<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=GayMan</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=GayMan"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/GayMan"/>
	<updated>2026-10-09T17:44:01Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bisexuality&amp;diff=212944</id>
		<title>Bisexuality</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bisexuality&amp;diff=212944"/>
		<updated>2007-06-29T21:20:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;GayMan: good starting line&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Bisexuality''' is a [[sexual orientation]] in which one is attracted to both sexes, either equally or of some degree.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>GayMan</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&amp;diff=212937</id>
		<title>Heterosexuality</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&amp;diff=212937"/>
		<updated>2007-06-29T21:18:13Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;GayMan: edit&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Heterosexuality''' is a [[sexual orientation]] in which one is attracted solely to the opposite sex, and romantic and sexual relationships are exclusively between men and women.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heterosexuality is often contrasted with [[homosexuality]], exclusive attraction to the same sex, and [[bisexuality]], an attraction to both sexes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Heterosexuality and Religion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Biblical views===&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the Bible there are a number of verses which have been interpreted to mean that the only accepted relationships are between a man and a woman and that homosexuality and bisexuality are sinful. This is not without debate, as some Christians and theologians, mainly of a more liberal perspective, have re-examined the translations and come to different conclusions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There exist in the Biblical text a number of commandments to heterosexual sexual morality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Old Testament ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that ''is'' thy neighbour's.&amp;quot; (Exodus 20:17)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;And if a man '''sell his daughter''' to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another ''wife''; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.&amp;quot; (Exodus 21:7-10)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.&amp;quot; (Exodus 22:16-17)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that ''is'' a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.&amp;quot; (Leviticus 19:20)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;If a man find a damsel ''that is'' a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty ''shekels'' of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.&amp;quot; (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== New Testament ====&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.&amp;quot; (Matthew 5:28)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''It is'' good for a man not to touch a woman.&amp;quot; (1 Corinthians 7:1)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.&amp;quot; (1 Timothy 2:8-15)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Bisexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Homosexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:biology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>GayMan</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&amp;diff=212932</id>
		<title>Heterosexuality</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&amp;diff=212932"/>
		<updated>2007-06-29T21:16:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;GayMan: /* Biblical views */ edit&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Heterosexuality''' is a [[sexual orientation]] in which one is attracted solely to the opposite sex, and romantic and sexual relationships are exclusively between men and women.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heterosexuality is often contrasted with [[homosexuality]], exclusive attraction to the same sex. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Heterosexuality and Religion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Biblical views===&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the Bible there are a number of verses which have been interpreted to mean that the only accepted relationships are between a man and a woman and that homosexuality and bisexuality are sinful. This is not without debate, as some Christians and theologians, mainly of a more liberal perspective, have re-examined the translations and come to different conclusions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There exist in the Biblical text a number of commandments to heterosexual sexual morality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Old Testament ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that ''is'' thy neighbour's.&amp;quot; (Exodus 20:17)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;And if a man '''sell his daughter''' to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another ''wife''; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.&amp;quot; (Exodus 21:7-10)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.&amp;quot; (Exodus 22:16-17)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that ''is'' a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.&amp;quot; (Leviticus 19:20)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;If a man find a damsel ''that is'' a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty ''shekels'' of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.&amp;quot; (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== New Testament ====&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.&amp;quot; (Matthew 5:28)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''It is'' good for a man not to touch a woman.&amp;quot; (1 Corinthians 7:1)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.&amp;quot; (1 Timothy 2:8-15)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Bisexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Homosexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:biology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>GayMan</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&amp;diff=212928</id>
		<title>Heterosexuality</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&amp;diff=212928"/>
		<updated>2007-06-29T21:14:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;GayMan: /* Biblical Views on Heterosexuality */ edit&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Heterosexuality''' is a [[sexual orientation]] in which one is attracted solely to the opposite sex, and romantic and sexual relationships are exclusively between men and women.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heterosexuality is often contrasted with [[homosexuality]], exclusive attraction to the same sex. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Heterosexuality and Religion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Biblical views===&lt;br /&gt;
==== Old Testament ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that ''is'' thy neighbour's.&amp;quot; (Exodus 20:17)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;And if a man '''sell his daughter''' to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another ''wife''; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.&amp;quot; (Exodus 21:7-10)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.&amp;quot; (Exodus 22:16-17)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that ''is'' a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.&amp;quot; (Leviticus 19:20)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;If a man find a damsel ''that is'' a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty ''shekels'' of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.&amp;quot; (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== New Testament ====&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.&amp;quot; (Matthew 5:28)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''It is'' good for a man not to touch a woman.&amp;quot; (1 Corinthians 7:1)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.&amp;quot; (1 Timothy 2:8-15)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Bisexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Homosexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:biology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>GayMan</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Heterosexuality&amp;diff=212927</id>
		<title>Talk:Heterosexuality</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Heterosexuality&amp;diff=212927"/>
		<updated>2007-06-29T21:12:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;GayMan: Heterosexuality is not &amp;quot;the&amp;quot; natural sexual attration - it is a natural sexual orientation&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==empty sections==&lt;br /&gt;
What's the point of all the empty section headings? I'm not sure whether to ask why they are there, or why they are not complete (e.g. there are not sections for &amp;quot;heterosexuality and the common cold&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Heterosexuality and inanimate objects&amp;quot;). --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 04:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Bit weird isn't it?  Is it a spoof?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 04:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I think the intention is to end up with an article as informative and well balanced as the one on  [[homosexuality]].&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:JC|JC]] did say &amp;quot;Content needs to be added. Its kinda science stuff I can't do it.&amp;quot;. Unfortunately I don't know any better either.&lt;br /&gt;
::One can only assume content will be forthcoming.&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Be strong and of good courage, and do it: fear not, nor be dismayed: for the LORD God, even my God, will be with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee, until thou hast finished all the work for the service of the house of the LORD.&amp;quot;  (1 Chronicles 28:20)&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 06:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Why? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why were my good faith edits reverted without discussing them first? [[User:AppliedFaith|AppliedFaith]] 16:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You're not going to convince me it was good faith. The Bible does NOT say that sex within marriage is bad. 1 Corinthians 7:5 [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:15, 14 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Not sinful, no, but it does say it's better to remain single and celibate, and that marriage is only for people who would otherwise be tempted to commit fornication (1 Corinthias 7:8-9). [[User:AppliedFaith|AppliedFaith]] 16:26, 14 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::If celibacy is the prefered thing, wouldn't we pretty quickly go extinct? Don't you think god would like us to keep on having babies?! [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 16:38, 14 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I don't pretend to know the mind of God. But I do know that Jesus was unmarried and celibate, and that Christians are called upon to be as like Jesus as they can. It's always worth striving for perfection, even though we know we will never achieve it. There will always be enough people who cannot resist temptation and therefore get married, so there's no risk of humans becoming extinct. But that doesn't mean that Christians who are unmarried (especially Christian children and teenagers who we are hoping will be the target audience of this site) should be looking forward to marriage. Rather, they should learn that celibacy is the ideal that they should strive for, and only if they can't resist sexual temptation should they consider marriage as a last resort. [[User:AppliedFaith|AppliedFaith]] 16:49, 14 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Saying ''why did you do that to me'' is not much of a rationale for your actions or intentions. The burden of proof here is the same as at Wikipedia, and you have to leave the article alone unless you can prove to your peers that your change is worthwhile. Changing it back merely because they haven't convinced you that you are wrong just heads us toward an [[edit war]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To use your own logic, I could simply edit your name out of the list of approved contributurs simply because you can't convince me to keep you around. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Activity?==&lt;br /&gt;
The definition of heterosexuality has been changed from &amp;quot;sexual attraction&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;sexual activity.&amp;quot; Some interesting results emerge from this new concept:&lt;br /&gt;
#I am evidently not a heterosexual. Not tonight, anyway.&lt;br /&gt;
#In fact, anyone not actively engaged in sexual activity seems to lose heterosexuality as a trait.&lt;br /&gt;
#One may change from heterosexual to homosexual to bisexual to asexual, being whichever -sexual one prefers on any given night.&lt;br /&gt;
#No virgin may claim to have ever been a heterosexual, since the quality is dependent upon the activity. Heterosexuality springs into existence upon the initiation of sexual activity.&lt;br /&gt;
Needless to say, I find this particular definition wanting.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 00:49, 24 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The article doesn't actually define &amp;quot;heterosexual&amp;quot;. You may find those results interesting, but other definitions have more confusing results. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:20, 24 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;sexual activity&amp;quot; could include kissing etc, but probably doesn't include sitting on the other side of the classroom ''watching'' the girl of his dreams/boy of her dreams. I'm on the &amp;quot;orientation&amp;quot; side of the orientation/activity fence. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Heterosexuality is not &amp;quot;the&amp;quot; natural sexual attration - it is a natural sexual orientation==&lt;br /&gt;
I changed that. I'd change your crap article on homosexuality but you locked it so nobody could put real neutral facts in there. [[User:GayMan|GayMan]] 17:12, 29 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>GayMan</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&amp;diff=212926</id>
		<title>Heterosexuality</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&amp;diff=212926"/>
		<updated>2007-06-29T21:11:27Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;GayMan: edit&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Heterosexuality''' is a [[sexual orientation]] in which one is attracted solely to the opposite sex, and romantic and sexual relationships are exclusively between men and women.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heterosexuality is often contrasted with [[homosexuality]], exclusive attraction to the same sex. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Biblical Views on Heterosexuality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bible gives some guidelines for heterosexuals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Old Testament ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that ''is'' thy neighbour's.&amp;quot; (Exodus 20:17)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;And if a man '''sell his daughter''' to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another ''wife''; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.&amp;quot; (Exodus 21:7-10)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.&amp;quot; (Exodus 22:16-17)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that ''is'' a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.&amp;quot; (Leviticus 19:20)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;If a man find a damsel ''that is'' a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty ''shekels'' of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.&amp;quot; (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== New Testament ===&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.&amp;quot; (Matthew 5:28)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''It is'' good for a man not to touch a woman.&amp;quot; (1 Corinthians 7:1)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.&amp;quot; (1 Timothy 2:8-15)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Bisexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Homosexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:biology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>GayMan</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexual_Agenda&amp;diff=212018</id>
		<title>Talk:Homosexual Agenda</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexual_Agenda&amp;diff=212018"/>
		<updated>2007-06-29T01:51:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;GayMan: please remove&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{protect|Aschlafly}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law.  --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== WOV's got a point ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe.  It presents the &amp;quot;homosexual agenda&amp;quot; from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary.  '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford.  But let's not expand it still further.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seconded. If this is a homosexual agenda, then what homosexual wrote it? This is nothing but political game-playing: Identify a group as ''The Enemy'' and then brand them haters and abusers of family, children, and country. It makes dehumanising them so much easier. - Suricou&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I didn't see anything &amp;quot;hateful&amp;quot; in it.  The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously.  There was nothing binding about his phrase.  I'll note that it was in dissent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece.  Wikipedia exists for that.  Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message.  I can unlock tomorrow.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece!  It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN.  That's awful!!  I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest.  It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective.  I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Thanks.  Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would definitely change the &amp;quot;promote homosexuality in schools&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools&amp;quot;.  Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I agree with the comments of [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] and [[User:Splark|Splark]]. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific &amp;quot;agenda&amp;quot; is an all-too common one, but such agendas are more often touted by those who oppose than by those who support a group.  That a Supreme Court Justice referred to it, or that it's in some leaflet somewhere, isn't substantive evidence that it exists.. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aren't those five points of the &amp;quot;homosexual agenda&amp;quot; linked to more of a strategy than an &amp;quot;agenda&amp;quot;?  And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups?  1.  Talk about your issue.  2.  Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want.  3.  Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you.  4.  Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral.  5.  Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral.  6.  Get corporate or other financial support.  Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will go on the record and say that yes, there is a homosexual agenda.  As a homosexual myself, I'm pretty much in the middle of it.  All we want is to be treated the same as any other tax-paying American.  If my partner is injured, I would like to be able to have the same visitation and decision-making power as a husband/wife would.  I would like to be able to transfer property when I die without having to jump through a million legal hoops.  Many people claim that we want &amp;quot;special&amp;quot; rights.  We really don't.  We just want to be treated the same as everyone else.--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:01, 12 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this page is extremely biased.  It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding.  Proof of a bias of another kind here.&lt;br /&gt;
-Gasmonkey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eliminate this Hate ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aforementioned article makes me shake with fear as I think that people will actually be exposed to this.  Present both sides of the issue fairly.  I agree with Gasmonkey that this entire article should be deleted.  Moreover, this entire web site should be deleted.  It claims to be an informative, &amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot; site that in fact promotes hate and spews false information across our nation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Teaching God's word that homosexuals are sinful and militant is not hate speech, but free speech.  God's teachings of homosexuality indicate that throughout history, homosexuals have continuously been savage aggressors -- with an agenda.  The story of Sodom is particularly informative.  It described the homosexual agenda of the ancient city of sodom in 1898 B.C. as forcible homosexual assault and enslavement by the homosexual inhabitants of the city to any men who visited the city.  If you believe the bible is hate, then you can head over to Wikipedia and read the alternate viewpoint there. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 02:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 326 admonishments to heterosexuals.  That doesn't mean God doesn't love heterosexuals--He just thinks they need more supervision&amp;quot;--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 02:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm sorry, but you are flat wrong.  There are over 30 admonishments against homosexuality in the Bible.  God specifically states he hates homosexuals and has given them up as servants of the devil.  There are 132 passages in the bible where specifcally states he HATES either a person or group of people.  God does not love everyone, and he says as much in his word.  I know you have heard this soul destroying lie from many people claiming to teach God's word.  It simply is not true. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 12:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Exactly ''where'' does God say that he hates homosexuals? He refers to it as 'abomination' in Leviticus...but then again, the Bible also uses the same term to refer to the eating of shellfish.--[[User:M|M]] 09:40, 25 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::RightWolf2: Leveticus 19:17-18. Whether God hates people or not, He has commanded us to not. You mentioned &amp;quot;over 30 admonishments against homosexuality&amp;quot;. Passages, please. [[User:Ilikepie|Ilikepie]] 18:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Er, can I just point out, (as a happily married, middle aged heterosexual), there is nothing in the Bible which proscribes female homosexuality.  Aren't lesbians homosexuals too? KT&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Some would reply with Romans 1, but not me. (BTW, you can sign with the sig button next to the SLASHED W above or simply four tildes &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::You are a piece of work.  I am sorry you are so angry about the world you live in.  But you certainly make one thing easy: if there is an afterlife and you are the type of person who is going to be occupying heaven, I'd much rather burn in eternal hell with my incredibly wonderful gay friends.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 13:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::What would you know Jack?   With one up the transom and another one in the gob, it's hard to hear you.  [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 15:14, 21 March 2007 (PST).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::You know, that's funny...I'm bi, and I've never been involved in intercourse with more than one person. Fancy that. --[[User:M|M]] 09:40, 25 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Everything you post must be true and verifiable ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment.  There is no homosexual &amp;quot;agenda&amp;quot; -- no &amp;quot;they&amp;quot; who &amp;quot;wrote a book&amp;quot;, no 10-point plan.  It's the same kind of paranoid nonsense that's in the articles here on Joseph McCarthy and Alger Hiss (WP has far more accurate articles on both subjects, with the one on Hiss very clearly identifying areas of controversy), with conspiracy-theorist types quoting and sourcing one another.  I propose this entire article for immediate deletion.  [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 10:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreed. The &amp;quot;Homosexual agenda&amp;quot; is no more factual than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Delete, or recreate as an article about the popular (?) but false belief in this &amp;quot;agenda.&amp;quot; [[User:Pkoad|Pkoad]] 00:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It refers to the [[gay rights]] activism, which may be a [[grassroots]] movement but which has multiple goals which are easily identified. The Liberal POV that such goals are non-existent is a kind of denialism. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It will be good for the article to discuss this denial, in conjunction with [[gay rights]] critics who oppose the points which the denialists says no one advances. (Not worded right, but I think you get the gist.) See you all tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There's no more gay agenda other than there was a &amp;quot;black agenda&amp;quot; before ''Brown'' came down.  The gay agenda is equal treatment.  Oh no, quick, ma, shut the doors!  Equality's a-comin'!-'''&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#007FFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ames&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;G&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;'''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'd say &amp;quot;keep it&amp;quot; so the world can really see how these strange nutkins think.  But in the interest of humanity, decency, and honesty, it is a pack of paranoid, politico-religious agenda lies.  Really, really strange nutjob lies. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Opposing Christian Agenda ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can't work out what the point of the &amp;quot;Opposing Christian Agenda&amp;quot; section is. The sentences don't make sense, and the referenced page does not mention homosexuality or gay. I propose the section be deleted by someone with the privilege to edit the article. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Improvements ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shouldn't ''Gayness'' in part 1. of the agenda be ''Gaiety''?&lt;br /&gt;
The term ''[[homosexual protectors]]'' in part three surely merits its own article. Is this the same as ''[[Homosexualist]]s''? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Any attempt to trivialize or confuse the issue will be frowned upon here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We should delete the cite at the bottom saying that homosexuality caused Nazism.  That's a truly disturbing allegation.-'''&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#007FFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ames&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;G&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;'''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 12:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Especially considering that the Nazis actually murdered thousands of homosexuals during World War II.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Very Informative ==&lt;br /&gt;
'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Excellent portrayal of the truth. This is a nice breather from the left-wing saturated wikipedia.com. If you agree with the article, you should check out the highly accurate article on homophobia. Everyone knows that the creation of homophobia is a foundation of the gay agenda.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Is this real? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article seems like a parody. I can't believe that... oh yeah, I'm at conservapedia. I can believe anything. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As well as the mysterious reference to a &amp;quot;leading book in the homosexual movement&amp;quot;, it refers to a book claiming that the Nazi Party supported homosexuality. Clearly this has to be satirical. Either that, or someone has a serious case of paranoia - all the sources, as well as being of dubious credabililty, point towards independent events but the whole point of the page is to talk about a shadowy conspiricy - a 'Secret Society' of homosexuals trying to gayify the world. I suggest deleting the whole page - and if it reappears in a similar form, delete and protect. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Agendas ==&lt;br /&gt;
So since there are so many references on this wiki to the &amp;quot;homosexual agenda&amp;quot; can we also cite the &amp;quot;Conservative Agenda&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Republican Agenda&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Christian Agenda&amp;quot;? {{unsigned|prof0705}}&lt;br /&gt;
:I don't see why not, as long as they sourced and reasonably recognizable as phrases in common use.  In fact, here, I would expect an article on [[conservative agenda]] to be very good. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article violates the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion). &lt;br /&gt;
#It claims to quote Focus on the Family for the definition of The Homosexual Agenda without giving a specific reference, and FotF is only claimed to be quoting &amp;quot;a leading book in the homosexual movement&amp;quot; without even bothering to name the book or its author.&lt;br /&gt;
#The two bulleted points in &amp;quot;The Goals&amp;quot; (about 8-year-old boys and 12-to-14 year olds) are stating as fact the opinion of Craig Osten, a vice president at the Alliance Defense Fund.&lt;br /&gt;
#Several of the other references to that section are either citing journalist's or lawyer's opinions, not facts or any quote from the people who are alleged to hold the agenda under discussion. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am prohibited from editing the page but I suggest that the Agenda is moved to the top, and the original source for it cited, rather than a vague second-hand reference. The judge's quote should then be indented as a block quote so it is more clearly identifiable as quoting the judge. The Goals and Opposing Christian Agenda should be cleaned up and cite proper sources not opinions, or be more clearly marked as only opinions of people who oppose the Homosexual Agenda. If Conservapedia could handle it, even a quote from someone who supports it would be good. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 06:06, 19 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion) is superceded by [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:&lt;br /&gt;
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''&lt;br /&gt;
:Note: ''Their &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;[&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;[[Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop|sysops]]&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;]&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', which means if a sysop has decided it is so it is so. If you continue to argue you may get blocked.&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Is this really as big as people make it out to be? ==&lt;br /&gt;
While I personally do not like anyone being too open about their personal lives, especially concerning anything to do with sex, still when I hear about a &amp;quot;Homosexual Agenda&amp;quot; I can only think of another fear that other people once tried to infect people with: it was called &amp;quot;The Protocols of The Elders of Zion.&amp;quot; I think some of you may understand my point... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Please remove the reference to Scott Lively's propaganda book=&lt;br /&gt;
This is propaganda. It seems you don't allow neutrality here. [[User:GayMan|GayMan]] 21:51, 28 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>GayMan</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>