Conservapedia: Irony? What is that? (Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page)
Meanwhile over at Conservapedia the contributors continue to prove that they have no clue what Bias or Irony even mean…
If we have not done so already, we should put to rest the notion that “men who have sex with men aren’t [[homosexual]]”. This is a typical part of the [[homosexual agenda]], to spread confusion about the subject.
A “[[homosexual act]]” is what is forbidden by the Bible. Whether or not the motivation to commit this sin stems from upbringing or some (unknown!) innate factor is not important. If you are a “born [[kleptomaniac]]”, you still have an obligation to resist the impulse to steal. Otherwise, societies everywhere will lock you up.
If homosexual behavior is due to your being crazy (as in [[kleptomania]]), you should be locked up in an [[insane asylum]]. If it’s due to your wilfull defiance of what is right, you should be locked up in a [[prison]]. (That is, in any society whose laws derive from the Bible; everyone seems to approve of Islamic [[sharia]] law, so why not do the same thing here in Christian America?)
Whether or not there is validity to the notions that homosexuals are defined by [[sexual identity]], or [[sexual orientation]] or [[sexual preference]], the fact remains that homosexual ”behavior” is sinful. When the temptation comes, you must dispel it! —[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:07, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Why is Sharia mentioned in there Ed, I thought you were posting about the gay agenda? Seriously I would like to know, is it because “everyone approves of it” as you stated or because you know it is a convenient hot button topic with your fellow SoCon members?
If this is what passes as “non-biased” commentary on Conservapedia then I would really hate to see the Biased parts. :p
EDIT: For some damn reason I managed to type that it was Wikipedia and not Conservapedia in the original title to this thread. :(