User talk:Beleg Strongbow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Beleg Strongbow, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Writtenonsand (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Contents 1 your "disclaimer" 2 Defenders of the truth 3 Somewhat less friendly advice 4 Regarding your statements on homosexuality 5 User-page Content Advice 6 Not a blog or a soapbox 7 Welcome to the Artix Entertainment Group! 8 Your Views on Abortion, Homosexuality, and so on...

[edit] your "disclaimer"

You say, on your user page,

The following statement will be added, by me, as a disclaimer of the Theories of Evolution (i.e. Darwinistic-based theories on natural selection) wherever I find them and they are not already accompanied by a suitable form of this statment.

"Based upon the assumptions which form the foundation of Darwinistic-based biological evolution, the following hypotheses, for which there is no physical evidence, have been derived."

I understand this as a declaration of your determination to edit-war against consensus without any basis other than your private opinion and/or religious belief. I must advise you that this attitude is in direct violation of Wikipedia:Policy. You are required to understand policy, including such pages as WP:UNDUE and WP:RS, to respect it, and to seek constructive debate within policy (i.e. you need to explain why you think your edit is compliant with policy). If you refuse to do so, your behaviour may fall under WP:DISRUPTION. Please understand that you are not the has not been brought up before, discussed, and resolved in a way compliant with policy. If you are interested, you will find that discussion archives at Talk:Evolution go back several years, beginning September 2003. You are welcome to make constructive suggestions, but you need to appreciate that the current versions of evolution related articles do have a history of discussion. Nobody is interested in rehashing past discussions for no reason. If you are unhappy with the rules at Wikipedia, may I suggest you try editing Conservapedia, a similar project which does not adhere to a neutral point of view policy but rather advocates views which seem to coincide with your own. You may find that people at Conservapedia will applaud you for the same edits that get you banned on Wikipedia. Thanks, dab (𒁳) 14:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have softened the rhetoric to a degree that should be satisfactory to Wikipedia administrators and within Wikipedia policy. Please let me know whether you agree. Thank you.

The following statement should be added as a disclaimer of the Theories of Evolution (i.e. Darwinistic-based theories on natural selection) wherever scientific-ish statements are made that rely heavily upon the validity of Evolution.

Based upon the assumptions which form the foundation of Darwinistic-based biological evolution, the following hypotheses, for which there is no physical evidence, have been derived.

Where it may be approved within the discussion section of articles, I will attempt to add this disclaimer wherever it might bring clarity to the topic.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• We disagree. What part of Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles isn't clear to you? Stifle (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • no, stifle, Beleg's edit isn't a content disclaimer in the sense discussed at the page you link. Beleg suggests the citation of a (far out, religious fundamentalist / lunatic fringe) minority opinion every time the majority opinion is referred to. This doesn't fall under Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, it falls under WP:UNDUE. Now, as long as Beleg merely states that he thinks this should be added, there is nothing wrong with the statement. His behaviour is only disruptive if he indulges in revert-warring against consensus. He is free to state on his user page that he disagrees with consensus, no problem. You will note that he also states on his user page that "Homosexuality is an inherently dangerous and destructive fetish, particularly when practiced between males," which is also a rather subjective opinion to say the least. As long as he keeps this in user space, he doesn't violate any content policies. He may violate WP:SOAP or WP:UP#NOT, but that's another call to be made. We are traditionally very lenient when it comes to acceptable content in User: namespace. As long as it isn't blatant propaganda or hate speech, I suppose we'll just leave it alone for better or worse. Be advised, Beleg, that what holds for User: namespace by no means applies to article namespace. You will need to actively seek consensus for your edits on talkpages if you want to introduce your opinions there. dab (𒁳) 15:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Either/or, I guess. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've learned my lesson, but if I mess up again, please understand that it will (most likely) be unintentional, as I am still learning how to play by Wikipedia rules. Playing by the rules is generally something I insist upon myself, so I can sincerely appreciate the process I have just been put through (i.e. being Blocked for disruptive behavior).

Dab, thanks for all the good advice! :)

Stifle, I'm sure all the advice you have given is very good as well: it's just packaged in a pill that's a bit more difficult to swallow. Thanks anyways. =}

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I have since re-re-re-edited my "Evolution disclaimer statement" section (as well as the disclaimer itself) in a genuine effort to show an NPOV. Here it is in it's current form:

Some kind of disclaimer statement should be present wherever scientific-ish hypotheses are being promoted that rely heavily upon the validity of Evolution (i.e. Darwinistic-based theories on natural selection). This statement would serve as recognition of dependency upon the unproven Theories of Evolution.

The following are examples of such disclaimers:

• The following statements rely heavily (if not entirely) upon the assumed validity of various Theories of Evolution.

• Based upon the assumptions which form the foundation of Darwinistic Evolution, the following conjectures have been derived.

Where it may be approved within the discussion section of articles, I will attempt to add this disclaimer to articles whenever it might bring clarity to the topic.

Once again, I hope it is an improvement and even more in line with not only the letter of the Wikipedia policy but also its spirit.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defenders of the truth

In general, users who come here to defend The Truth end up unhappy; Wikipedia doesn't deal in The Truth, just in the verifiable information available in the most reliable sources. We've seen many users come to try to defend some specific point of view, and they all either join in the larger work of writing a neutral encyclopedia, or they get blocked for pushing their point of view. Since neutral point of view is one of the few sure rules that Wikipedia has, promoting any one point of view just doesn't work. If you're really interested in helping write the encyclopedia, I suggest that you try writing in an area that you're interested in but don't care passionately about, something that's completely unrelated to the origins of life on Earth. Basketball, or Jazz, or Mongolian film, so you can help write the encyclopedia without being deterred by the difficulty of being neutral in an area you are passionate about. And if you're really interested in teaching that God created the world without evolution, then I suggest that you start your own web site, or contribute essays to an existing creationist web site, so you can spread The Truth without being limited by a rule that demands a neutral point of view. Either way, I wish you well, even though, as a lesbian, I'm very hurt that you claim (with no scriptural support at all, just your own point of view) that gay men are worse than me. -FisherQueen (talk • contribs) 15:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

to be fair, FisherQueen, there is some scriptural support of this. Lesbians aren't even mentioned in the Bible (save Romans 1:27f. I grant you), while male homosexuality is definitely frowned upon. I am not saying you have to accept this as gospel, so to speak, of course, but it's there in the text  :) dab (𒁳) 16:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

FisherQueen, I appreciate your well-reasoned and well-spoken advice. Admittedly, I can not completely agree with the overall reasoning being used, as I see it as one-sided. Still, your suggestion, that editors participate in areas in which they are interested but are not necessarily passionate, is a good one.

I am sorry if I have hurt you with my position on homosexuality/lesbianism, but I do believe that I did provide sufficient Scriptural reference, and indeed lesbianism is defined as a sin by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:26 - For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. I also wish that you might try reading my positions again with the understanding that I am not attacking people, only choices and behavior. You see, I have no right to condemn you, any more than you to condemn me for the sins in my life. But God has a Plan for each of us, and He would have every one of us avoid sinfulness. I hope that helps.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And I had no problem at all with your first position statement on the question, which is a valid interpretation of the scriptures though not one I agree with you about. You're right and I'm wrong regarding scriptural discussion of gay men and lesbians... I always figured that was more because male homosexuality as a part of religious practices of other religions was what the ancient Jews had seen, not lesbian sexuality, or maybe because the culture of the Old Testament placed more importance in general on what men do than on what women do, but I think maybe I was wrong in saying it was unscriptural to say that God likes lesbians more than gay men.

God loves all of us equally and, according to the Scriptures, sent His only Begotten Son to die for every one, not just heterosexuals and lesbians but for homosexuals just as much (Matthew 9:10-13; Luke 19:10; I Timothy 1:12-15). God doesn't "like" lesbianism more than homosexuality: He hates both sins equally, just as He hates fornication/adultery, idolatry and stealing. God hates sin. He gave His Son as a sacrifice for mankind, proving that He loves sinners (John 3 and 4; Romans 10; etc.; etc.). -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a few factual inaccuracies in your second statement, mostly related to outdated information- straight women have now surpassed gay men as the most likely people to contract AIDS, and depression and suicide rates among gay people, while still higher than the general population, are much decreased now that the likelihood of discrimination and physical violence is reduced. It's hard to talk with verifiable facts about spiritual truths, but my personal experience has been that my connection with God is much improved since I came out, and the love and support of my church and my pastor, and the good example of the Christian gay couples of my acquaintance, have reaffirmed that being gay doesn't mean that God's guidance about healthy sexuality is meaningless in my life; nearly all the gay people I know are in long-term monogamous relationships, not living in a dangerous or promiscuous way. Still that's purely anecdotal, and there are plenty of gay people and straight people who behave in stupid, dangerous ways when it comes to sex; I'm thankful that God has led me on paths that kept me from making those choices myself. -FisherQueen (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can not refute what you may have experienced personally, so I wouldn't even begin to try, but I think there are some bigger issues to consider, even in light of your experiences.

• Though I may look at my situation and come to the conclusion that everything is fine, what is reality doesn't change just for me. If God, in His Word, tells us that what I am doing is wrong, it's still wrong, regardless of my point of view or personal experiences.
• Also, a healthy spiritual relationship with God should not be defined by humanity but instead by God Himself. People can be deceived into thinking that they are genuinely worshiping the Lord, while in actuality they may be behaving in a manner that displeases Him. For example, sometimes we allow ourselves to use feelings and emotions to measure the value of our worship, but God wants us to have faith (Ephesians 2:8, 9; Hebrews 11:6), even when our feelings would tell us otherwise. And how does one prove (both to God and mankind) that his faith is genuine? Through obedience (John 15:14; Romans 12:1, 2; Ephesians 2:10; James 1:27; 2:14-26). And how can we know that we are truly being obedient? Through diligent study of God's Word (Romans 10:13-17; II Timothy 2:15; 3:14-17).
• While I am certainly no socialist, I do think that we should always consider the "greater good" when making decisions for ourselves. What I mean is that what may seem to be good for me is not necessarily good for society, and I need to be conscious of that in my personal choices. The Bible certainly supports this philosophy as well (John 15:13; Romans 12:1; 14:13; I Corinthians 8:8-13; 10:31-33; II Corinthians 6:3; James 1:27).

I think that I should also reiterate that I did not claim who is most likely to contract HIV/AIDS; I simply pointed out that homosexual behavior has been (far-and-away) the number one cause of the spread of HIV/AIDS. That being said, nearly 100% of all STD's are transmitted via immoral behavior in general (Romans 1:17-32), such as sexual promiscuity (i.e. sexual activity, whether heterosexual or homosexual in nature, outside of the sanctity of the holy union between a man and his wife), illegal drug use, etc.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Somewhat less friendly advice

There are restrictions on what you can have on your user page (WP:UP#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F). Even if your statements do not cross over these lines, it will still make it more difficult for you to get along with other editors as soon as they read it, particularly given wikipedia's apparent liberal bias. It also makes it much harder for you to get a neutral hearing, as it gives the very strong impression that you are here to soapbox. Frankly, until you take it down and realize that the bible is irrelevant to many, many people on wikipedia, and is not a reliable source on anything (it is at best a primary source) I don't believe you will be able to interact fruitfully with the community. You need to realize that wikipedia is based on the extremely conventional interpretation of mainstream, scientific sources. In discussions of biology, evolution is so very much the mainstream that there is no real controversy - it's all fighting over the details. If you think the bible trumps science, I recommend you either leave the project or only edit pages that have nothing to do with either. Wikipedia is not hostile to the bible, it's hostile to people who attempt to use it as a source or filter for information. WLU (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I do take issue with the recommendation that Beleg should not state his position because he might get in trouble due to "Wikipedia's apparent liberal bias". If there is such de facto bias, we should welcome editors who actively counter this bias, because we are aiming at WP:NPOV (which is of course a liberal thing in itself, which may be why liberals feel more attracted to the concept). Such "conservative" editors will need, of course, to submit to Wikipedia policy, and "play by the rules". The rules are built with the intention to arrive at a product that is free of bias, even if it is produced by a population of individuals with personal biases. This certainly leads to tedious detours, but we have shown time and time again that the system works. If Beleg is interested in participating in this process, he is most welcome to do so, regardless of his personal opinions. I do not share his opinions at all, but at present, I do not think the content of his user page is crossing the line. Beleg's comments above do show good faith on his part, and if he is willing to accept Wikipedia policy and edit constructively, I for one welcome him to the community. dab (𒁳) 11:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your statements on homosexuality

I find your statements regarding homosexuality disturbing and offensive and they are apparently not appropriate to be shown on a user page. (See the policy here.) Please kindly remove them. See what it feels like if I put the following passage on my user page.

Without question, Christians deserve to be treated just as courteously as any other rational people. Courtesy is something that every individual owes to every other individual, particularly if he desires to be treated courteously himself. But being courteous does not necessarily mean being blindly tolerant.

There is a point being made that Christians have not chosen their Christianity, but rather happened to be born in a geographical location where the majority are Christians. But this point is largely irrelevant. The real question at hand is not “Has so-and-so chosen to have a particular desire or inclination to believe in weird things like virgin birth and 3=1?” but instead “Has that person decided to act upon it?”

Though all have the right, within the "God Blessed" United States of America, to associate themselves with Christianity (i.e. possessing a set of bizarre and often internally inconsistent beliefs), no one should encourage or even excuse the act of Christianity (i.e. performing irrational acts, ranging from saying "bless you" after someone sneezes to prevent the sneezer's soul from coming out of his body, to blowing up abortion clinics)-- to encourage such behavior is no less cruel or reckless than to commit violence against a man, because he has admitted to irrational tendencies.

Christians need to reach out in charity, embracing in godliness and with kindness those involved in Christianity, offering whatever help may be given in an effort to set them free from the chains of this addictive and destructive lifestyle.

Apparently you fit every bit of the stereotypical fundamental Christian and that leads me to suspect you're working undercover to subvert the fundamentalist movement by exposing its absurd claims. If that is the case, please ignore my comment and may the force be with you. Cheers, Josuechan (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking for anyone to agree with me. I'm just letting people know where I stand. I actually very much appreciate your disagreement, because it helps me to see how I could possibly word my statements better so that they maintain the position I am trying to promote without unnecessarily offending my readers. (Some offense may be inevitable, and I am willing to live with that reality.)

I would like to point out that my intentions are not to attack those who practice homosexuality but to stand against promoting the homosexual lifestyle in mainstream culture. Believe it or not, there is a tremendous difference between judging/condemning people and judging/condemning behavior. Consider the legal/political/social attacks cigarette smokers have faced recently in American culture. I personally do not support these attacks, though I do accept that smoking is unhealthy, and I do believe that if someone is going to smoke, he should do so where he is not going to inherently pollute the breathing-air of non-smokers. (Recklessly causing non-smokers to breath second-hand-smoke is simply rude.) You see, my position is not that I or anyone else has the right to demand that the smoker quite smoking but instead that a society has a right to say "Hey, you're messing things up for us. Please do that in private."

--Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that, by phrasing your opinions as polite and kind, you can feel like you're being reasonable, even though your opinions are genuinely harming people right this moment. The laws that have been passed to limit the rights of gay Americans, mostly passed by nice, polite, reasonable people like you, have stripped gay Americans' of their legal rights. People aren't just dealing with disapproval- they're losing their lives, their homes, their jobs, and their children as a result of these laws. New laws, passed within the last fifteen years, which were written to limit the legal rights of gay Americans, like the anti-marriage amendments and the Defense of Marriage Act, are harming Americans who have a constitutional right to legal equality. Just in the last few weeks, a gay man was denied a passport because of the Defense of Marriage Act, a gay woman's custody of her children was challenged because of her state's anti-marriage amendment, and a gay American was blocked from the hospital room of her dying partner. I don't know; maybe you think that's all right. As an American, you are morally responsible for the laws you support- because you support the laws that strip gay people of their legal rights, I hold you personally responsible for the human suffering those laws have caused. You might feel like you're being kind and reasonable with your 'love the sinner, hate the sin' rhetoric, but you are just as responsible as Fred Phelps for turning me into a second-class citizen who, despite the guarantees of the Constitution, does not enjoy equal rights under the law. Your 'please do that in private' is insulting. Gay people don't want the legal right to have sex in public. But they do want to raise their children, take care of their loved ones in sickness and old age, and other family duties that every decent person owes to the people they love, and those are the things your laws take away. You might tell yourself that you're a nice person because you haven't personally beaten a gay person to death in the streets like some people who share your opinions... but who taught those murderers that doctrine? Nice, reasonable people like you. No, no matter how politely you phrase your bigotry, you are still morally responsible for all of the results of it, from laws that harm to the people who listen to your words and use them as a reason to kill. You, personally, bear a share of the responsibility for Lawrence King and Matthew Shephard, and trying to be polite about it doesn't change that a bit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your view-point is definitely something for me to consider, and I greatly appreciate you sharing it. I would like to form a more complete opinion and receiving different opinions certainly assists in that effort. I might comment more later. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

FisherQueen, I have finally put together a more complete response to your comments above. I apologize for its length. I also want to assure you that its tone is not intended to be either defensive or harsh, though I fear that it may appear otherwise. Please know that I have done my best to tread softly, but the nature of this topic makes such a task quite daunting.

On one of your points (see above) I agree with you 100%, but on another I disagree with you, though to what degree I am not certain. Please allow me to explain to you why for each.

1. I fully agree that politeness does not equate with accuracy. Indeed, I could be polite all the day long and yet speak not a single accurate statement. While being polite will make me more likeable, it can not make me more reliable. That being said, when one is accurate, courtesy sure helps to promote his point of view, as people generally tend either to ignore boorish people or to miss their main points, being distracted by their rude or harsh manners of communication.
2. The point on which we disagree is the concept that the existence of certain laws directly influence the violation of others. You have asserted that constitutional statements and/or laws, rigidly defining marriage as the lawful union between one man and one woman, actually cause people to commit murder. I hope you do not support this absurd position in a literal fashion.

• I most certainly am able to be against public displays of homosexuality without approving/promoting/condoning/causing the murder of (or various forms of violence toward) those who publicly announce their homosexual tendencies. I am also against stealing, and there are, of course, laws that are intended to punish (in non-cruel and non-unusual ways) those who do steal. It does not follow that, because I approve of these laws, I also approve of exacting vigilante justice upon a thief. The last time I checked, it still is not illegal to indulge in homosexual behavior, but it is illegal to do violence to someone simply because you have a disagreement with him, regardless of the nature of the disagreement (barring self-defense, of course). Indeed, I fully support prosecuting, to the fullest extent of the law, anyone who has physically abused an individual who calls himself a homosexual/lesbian.
• It seems necessary to me to point out that, statistically speaking, while crimes (i.e. physical violence of varying degrees) have been committed against homosexuals because of their homosexuality, nearly all of those crimes have been perpetrated by fellow homosexuals. It is irresponsible and unfair to condemn the entire community of those standing against open homosexuality because a few heterosexual nutcases have behaved unlawfully and un-Biblically.
• You claim that "new laws" are denying homosexuals/lesbians equal rights, but it seems to me that what you are actually seeking is not equality but instead special treatment. Laws and/or constitutional amendments defining marriage as the lawful union between one man and one woman do not discriminate against anyone, and they are not new: they are clarified declarations of what has been understood since the founding of this nation and serve to preserve and protect that understanding. I assume you won't agree with the logic, as I'm certain you have heard it before, but it deserves repeating:

Any single man, whether he categorizes himself as an heterosexual or as an homosexual, has the legal right to join in marriage with any single woman, regardless of her sexual self-categorization.

There is no legal inequality in this position. What you seem to be asking for is the unique privilege, for those who call themselves homosexuals/lesbians, to lawfully join together with a member of the same gender.

• A great misconception was unfortunately invented within Western culture at the transition from the 19th to the 20th Century: marriage should be the joining of two people who have fallen in love (whatever that means). Wherever this faulty standard for marriage has been established, romantically erasing the long-standing, universal definition (i.e. that marriage is the joining of a man and a woman who mutually and soberly seek to promote morality within society and to rear children), the divorce rate has increased dramatically. In those cultures where the more practical, classical definition of marriage still exists, divorce essentially does not (e.g., India).

As a kind of side note, I find it fascinating that those who have rejected the Scriptural position on homosexual/lesbian activity are now insisting upon being allowed to partake in an activity that has been made popular by the religious. In Western culture in particular, the definition of marriage comes from the Holy Bible, specifically Genesis 2:24:

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

The homosexual community is not just wanting to participate in marriage, but they are attempting to redefine it in an effort to validate their anti-Scriptural lifestyles. How does that make sense? How is that fair?

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because marriage is not and has never been about christianity, being instead a purely legal status. Marriage existed before the Old Testament, and exists in cultures that are not christian. Remember that possession is nine tenths of the law: marriage gives the right to be the heir of your companion, so that if your companion tragically dies you don't have to also move out of your shared home of twenty years because his/her parents are claiming it as theirs. Believe it or not, but that's how it is, and that's why it makes sense. As you may surmise I believe that Jesus wants us to focus on our own shortcomings rather than watch over the shortcomings of others with the aim of punishing them for being bad. If the bible is right then badness will get it's due punishment in due time; it's God's call, not yours. Bigotry, however is never in the spirit of Jesus, it is always an evil in it's own right, no matter what biblical justifications are brought into play.--AkselGerner (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Aksel, your general comments regarding open homosexuality within a society are essentially the same as FisherQueen’s (see above), which I have already thoroughly addressed, though you have added an emphasis on the origins of the institution of marriage. I find your additional comments, those referencing Jesus Christ, interesting yet disturbing. Below is my response to all.

On the origins of marriage,

• Within a discussion focused on Western culture, we do not need to make assumptions as to the origin(s) of marriage. From the Middle East to the United States of America, the concept of marriage has irrefutably been taken from the first Book of the Holy Bible (again, see above). Within America, from the Mayflower Compact (written, signed and executed by Fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians) to the Declaration of Independence (heavily influenced by Conservative Biblical Christianity) up until our Nation's very recent history, marriage has been understood by all to be a religious institution, specifically a God-ordained institution, wholeheartedly sanctioned by government.
• To say "marriage is...a purely legal status" is to be "purely" inaccurate. Governments have always had a vested interest in sanctioning marriage, but your statement goes as far as implying that government actually invented marriage. I would be very interested in scrutinizing any evidence you might have that seems to validate this claim. Let's think on this idea a bit longer: have you ever known anyone who engaged in marriage solely for legal reasons or for government-provided benefits? I would have to assume that the possibility exists that people have done so, but these people are in an almost non-existent minority. Men and women join in marriage for many different reasons, to be sure, yet nearly all those reasons reside beneath a single canopy, which may be defined as "a desire to make a family together." Wise governments see the benefits of healthy families and therefore acknowledge (and even encourage) this holy union.
• Historically, within European and American cultures, marriage most definitely has been about Christianity. The Christian home, consisting of a man, his wife and their children, has been the backbone of American (and past European) society from its inception. Indeed, it was Christian families who initially settled here and Christians (for the most part) who founded this nation. (Those who understand this elementary concept also believe that the demise of European culture within the last century has been directly related to the abolition of Fundamental Christianity, but that is another topic.)
• If we sought to broaden the discussion, beyond Western cultures, to a global perspective on marriage and marriage's origins, are you suggesting that the Bible be ignored? The Book of Genesis was written more than four thousand years ago, while the stories it shares may be as many as six thousand years old (possibly older), and through the millennia it has influenced countless societies. Assuming we were foolish enough to completely ignore the Biblical account of the origin of marriage, we would still find that the history of essentially every established and healthy culture has defined marriage as a union between men and women, not men and men or women and women. Furthermore, a simple study of history would reveal that moral disintegration (including but not limited to open acceptance of homosexual behavior) and collapse of the family unit have lead to the fall of every great nation (e.g. Egypt, Israel, Assyria, Babylon, Media and Persia, Greece and Rome). Indeed, not only does government have a vested interest in sanctioning and encouraging moral marriages, it also has good reason for supporting its definition of "one man with one woman for one lifetime."

On partners' rights... Whether addressing hospital visitation or someone's inheritance, the topic of the rights of someone's sexual partner is not truly within the scope of marriage. It is instead a matter of policy. If a hospital desires to revise its visitation policies, there is no reason why it can not do so. If a man wishes his male sexual partner (or even his pet gerbil) to inherit any of his possessions, he may, of course, declare as much within his Last Will & Testament. The example you gave is touching at a glance yet easily dismissed when looked at objectively.

On the topic of Jesus,

• I could simply state that I have actually taken the time to cite Biblical references to defend my points from a Biblical perspective, while you have not, but I am quite willing to go a bit further. Your implication that I am a bigot because I am calling sin "sin" is a sweeping condemnation of every Gospel preacher around the globe. (I am not an ordained minister, but every good Gospel preacher regularly and wholeheartedly condemns sin.) Do you not acknowledge that the core message of the Bible is repentance? If Bible-believers cease to condemn sin, then sinners will cease to repent, and if mankind refuses to repent, then Salvation will become both unobtainable and pointless, and if Salvation no longer exists, then Jesus Christ's death and Resurrection were in vain. And if His Sacrifice is in vain, then likewise is the preaching of the Gospel and of the entire Bible, and we might as well throw the whole Thing out.
• Do you not agree that you are condemning me for denouncing the sin of homosexuality? Is not your position hypocritical? You're telling me that I am doing wrong by telling others that they are doing wrong... That's like putting up a post on someone's Talk page that says "You should never post on other people's Talk pages." It's inherently self-contradictory and frankly quite silly.

Ultimately, my positions are my own. I am attempting to develop them rationally and to express them coherently. I appreciate any constructive criticism or intelligent debate, as these forms of communication will assist me in my goals for improvement.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to address you again, since your question is not sincere. I answered and you didn't like it, fine, be that way. --AkselGerner (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is my userspace, and while I welcome disagreement and constructive criticism, certain language and behavior will not be tolerated. I did tolerate, though I argued against, your opinion that I am a bigot. I will not tolerate, within my userspace, being accused of hating people. If you are willing to commit to participating in a rational conversation without asserting insupportable conclusions, you are welcome to return, otherwise I agree with your decision to leave the conversation. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User-page Content Advice

hello Beleg -- I appreciate your good faith and your willingness to cooperate. I have left a note on User talk:Sennen goroshi‎. The content on your userpage may indeed be a borderline case. You need to be aware of WP:UP#NOT,

you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. pro-pedophilia advocacy) — .. Wikipedia is not a soapbox is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but remember: don't be a dick about it. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor.

and you need to be prepared to explain why you think your content does not violate this. Personally, I think it does not. You do state your personal ideology, but so do many other users. But you may find that it makes your life on Wikipedia easier if you are prepared to compromise. Ask yourself why you feel it is necessary to inform other users of your views in such detail. Your views relate to issues of US social politics, and I understand they are shared by at least a sizeable minority of your compatriots. As such, they are by no means far out or fringy, they just represent the "conservative" half or third of US society. Thus, as your userpage stands at the moment, I would be prepared to consider it acceptable (make no mistake, this doesn't mean that I agree with you in any of your views). On Wikipedia, our views should ideally be irrelevant. I tend to edit only articles on topics with which I have little or no emotional involvement. I often meet editors who are affected emotionally with article content, and they usually make for a pathetic spectacle (see my talkpage for nationalist rants of all flavours directed against me). You will also need to forget your own opinion for the purpose of editing Wikipedia. All that counts in article space are reliable sources and avoiding misrepresentation. We report the various positions voiced by notable sources (biased or not), according to their relative importance, without adding any spin of our own. regards, dab (𒁳) 13:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

ah, and you might consider adding something like "I am convinced that" in front of statements like "homosexuality is an inherently dangerous and destructive fetish" -- just to advertise that you are aware that this is your subjective opinion, not some sort of undisputed encyclopedic fact. Personally, I believe that sexuality should be private, and nobody's business other than those involved (consenting adults). Hence I think any kind of public brouhaha about sexuality is annoying. I am annoyed by pro-gay activism just as much as by anti-gay propaganda. I will stand up for people's right to do as they please in the privacy of their homes, and that's the end of it, and I will thank people to keep their sexual views, biases and preferences to themselves. This would include your piece just as much as "this user is gay/hetero" userboxes. Imho, this has no place on Wikipedia. But I realize that others disagree, and as long as we accept the statement of one position, we should also accept its opposite. dab (𒁳) 15:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for removing your comments on your talk page regarding homosexuality and for the childish comment I made in my edit summary. Obviously you are aware of my feelings regarding your views, however there are certain channels and procedures that I should use if I don't feel your comments are suitable for wikipedia, just removing them was not a valid choice on my part. On a personal note, I would prefer to see you able to show your opinion and make edits based on your opinion, rather than remove all users who don't conform to a certain ideal of what is and is not socially acceptable. Your opinion on homosexuality sucks, but it would suck far more if you were unable to have that opinion. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Apology accepted. :) -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not a blog or a soapbox

Considering wikipedia is not a personal webpage and not a soapbox, you might want to consider actually contributing some useful content or work rather than endlessly fiddling with a polemic userpage. WLU (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As you well know, seeing you have been dogging me since I created my Wikipedia account, I am new to Wikipedia. As such, I am concerned about ensuring that when I do make insertions within articles that I write in a professional manner that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and expectations of quality. You might say that I have been practicing writing within my userpage. The kinds of edits that I have been making here include the use of links/references and (believe it or not) working towards an NPOV. I believe that I am making good progress. I will contribute to articles as I find my input might be useful and appropriate. "You might want to consider actually" being friendly, as opposed to your dealing with me thus far. By the way, nice use of the word "polemic"! :) -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Artix Entertainment Group!

Hey! I noticed you just added your name to the Artix Entertainment Wikiproject. Welcome aboard! I work on the MechQuest and DragonFable articles, in case you're wondering! Alinnisawest (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! :) I hope to help out a lot with the DragonFable articles, as I have been actively playing since 2006. I am also a writer in the Role Playing forum on BattleOn.com and an absolute Grammar-nazi. =} -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, welcome to WikiProject AE! I'm working on a welcome template for new members right now and was wondering what kinds of things you'd find helpful to get you started on our articles? Let me know if you need anything or have any questions. By the way, I love your user name - have you checked out Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth yet? --Eruhildo (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Saw Eruhildo's comment, just had to add- when I saw your username, I was very very happy. Children of Hûrin is amazing!! (sorry, sorry, my Tolkien fangirl-ness tends to get the best of me at times!!) Alinnisawest (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Eruhildo and Alin! Thank you for the warm welcomes. :) I am glad to be a part of a fun project, and I hope to be a big help. I am also pleased that you both recognize and appreciate my user name. Beleg Strongbow is definitely my favorite obscure Tolkien character. :) BattleOn! -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Views on Abortion, Homosexuality, and so on...

A lot of people have written on this page about how stupid you are for daring to hold Christian beliefs. Well, I just have to say, thank you for writing the very true things you wrote on your talk page about homosexuality and abortion. I agree with everything you wrote. Abortion is never right, because it is murder, and homosexuality is also not right. I have to admit, I have a friend who told me she's gay. But honestly, whether or not she truly is, she was the one who willingly chose to follow up on those desires. God bless you and everyone who stands up in defense of the Bible and truth!! Alinnisawest (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Alin, thank you for expressing your approval. Yes, I have received a significant amount of criticism for my outspoken position on these controversial topics. Some of the criticism has been constructive and very helpful, and some of it...not so much. =} I have always been an outspoken person, but I am trying to work on being more diplomatic and even more loving as I express myself. Both my mother and my wife have been my biggest helps, as I think women tend to be a bit more in-tune with being gentle and tender--even when "you just know" you're right. :) Anyhow, your encouragement is much appreciated; still, if you have any constructive criticism concerning how I have worded things, I would be grateful for your feedback. God bless! In Christ -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)