that was completely and utterly wrong. The following line is from the article: "Research into the issue of the origins of homosexuality suggests that adoptive brothers are more likely to both be homosexuals than the biological brothers, who share half their genes which suggests that homosexuality is not genetically caused." I recently read a study about this very subject. However, the study I read concluded the exact opposite. Here's a link to an article about the study on TimesOnline: Perhaps this blunder could have been excused if a link to whatever research the article is citing had been provided. Instead, the link went to another Conservapedia page (Causes of Homosexuality) that linked to further Conservapedia pages. Convenient, huh?

The article, a sentence later, cites a Science magazine article (which, unfortunately, I can't check right now) and two websites when it concludes that homosexuality is environmental rather than biological. I briefly looked at these two sites, and I think it is fair to say that anything that these sites state should be taken with a large grain of salt, if that information should be considered at all. Both sites have an obvious bias against the biological cause of homosexuality (one offers counseling to "heal" young persons that feel they are becoming homosexual) and hence, I believe, are incapable of providing solid and unbiased support for either viewpoint on homosexuality.

In conclusion, the author of this article needs to provide the source of whatever research states that adopted brothers are more likely than biological brothers to become homosexual for public scrutiny. This study is more recent (2006) than many mentioned in the article. Or perhaps this article should be reopened to public editing as well.

--Terra 20:36, 11 December 2007 (EST)

This article is predicated based on misinformation and selective biases. Oops looks like someone forgot to take a basic introductory course in Statistics, never mind logic. I don’t have all day to so I’ll keep this focused. The article quotes studies that suggest those raised in urban areas are more likely homosexual. You think this is sound?

Well it seems a constant to all countries that the IQ’s of those in rural areas are statistically significantly lower than those in rural areas. I guess that small towns make you dumb. Wait a second, no they don’t. That’s right there’s a huge difference between correlation and causation. This study doesn’t prove that environmental characteristics play a role in development of homosexuality. At best it proves that those raised in big cities are more open about their sexuality. It is also, significantly demonstrated that homosexuals in rural areas are reported to have “discrimination and fear that is more intense than in urban areas”. This isn’t to say that rural areas are less likely to produce homosexual individuals, the persecutory environment makes it more likely that they hide their preferences. Thus, there will be a strategic bias in the data in that some respondents aren't honestly answering the questions. This relates to the problem of surveys, they aren't completely scientific because people don't alway give the true answers.

How would it go if an author used similar logic to conclude that the environment of church made people stupid. After all, studies show that those living in rural areas are more likely to go to church, and also that those in rural areas have lower IQ’s. Then, church makes you stupid? No! But this is the same logic that this article inaccurately uses.

Further, calling missionaries reliable witness in issues that affect the core value of their faith? That is a stretch even for such a bias article as this one. “It is certainly true that if three such different experiences of homosexuality can occur in groups of people so closely related genetically, genetically enforced homosexuality is an impossibility” This statement lacks validity of any kind. A sample size of three proving that there is no genetic component; this lacks knowledge of basic biology in addition to any knowledge of statistics.

None of these authors prove any kind of difference between correlation and causation. It is more likely the case that certain environments cause suppression of latent behavior, inducing those with homosexual tendencies to “hide themselves” and not report such behavior to any institution. While the other environments (such as urban areas), allow people to respond accurately and to be honest with themselves.

And lastly, this article completely takes quotes and isolated incidence to stand for the danger of all homosexuals which is an entirely inaccurate. Again, if we were to use quotes from the crusades or even from Christians who bomb abortion clinics we could make ALL Christians look like terrible people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThinkingChristian (talk)

Dear Conservapedia. I am a canadian who belives in God and all that but this is the single most vile, disgusting website i have ever seen. You use references that wouldn't pass in a grade 7 classroom and make such biased, ridiculous claims, like that AIDS is mostly spread around by gays, that i'm not sure how you could even belive that. Liberals are not the end of the world, get over it.


Terra, The footnotes to the study were in the next sentence. However, I do like to make things easy for readers so I put the footnotes in both sentences. Conservative 21:41, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

This should be added in a new category entitled Gay Marriage Debate

"10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong:

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract."
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjac1103 (talk)

You win. Have an Internets Trogdorina 23:19, 29 January 2008 (EST) trogdorina

Great, mate, love it!

The United States is NOT a theocracy

One religion is not imposed on everyone in this country, the USA.

If your religious leader (I suppose Jesus in the case of most people on this website) tells you that you can't be homosexual, DON'T BE. But, please remember that other beliefs exist. Some people believe that homosexuality is fine. Don't try to stop them from practicing their beliefs, as they don't stop you from practicing yours. That's what makes this country wonderful. Stop making arrogant fools out of yourselves and PLEASE consider the values of others -- BE OPEN-MINDED! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjac1103 (talk)

Jesus never said you can't be homosexual - or even that you shouldn't be. Indeed, He never mentioned it at all. G7mzh 15:01, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Well, the Apostle Paul did, and Paul follwed Jesus to the letter. Read First Corinthians 6:9-10:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Regarding any kind of sin, Jesus plainly said not to do it, and it didn't matter what it was. The end result is something you don't want to find out the hard way. Karajou 15:20, 15 January 2008 (EST)

You'll note that he also thought women little better than animals "the woman shall know her place" etc... Want to adapt that into our societies as well? You'll note that this is the twenty-first century, and people have moved on a bit. Also, if you do your math right, you'll find that every religious war/struggle combined has caused over 400 million dead worldwide. Eight times the number who perished in WWII. Why can't people accept the fact that religion has absolutely NO proof of ANY kind behind it?

But shrimp is delicious... Barikada 22:30, 15 January 2008 (EST)
to Barikada: very well put.
to Karajou: Paul is not God nor is he Jesus. Plenty of things have been done 'by people who followed Jesus to the letter'. The Crusades come to mind. And the Holocaust. And so on. You can't pick and choose which rules to follow and which not to follow.
Also, Jesus himself put an end to mosaic law when he created the New Coveneant. ALL the mosaic laws. Not just the ones about shrimp and girls on their period and wearing cotton with spandex... I may be modernizing but i think i've made my point. If the Bible is meant to be read in a literal and straightforward manner, as your personal page says you do, you wouldn't be able to do many of the things I'm sure you do on a daily basis. You wouldn't have been allowed to wear your military uniforms. you wouldn't be allowed to shave....
I think what I want to know is why do Conservative Christians feel they can sift thorugh all the laws and pinpoint the ones they want to follow and the ones they disregard as obsolete?--Iconoclastbeggar 21:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Good point; just as well; it is not as well known as it should be that the 'divine editors' were always picking and choosing what went into the Bible and what stayed out. For instance, there was a book of Mary at one point, but that was never included in the New Testament. As for Homosexuality, it's true that it is spoken out against in the bible, but the bible was written by human beings after being told the word of God. Human beings misqoute and lie, and that includes Paul. When it comes to issues like homosexuality, I say they're obviously making a mistake, but it's still there mistake to make, not mine. --YoungConservative 13:29, 5 February 2008 (EST)YoungConservative

Soooo, is that question going to go unanswered forever or will conservatives actually step up tp the plate for once? and iconoclast beggar gets blocked in 5...4...3...--Iconoclastbeggar 19:28, 14 February 2008 (EST)
Nah, Wikipedia was the beacon of rationality - no place for all the sensible souls here who believe that god created the whole of everything in seven days, and are so homophobic they're scared if their own penises. TheDeludedCruscader 15:13, 4 March 2008 (EST).


Just because ONE religion is anti-homosexuality doesn't mean those beliefs should be forced on the entire United States.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjac1103 (talk)

The article shown here is simply a one-sided arguement supported with outdated and biased evidence. If one is to argue that sexuality is merely a choice then how can one account for the thousands of christian adolescents, who in the question of their sexuality were brought to self-mutilation and suicide. Moreover for those christian catholics who do not take the bible literally, word for word, the belief of the church is that it is the lifestyle that in itself is seen as wrong and not the actual orientation. Furthermore, the information presented on the number of gays in certain populations is ridiculously outdated and beyond that is inaccurate. In societies outside of our own many men who consider themselves to be homosexual are forced to remain silent about thier orientation due to the consequences they may face from thier religious community and even government if thier secret is exposed. Truly something such as the number of gays or lesbians in a population cannot be calculated as any other race is for gay is an orientation, considered to wrong to some, thus admitting to orientation is not something that occurs often. On another note, even though the hate crime act has often been abused, it was only created after an innocent openly gay college student was brutally murdered by two men just because of his sexuality. This law serves not to promote the gay lifestyle to others or present an unfair legal advantage to homosexuals, but to protect the lives of all of those who live in our awesome nation. Even if one is anti-gay and believes that having a homosexual orientation is a sin, this does not give this person the right to take another man or woman's life no matter how wrong they believe this person to be. As good americans, and good christians, it is our duty to care for our brother, despite what shortcomings you may believe him to have and even if he may strike you and take unfair stances against you, you must not strike him back but instead offer the other cheek.

Well you pretty much summed everything up there nicely. Thank you, --Rainedaye 13:50, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Yes, please reserve your anti-hate messages for the imaginary bias at Wikipedia.

Regarding the large post above: Next time you post I would suggest giving sufficient evidence in regards to your contentions. Please save your blathering for Wikipedia where it would be more appreciated. Conservative 17:46, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Request for unlocking of article

Although I applaud the intent of this article, it is badly written in places and poorly organized overall. The waters of the debate have been muddied enough by years of homosexual activism and we must strive for clarity above all else. I request that this article be unlocked for a thorough overhaul.

In the meantime, will somebody with the necessary authority please amend the introduction? It needs to be both punchy and inspirational, and is currently neither. I very nearly read no further and it was only some of the headings in the list of contents that persuaded me to continue. Off the top of my head:

Homosexuality is a sin. In today's dictionaries, however, it is defined simply as "sexual desire or behavior directed's own sex" without mention of the fact that it is contrary to the word of God. This article will redress this Orwellian corruption of language and provide the righteous reader with all the information he needs to debunk the specious reasoning of homosexual activists and their misguided sympathizers.

--JDAtherton 16:35, 2 March 2008 (EST)

As the most popular article on Conservapedia, I doubt that you will be allowed a free hand to edit it. I suggest that you make a copy in your personal userspace and make improvements as you see fit. You can then submit your version for approval. BrianCo 16:41, 2 March 2008 (EST)
I have made a brief start here. It should give an idea of the direction in which I would like to take the article. Given the size of the task and the above comment, I would also like some indication that a) it is generally thought that the article does require work, and b) that my input will actually be welcomed. --JDAtherton 18:53, 2 March 2008 (EST)
You mean here, JD?
I meant exactly where I said and your link triggers a bad URL warning from Spybot. --JDAtherton 19:05, 2 March 2008 (EST)
That's unusual - is a pretty reputable website, and I get no such warning. Odd. AliceBG 19:07, 2 March 2008 (EST)
JDA, the page has largely been the preserve of one editor User:Conservative, you will need to contact him to see if your input would be welcomed. BrianCo 14:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)
The introduction of the article was intentionally meant to be non-committal and merely mention items that would be discussed in the article. It was meant to stir the readers curiosity and not hurl fire and brimstone from the beginning of the article. The fire and brimstone is covered later in the Sodom section. :) By the way, if you look at the top search engine ranked articles you will see that quite a few focus on the etiology of homosexuality so mentioning that the etiology issue would be discussed in the article in the introduction creates curiosity in many readers. Conservative 00:54, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

JDAtherton, I was intrigued by these sentences of yours. You wrote the following: "Modern science, however, rejects the Bible as an authority, and it is this rejection that has led to the current fruitless search for a biological explanation. Fortunately, there are still a few brave souls in the scientific community prepared to speak out against the prevailing orthodoxy." Could you cite the individuals you had in mind for the second sentence? Conservapedia does ask that you cite your sources. Overall, I think your alternative article sounds somewhat "semonish" and I would not favor it although I agree with many of its sentiments although I did not read all of it. I do think the Bible verses and the Bible exegesis section of the article accomplishes what you want in regards to "preaching". And of course, the ex-homosexuals section mentions people who have left homosexuality through the power of Christ. Conservative 23:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

As long as you add that homosexuality is a sin in Christianity. The same is not the case for Buddhism.

to JDAtherton, you have got to be kidding in the world could you possibly use the bible as a scientific reference. All you neo-cons need to get this into your head. Are you ready for it? Here it is. The Bible is a METAPHOR! Water was not actually turned into wine, the Red Sea was not actually parted. They are metaphors. Almost every story in the bible is a metaphor. You can no more use the Bible as scientic evidence as i can use my own personal thoughts. - Boddah

What is wrong with you people?

I stumbled across this article by chance and I cant believe there are still people out there that are afraid of gay people. How can you begin you call yourselves educated when you make remarks such as 'gays are child molestors'; you could not be any further from the truth. How about you mention the percentage of priests who molest children? Oh right, I forgot this is a crazy bible thumper website. You people need to get your heads out of the sand and realize you are horribly wrong and I hope your make believe God sends you to burn in hell with all of the people who were again Black rights and womens rights, oh right, you guys probably do that too! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shellie86 (talk)

I agree with Shellie86. Furthermore about Homosexuality and Religion its not that religion affects homosexuality its that it condemns it and therefor there are not less gay people just less that want to talk about it because of there background or out of fear of getting punished. After all if so me one told you that something is evil all your life and then you discovered you like it how many people would you tell? Cal05000 17:38, 5 May 2008 (EDT)[[User:Cal05000|Cal05000

Wow what a great argument! You have turned me from my evil waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaays! HelpJazz 18:04, 6 March 2008 (EST)
HelpJazz, I think he has ex-gay phobia.  :) Conservative 00:48, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

I have a question . How do you make a person an ex-homosexual? That seems impossible (and trust me, I probabily won't believe it until I see it). Besides, homosexuality might not be a choice. Perhaps you cannot chose your sexuality at all. For instance, has anyone just woke up one morning deciding that they were going to be straight? Or, has anyone experemented with both homosexuality and being straight, and then, when they decided which one they prefered, they were never stimmulated by the other? This is just a theory, but maybe it is true.

Minor bits

  • A few things to be corrected:
In the "Further Reading" section, there is a wikilink to "Homosexual," which redirects back to "Homosexuality"
Under the section "Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot," there is a wikilink to "Lesbian," which redirects back to "Homosexuality"
Under the subsection "Homosexuality and Cigarrete Smoking," the word 'cigarette' is twice misspelled - once in the body, and once in the section title
-CSGuy 16:46, 6 March 2008 (EST)
Fixed the cigarette issue. Thanks. Will fix the other issues when time allows. Conservative 00:46, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

if this is in the sin catagory then shouldn’t it be in the Sexual sins Category?--duo 23:20, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

We don't need a category on sexual sins. The user who created that was blocked anyway. DanH 23:22, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

I'd just like to say...

That, as a homosexual person, I find it completely impossible to be otherwise (believe me, I've tried, if I could make my life easier I would!) so I have no option but to believe that homosexuality is innate, or, at least something that, if occurs, is unavoidable. --MrMetalFLower 14:48, 7 March 2008 (EST)

also, I applaud this article's subtlety even if not its sentiment. --MrMetalFLower 15:11, 7 March 2008 (EST)
That's because what you said is true. God isn't going to 'help' you, because there is no 'help' to be given. I simply don't believe that homosexuality is a 'sin' of any kind, Biblical or not. In short, I'd suggest that you ignore any kind of prejudice against homosexuals, since it is unprecedented. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plutoisstillaplanet (talk)
Here is an excerpt from the aforementioned homosexuality article: "In regards to Peter LaBarbera's statement above regarding homosexuals overcoming homosexuality through the power of God, in 1980 a study was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry and eleven men participated in this study. The aforementioned study in the American Journal of Psychiatry stated that eleven homosexual men became heterosexuals "without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy" through their participation in a Pentecostal church.[47] Conservative 00:42, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Do you have any studies from after say, 2001 stated anywhere in this article? In todays world, ideas once though sound change in the blink of an eye.

Exactly. If i go back far enough i'll find things (i.e. articles, books, etc.) that "prove" women are not people, blacks are property, the world is flat, and everything is made out of earth, wind, fire, and water. We all know these things are not true, or at least i hope we do, so please find an actual scientific study done outside of the 1990's, 80's, or even earlier to site. - Boddah

You are using the Appeal to novelty logical fallacy gentlemen. Conservative 21:36, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
That's an easy cop-out, Conservative. Read Kuhn. New ideas matter, and they eventually drive out old ways of understanding the world. There's a reason why we keep researching and learning. If you tried to submit an undergraduate-level paper, never mind serious original academic research that didn't account for the last twenty years' worth of academic contributions on the topic, you'd get laughed out of class. ~

bible verses

Should any discussion be given to the possible mistranslation of "arsenokoites" and "malakos" as homosexual when in the four other times it is found outside of Paul it is listed with economic crimes i.e. it might not be homosexual but homosexual prostitute or male prostitute. As it is not entirely clear whether it is homosexual or even male/homosexual prostitute can it be used to make such a strong claim?

Please see the footnotes cited. Conservative 22:35, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Just wondering, why are Biblical Statements on homosexuality in the first section? Seems like a sign of bias towards the Christian religion to me. Hmm. Also, note that 'homosexuality' is under the category of 'sin' -- LOL? Umm, 'sin' according to whom? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjac1103 (talk) yeah, not all religeons (or even all Christians) think that homosexuality is a sin. Pastafarian2 22:30, 8 January 2008 (EST)

It's not even a 'sin' according to the Christian religion. The Bible has been used incorrectly to support certain peoples' anti-gay agenda. Plutoisstillaplanet 12:40, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Reference No. 135

The url can be shortened to: +_+ Fuzzy|AFD 23:19, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

this article

Would be a million times better in terms of writing style if it had zero quotes, and instead rephrased the quotes and cited them. It doesn't seem appropriate for an "article" to be primarily composed of quotes. Murray 22:26, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Also quoting thing some said at a "riot", as Conservapedia itself describes it, is hardly scientific evidence as to the "evils of homosexuality". - Boddah

Yo tengo un pregunta.

I have a question (as can be derived by the subject line above). How do you make a person an ex-homosexual? That seems impossible (and trust me, I probabily won't believe it until I see it). Besides, homosexuality might not be a choice. Perhaps you cannot chose your sexuality at all. For instance, has anyone just woke up one morning deciding that they were going to be straight? Or, has anyone experemented with both homosexuality and being straight, and then, when they decided which one they prefered, they were never stimmulated by the other? This is just a theory, but maybe it is true.

Conservatives can give no proof of how someone becomes an "ex homosexual". The only thing I can think of is a religious fanatical who says he was gay and "turned straight" just to attempt to get gay people who are still confused and scared and living in a religulous household to "turn straight". Propagandhi 22:51, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Lance Bass lived in a religious household and was tought that homosexuality was wrong, yet he is a homosexual. So, that just shows that one does not have a choice because if he was tought that it was bad, why would he still do it? --Rocky

Clearly a lack of respect for conservative principles.--Reallife 23:18, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

How so? --Rocky

This whole website shows a lack of respect to Liberal principles. Principles like equality, the right to pursue happyness, and the right not to live in fear due to your sexual orientation. These are the principles that great nations, such as Canada, base their views on. Why is it so hard to just accept someone for who they are? - Boddah


Just passing by this article, but it seems it could really do with being divided up into different pieces, no? No... I'm just kidding. Yeah I agree with you. maybe there should be a new archive.

Now why is it that homosexuality is wrong?

I understand that God says in the bible that homosexuality is wrong, but can anyone please tell me WHY he thought it was wrong? God is so great, he must have a reason, but I can't find it. Can somebody explain it to me?

Quite frankly, I'd like to side with you, but I can't find where he says WHY homosexuality is wrong, and God's reason would surely explain everything.

Anyone? --JackSmith 13:31, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

For one, God did not make humans to have sex with the same sex. You might notice that in the reproductive parts. Maybe his reason has something to do with Sodom and the story of Lot. In my interpretation, God granted union between a man and a woman. Homosexuals are violating his grant by their lewd acts. This explain anything? -Sundance
Riiiiight, and God had no problem with Lot attempting to offer his own DAUGHTERS to the citizens of Sodom to be raped. --JackSmith 21:45, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Where does it say that? Jinxmchue 18:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Because God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Read Genesis 2:24. God's plan for marriage is one man and one woman. You might as well be asking, "Why did God create Adam and Eve instead of Adam and Steve?" Jinxmchue 18:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
That's an interesting question. What is your answer to it? Wandering 19:12, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
It was a tongue-in-cheek question. If you really desire an answer, how about that the human race wouldn't have gotten off to a very good start with two guys who couldn't reproduce. Jinxmchue 23:49, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Granted, we are up to 6 billion people, only a tenth of which are gay, and wouldnt be reproducing, plus the millions of infertile straight people who are in the same boat as them. --JMarks 23:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)


I pity the creators of this site for your intolerance and ignorant views. Reading your homosexuality article makes me proud to come from Canada where the majority of Canadians believe people are just people and being born to love someone of the same gender is in no way a sin. Where in the ten commandments does it say "Thou shall not love someone of the same gender"? Any religion that teaches hate and intolerance is a religion I cannot respect. Conservatives - broaden your mind. You only get one life, do you really wish spend it generating such hate? Students who had a hand in creating this website - you are the future. Be a better future. It is a never a sin to be who you are. PS - I respect Wikipedia far more than this website. At least Wikipedia provides views that are not biased and based on religion or conservative ignorance.

Spare us your Canadian Liberal bias.

  • It's not the love per se - as you probably know, Jesus commanded us to love one another. But screwing is forbidden if you're not married (man and wife): recall that "outside the gates are the dogs and fornicators".
  • Can you broaden your mind to accept the prohibitions that God has laid down for you spiritual growth? You only get one life, do you want to spend it indulging in sin and apostasy?
  • If you "are a sinner" then it's a sin to "be" that way when you could repent.
  • God's grace is available to you any time - just ask for it. :-) --Ed Poor Talk 20:05, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Hidden Homosexuality

I was hoping to see a small section on hidden homosexual Christians who cover their sexual choice by being agressively anti-gay. There are many examples, but for balance in this article I think that a mention of Ted Haggard would be appropriate. He also could serve as an example of how homosexuals use drugs, visit prostitutes, and endanger their wives with their risky and immoral behaviour.

As well this research article may also alert many men who feel that they are safe from the homosexual agenda to the dangers they may face. If you read the abstract from this journal you can see what I am talking about. Perhaps the old 'Methinks the lady doth protest too much' from Shakespeare is more relevant here than ever imagined.

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Adams, Henry E.; Wright, Lester W.; Lohr, Bethany A. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1996 Aug Vol 105(3) 440-445

Abstract The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35 ) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)

Not that a cause and effect relationship can be established by mere coincidence, however it is very strange that 4 out of the top 10 page hits on Conservapedia are related to homosexuality. There are over 24,000 pages to choose from, why would readers choose to view pages about this disgusting act. There seems to be an unaccountable obsession by Conservapedia readers to research homosexuality. It is puzzling and troubling to me. On another note, I looked for a page on 'Forgiveness' but there wasn't one to be found. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeremyH (talk)

Please excuse this regrettable lapse; forgiveness is now available. --Ed Poor Talk 20:15, 29 June 2008 (EDT)