Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:SimonA

2007-06-13T13:15:06Z

Patthew:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:13, 13 June 2007 (EDT)}}

Question: Speaking of "mandatory vaccination", where do the rights of parents end and the well-being of the population as a whole begin?--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 09:15, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Confederate States of America

2007-06-13T02:32:27Z

Patthew:

== Connection of Reagan with 1968 ==
Yes, I am aware that Reagan was actually elected in 1980, but it was the [[Southern Strategy]] that made his victory and re-election possible, not just Carter's incompetence. It is my contention, in fact, that a [[Sixth Party System]] came into existence at that time, although its full implications would not become clear until 1980. That became the strategy of the GOP as a result of the 1968 election.
:The names Reagan or Goldwater have no place on this page. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
::Yeah, we tend to appreciate conciseness, and the implications on politics a whole century later take us too far afield. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:14, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

This article is far too sympathetic toward the Confederacy for my tastes. This was a group who were acting '''in rebellion''' against the government of the United States. They were exemplifying the definition of treason as found in the U.S. Constitution, namely "...waging war against [the United States]" I feel like the article should make more mention of the whole "treason" and "rebellion" aspect of things but any such edits I make will most likely be removed.--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 22:32, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Family

2007-06-13T01:30:23Z

Patthew: New page: Since there are no citations listed in this article, I am forced to wonder where the idea of the "nuclear family" as defined herein originates. As far as I am aware, the "mother/father/ch...

Since there are no citations listed in this article, I am forced to wonder where the idea of the "nuclear family" as defined herein originates. As far as I am aware, the "mother/father/children" idea of family is actually relatively recent. For most of human history, I believe the most common family structure was a large community-based structure that went far beyond an individual bloodline.--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 21:30, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2007-06-12T16:54:41Z

Patthew:

==Unicorn==
i tried to edit the unicorn page but was unfortunately unable to do so. can u please inform about unicorns.........

Concerned intellectual

==Texas, presidents from==
We put in 3 presidents from Texas, and had 3 wars; a real brain trust. Who supplied the monies to put these Texans into office? We all know the mentality of Texans; shoot first and ask questions later. We are also suppose to welcome illegals into this country, and help support them, says a man from Texass. I could care less about your stupid party affiliations; and A-Hole is an A-Hole no matter the party.
If a demogog was in office instead of a repugnant, he would have been impeached by now. This shows you the power of the repugnants.{{Unsigned|Take13}}

== Spelling as a Commandment on here ==

The Un-American spelling of the Constitution!

The US Constitution has words like “chuse” and “chusing,” “Pensylvania” (in fact so does the Liberty Bell!), “defence,” and there are more… Oh dear, maybe Conservapedia should edit the US Constitution in accordance to it’s spelling absolutism (hey don’t correct me, the Constitution “improperly” has “it’s” instead of “its” in there… Article 1, Section 10). I’m sure Conservapedia would garner plenty of support since spelling is such a big deal these days. I mean it IS one of the 6 Conservapedia Commandments.

The pinnacle of American ideals and identity is our Constitution, and still I think Conservapedia would find themselves in a rut trying to justify why their spelling should be reflected on there… even though their spelling standards claim to be American, and well, the US Constitution IS American.

Spelling is fluid… it would be interesting to see how American spelling changes. I would hope what it means to be an American doesn’t change as much as spelling…{{Unsigned|Heidilaide}}

:I'll leave it to [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] to decide whether to reproduce exactly the spelling of the US Constitution, or to change the spelling.

:We need to remember that the man who, more than any other man, made spelling standard in the [[United States]] was [[Noah Webster]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 15:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== How to add debate topics ==

Please tell us HOW!! I tried, but apparently got the link wrong the first couple of times... --[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:31, 4 April 2007 (EDT) moved from article page by [[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]]

:The instructions are basically at the bottom of the page. I would also recommend finding another debate page that has a similar format and copying in the appropriate wiki markup, like the debate box at the top, headings for things like "Yes" and "No" (or whatever is appropriate). Also, if answers should fall under such headings, try to make the question very clear to avoid misunderstanding.

Yes, please add instructions. Otherwise, I'm sorry for creating discussions out of order. --[[User:Ephilei|Ephilei]] 10:47, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Dead links==

I notice rather a large number of these are now red links. I assume that is because the topics were deemed inappropriate and deleted by admins. Since the format is "create the link, then start the debate page", there should be ''no'' red links on this page. Therefore, later this evening I am going to goof off from work again and remove them - unless someone asks (or tells) me not to. I am also going to add an exciting new page I'd like to see ongoing discussion about - CPdians ideas and opinions about the 2008 Presidential candidates! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought it was that nobody had bothered to start the debate... [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:23, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Idiotic jokes and pointless debates ==

The last ones should be erased

== What went wrong? ==

I joined conservapedia for a laugh, but SHOCK! These debates are actually interesting and thought-provoking. I'll be sticking around here, deffo. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:25, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:The Vacillating Investor]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. I suggest that it go under a new subheading, "Puzzles." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:29, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Is Sexual Orientation Inherent or Chosen?]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. It should probably go under "Philosophical Debates" or "Scientific Debates".--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:54, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Does single sex schooling promote homosexuality?

2007-06-12T16:46:10Z

Patthew:

==Yes==
Well of course. People have a basic need for intimacy and do not loose this need because the socially accepted partners in this intimacy are unavailable.

:I think it does, if private schools in Britain are anything to go by: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1589948,00.html] (please note - a "fag" in these schools is a junior boy who is a servant of a senior boy, running errands and so on. Nothing to do with "fag" meaning "a homosexual".) [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 17:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
==No==

No, single sex schooling doesn't promote homesexuality. '''Home schooling''' promotes homesexuality. --[[User:Frenchfries|Frenchfries]] 08:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

How does home schooling promote homosexuality? -Lauren

::I think it's a joke. The article title contains an amusing spelling error. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Which I have changed to [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:29, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality is a sin. Sin in an innate aspect of the human condition because Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil after God put it there and told here specifically not to eat that fruit. Therefore Homosexuality only occurs when people are told not to do it.
:Which begs the question, why was it there in the first place, if its only purpose was to be tempation. Obviously we were meant to fail, for if any other outcome was expected the tree didn't need to exist. It is a representation of tempation that is nigh impossible to resist. Similarly, if we house teenage males, only with other males, they will feel a temptation to have sexual relations with other males. Whether or not they act upon such temptation is up to them. However, they will feel a similar temptation regardless of surrounding. So, are we saying the pre-marital sex with a girl is better than sex with a boy? --[[User:Brainwalker|Brainwalker]] 02:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm... What about Homosexual animals (it does happen!)? Were they told not to do it as well?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

<<...Therefore Homosexuality only occurs when people are told not to do it...>>

Only then? So, why do you (Global you, aimed at Christian Conservatives...) keep telling people not to do it? If you just stop telling people not to do it, it will stop happening, Yes?

Citizzzen

:Only if those animals are told not to do it.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

That is exactly correct.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Single sex schooling, you aren't serious. If you told me that liberal teaching promotes homosexuality, I would have to say hell yes it does. Not only does it promote but encourage such thoughts. Animals do it? WTF? So it is ok for humans? Boy, America is so messed up.*** Thousands upon thousands of years, homosexuals were looked at as deranged individuals. Now, our generation is so smart, smirk. Eventually, the homosexual movement will die out without reproduction. But at the same time, we must not let our youth be indoctrinated to this evil.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:53, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:Note: Heterosexual couples have homosexual children, thus reproduction of homosexuals in independent of homosexuals themselves.--[[User:Brainwalker|Brainwalker]] 02:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:<nowiki>***</nowiki>Humans are animals. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 13:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:You should know that you just argued in favour of evolution. Not only that, but you have defied reason, as there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic. Fortunately for us, our generation is so smart, that eventually the conservative movement will die out without reproduction. Nobody wants to marry a bigot. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:28, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Let me be clear, I never endorsed the notion that homosexuality is genetic nor evolution is responsible. If you read into what I wrote, this is a learned lifestyle. At 7 years old, the age of reason, you don't suddenly say- I'm gay, it is learned. Break the education factor, you are left with non reproducing lifestyle. Slowly fading away is not evolution but the result of no reproduction. Let me say this also, I do not proclaim to the absolute notion that stopping indoctrinating youth will ever happen. Thereby homosexuality will continue. As long as these people have rights, the promotion continues. As long as they are allowed to adopt children, the indoctrination continues. Just as it survived underground since times inception from our fall into sin, it will always be with us.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I'd be interested to see a citation from where you're getting "you don't just decide that you're gay at 7 years old", because Dateline says different. I'll go pull up some citations of kids outing themselves as "gay" at extremely young ages. On a side note, jp, do you believe that homosexuality is a choice? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Dateline, please. If they are outing themselves it is from learning it. Conservatives understand that homosexuality is a sin against God. Bigotry will always be with us as well. Conservatives are not bigoted because they dislike homosexuality. The gay movement is not a protected civil right. We love the sinner, we hate the sin. We love the gay person, we hate the gay agenda. The only bigotry displayed is against the conservative view.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: Way to completely change the subject and go on a rant. Anyways, [http://www.poststar.com/articles/2007/04/05/ae/today/c2a3b8536c55f8c2852572b4000d0511.txt here] is one I pulled up. 3 straight children, 1 bi.
:::::: You can find articles all day long that prove your views are just. Let me tell you there are plenty of other websites where your view is accepted. Why don't you post on a liberal website. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: My views are accepted here as well; we don't block over content disputes. And you're still dodging the question, does SSS promote homosexuality? You never answered the question. I said no; I think you probably would say "yes"? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: Chong, figure it out, what does learned mean?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: My views are accepted here as well; we don't block over content disputes. Not from what I read about you. http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Abuse#ACLU_and_Evolution --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Speaking from personal experience, I can safely say that it's not because it's accepted that it exists. I grew up very conservative, and I always had issues with homosexuality. Of course, because I thought it was wrong I hated myself for looking at other males. Since that time I've found myself, and am a much better person. The mind, like a book, works best when open. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
It isn't a sin because God made you that way. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 13:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm gay and I went to a co-ed public school system. As far as I know, I was always gay. From my earliest memories I was drawn more to males than females, and not only in a sexual way. Friend-wise, sports-wise, etc. I find the idea of a school environment somehow influencing a person's sexual orientation simply laughable. We don't know what causes a person to be straight or gay, but I guarantee you that it isn't school.--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:45, 12 June 2007

Talk:Homosexual Agenda

2007-06-12T16:02:10Z

Patthew:

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== WOV's got a point ==

Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''

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.

I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.

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

: I didn't see anything "hateful" 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.

: 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!

: 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)

:: 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)

: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)

:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with the comments of [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] and [[User:Splark|Splark]]. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific "agenda" 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)

Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? 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

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 "special" 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)

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.
-Gasmonkey

== Eliminate this Hate ==

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, "Christian" site that in fact promotes hate and spews false information across our nation.

: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)

::"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"--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 02:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::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)

:::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)

:::RightWolf2: Leveticus 19:17-18. Whether God hates people or not, He has commanded us to not. You mentioned "over 30 admonishments against homosexuality". Passages, please. [[User:Ilikepie|Ilikepie]] 18:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

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

: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 <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::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)

:::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).

::::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)

== Everything you post must be true and verifiable ==

This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment. There is no homosexual "agenda" -- no "they" who "wrote a book", 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)

Agreed. The "Homosexual agenda" 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 "agenda." [[User:Pkoad|Pkoad]] 00:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: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.

: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)

::There's no more gay agenda other than there was a "black agenda" before ''Brown'' came down. The gay agenda is equal treatment. Oh no, quick, ma, shut the doors! Equality's a-comin'!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]

:::I'd say "keep it" 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)

== Opposing Christian Agenda ==

I can't work out what the point of the "Opposing Christian Agenda" 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)

== Improvements ==

Shouldn't ''Gayness'' in part 1. of the agenda be ''Gaiety''?
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)

:Any attempt to trivialize or confuse the issue will be frowned upon here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

We should delete the cite at the bottom saying that homosexuality caused Nazism. That's a truly disturbing allegation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Especially considering that the Nazis actually murdered thousands of homosexuals during World War II.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

'''

== Very Informative ==
'''

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.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia

== Is this real? ==

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)

As well as the mysterious reference to a "leading book in the homosexual movement", 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]]

== Agendas ==
So since there are so many references on this wiki to the "homosexual agenda" can we also cite the "Conservative Agenda" or "Republican Agenda" or "Christian Agenda"? {{unsigned|prof0705}}
: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)

This article violates the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion).
#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 "a leading book in the homosexual movement" without even bothering to name the book or its author.
#The two bulleted points in "The Goals" (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.
#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.

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)

:[[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion) is superceded by [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:
::''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.''
:Note: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop|sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 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.
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)