Difference between revisions of "Talk:Homophobia"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
MatteeNeutra (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
*''akin to racism and sexism.'' | *''akin to racism and sexism.'' | ||
has been removed. People are not born homosexual as they are born a certain race or sex, and we will be happy to destroy any [[junk science]] citations that make that claim. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:36, 23 April 2007 (EDT) | has been removed. People are not born homosexual as they are born a certain race or sex, and we will be happy to destroy any [[junk science]] citations that make that claim. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:36, 23 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | :The issue of whether people are born homosexual or not does not affect the fundamental similarities between discrimination in terms of gender, race and sexuality. If you want to make an argument for why discrimination based on sexuality is o.k, where as the other two are not, then go ahead and make it and we can discuss whether your right. Otherwise, don't confuse the issues. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 12:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
==Deletions?== | ==Deletions?== | ||
Revision as of 16:42, April 24, 2007
This phrase,
- akin to racism and sexism.
has been removed. People are not born homosexual as they are born a certain race or sex, and we will be happy to destroy any junk science citations that make that claim. RobS 23:36, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
- The issue of whether people are born homosexual or not does not affect the fundamental similarities between discrimination in terms of gender, race and sexuality. If you want to make an argument for why discrimination based on sexuality is o.k, where as the other two are not, then go ahead and make it and we can discuss whether your right. Otherwise, don't confuse the issues. Orgone 12:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Deletions?
Wow, within the last few minutes almost all of the article has been deleted. I thought it was a lot more useful with all that detail and the example of the murder of a homosexual. Why was all of that deleted? I'm not sure the super-conciseness of the article in its current state is in lines with Conservapedia standards. It should be at least longer than a sentence. Ylmw21 23:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
- Indeed! The article was starting to take shape before the ever predictable hand of Conservative came in. Why did you delete all of that valid information Conservative? Surely you should have posted on the discussion page first before simply deleteing it? MatteeNeutra 12:14, 24 April 2007 (EDT)