I've you had looked more carefully, you'd have seen that is was Currie who'd been defending you. It's down to him/her that the article is as fair as xynamax says it is. Not your fan, and yet...

Quote:

---

Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

---

Wikipiedia is Not "propaganda" or advocacy.

Bullshit.

Have a look at Chris Buors in Wikipiediea.


There is propaganda that paints me as a "homophobe" by reporting that I said something somewhere on a forum when I was arguing with sock puppets.


Wikipiedia cheapens itself by engaging in such acts of propaganda.

And clearly RJ Currie insults my inteligence when he makes the remark that I'm not the sharpest knife inb the drawer "amongst other things" in the history section.

That is an obvious bias. The guy let the chomsky quote fly too. Clearly this fellow is a left-leaning socialist and used his position at Wikipiedia to promote his own agenda.

Like I said.


Wikipiedia gets no and deserves no respect from me.

Wikipiedia is not a soapbox?


Then like I said, why only a distortion of what I had to say?


Why not print the entire paragraph or exchange instead of just the half line that is quoted?


Why do the pro-homosexuals get a soapbox to stand on?

Why would that one comment of the millions I have made be there....

The Ancient Roman question. Who benefits from having that propaganda published in Wikipiedia?

Wikipiedia is obviously a soapbox for the pro-homosexual community. There can be no other reason for inclusion of the portrayal.

when you get into politics the first thing they ask is

how do you feel about homo"s
and have you smoked pot

in the bible belt its abortion first

Quote:

---

The Ancient Roman question

---

in the classical era there was no class called homosexuality
it was just a way of life. marriage was a part of class struggle. a tribal act.

Well, there is a club in America called Sex before eight or it's too late.

Apparently, they are still living the ancient Roman code.

Lots of "open minded" people out there.

Guess I'n not one of them.

I don't believe I would be joining the before eighters.

That was the Roman code too. Old men have sex with their young charges.

I don't think the public would stand for that kind of morality today. In fact decadant is the word most often used to describe that kind of activity.

We call them perversions today.

Morality is an individual thing. There are people who wife swap and join sex clubs and use fruits and do all kinds of things to each other. Little do I care. Have fun.

I draw the line at sex with animals because animals cannot consent. But hey, the persons genes predispose them to all those immoral acts.

But I don't have to jump in the lake just because David Malmo-Levine jumps in the lake.

See David this fellow just inadverently made the case that all the science you quoted about 10% of the population being homosexual is junk because it would not stand the time test.


Intersting was Szasz's anaylsis of what happened in Nazi Germany.

Hitler of course rounded up all the homosexuals and exterminated them along with all the other so-called undesirables. Today, the percentage of homosexuals in Germany is similar to pre-Hitler times and in line with the rest of Europe. If the "in the genes" theory held water, one would expect a lot fewer homosexuals in the German population. Homosexual, as well as all other sexual behaviors are chosen by people who are exercizing their own moral judgements.

Where one falls on the moral continnuem shapes character and personaility.

There are no superior people or morals.

That's why I object so strongly to the "homophobe" label.

David Malmo-Levine thinks he is a better person than me because he accepts homosexuality as "normal" and I do not.

Just because I choose to associate with hetrosexuals and not to associate with people who do not measure up to my moral code does not make me any less of a person than anyone else. There is a big difference between not wanting to persecute people and acceptance of their behavior. I want prohibitionists to quit persecuting drug users....I don't want them to start using drugs.

If I was wishing or calling for evil or advocating for the state to do something about all those immoral actors out there, then Mr. Levine and others would have a case.

There is a difference between vice and crime and like I have said so many times, as long as it's consentual between adults...have at er!

As I have ever asked for was to live and let live. But they won't let me. They want me to become one of them...a more "open minded" person. No thanks. I choose my personal associates on the theroy that birds of a feather most certainly do like to flock together! And if you belong to the Sex before Eight club, I don't want to know you thanks!

"As I have ever asked for was to live and let live. But they won't let me."

- who is the *THEY* that won't let you live and let live?



"I choose to associate with hetrosexuals and not to associate with people who do not measure up to my moral code"

- homosexuality is immoral? that doesn't sound very libertarian...where is the victim of this immorality?

sex is what ever it takes to get you off
be it with a female, male, animal, or rosie palm
its just a chemical bilogical function created by
the glans we come with.

people born like davidmlevine may not pass on there genes
because of lack of manhood. another mans tight butt may be sufficient.

Quote:

---

Hitler of course rounded up all the homosexuals and exterminated them along with all the other so-called undesirables. Today, the percentage of homosexuals in Germany is similar to pre-Hitler times and in line with the rest of Europe. If the "in the genes" theory held water, one would expect a lot fewer homosexuals in the German population. Homosexual, as well as all other sexual behaviors are chosen by people who are exercizing their own moral judgements.

---

that's stupid.
most gays come from straight parents.

that's saying if homosexuality was genentic, only gays could pass on the trait.

that is astoundingly stupid.

dude cut your losses, leave this thread to die.

I'd like to point out that I started this thread about ways in which the Canadian pro-cannabis movement is under-represented in various Wikipedia articles. This thread has become an airing of Chris' views on homosexuality. The next thread has become an airing of Chris' views on homosexuality.

Doesn't anyone want to- ummm, I don't know- repeal cannabis prohibition? Does anyone care whether Wikipedia reflects the deeds and insights of the CC community on this?