" 

 ==The most biased article on Wikipedia== 
 I have no particular problem with homosexuals.  I have worked with some very nice gay people.  There are a lot of decent compassionate gay guys out there.  If you're gay, you're gay.  I am indifferent to it.  Just so long as you lead a decent life, I wish you well. 

 But what I can't stand is dishonesty.  What is going on here is a disgrace.  This article is maintained by about a dozen radical gay people who use Wikipedia to push their agenda.  (I understand that ""George William Herbert"" is not gay, but almost everybody else here openly acknowledges they are gay right on their user page). 

 You asked about my ""motivations"".  I am trying to raise a red flag here.  This site claims to be an ""encyclopedia"" and most users believe it.  So when some kid comes along and reads that ""only 38% of the general public think that homosexual behavior is wrong"" he has no reason to doubt it.  When he reads that ""all mainstream Western health and mental health professional organizations have concluded that reparative therapy is ineffective"" he believes it.  When he hears that ""damage from natural disasters correlates with Protestantism"" he says, ""gee I never knew that"". 

 Well he never knew it because it is a lie.  It is not a misunderstanding, a typographical error or a misprint; it is a lie.  It was added to the article for the express purpose of ""convincing the people in the center to change their opinion"" and ""changing voters' minds"".  (Those quotes come directly from the talk page where strategy is devised to craft the article ""from the gay rights advocacy point of view""). 

 The editors of this article are deceiving people and it is wrong. 

 So I stumbled upon the article one day and saw that it was propaganda from start to finish.  My corrections were reverted by the gay group, and when I reverted them back I was blocked for violation of the 3rr rule.  When I requested mediation, the Chair of the mediation committee (whose user page says he's ""gayer than Christmas"") assigned a gay mediator.  I explained to Wikipedia that they are being used as a PR vehicle by a group of zealots, but apparently they didn't care. 

 Meanwhile, not only did the propaganda machine continue to roll along, but the word ""cocksucker"" was added to the article.  So now the kid who thinks he's reading an encyclopedia is lied to and then he's sworn at. 

 Seth, you are not quite as militant as some of the others, but you are no less responsible for what is going on here.  I can't make you stop using the word ""cocksucker"" in front of children, but I can make you wish that you had.  And I can remove that word as many times as you can reinsert it.  And when you boot me, I know where to find plenty of others who will be more than happy to remove it in my place.  This could be a long year. 

 I find threats of ""arbitration"" ironic.  Arbitration is a wonderful idea.  That's why I initiated it last time.  There must be somebody in the Wikipedia community that cares that their site is being misused in order to push extremist propaganda.  I'm not quite sure why that ""somebody"" has been so hard to find so far, but let's keep trying.  Arbitrate away.  "