User:CaveatLector/Gay Cabal

This is a special case of the Wikipedia policy Assume Good Faith. We already know that there is no cabal on Wikipedia. Beyond that, there is not a gay cabal either. LGBT people do not edit Wikipedia in order to spread some sort of gay agenda, nor to 'recruit' children.

Therefore, assuming that a Gay Cabal exists is an assumption of bad faith, and to make such an accusation will only make you look like a loon to most administrators and royally piss off LGBT Wikipedians and those who support them.

Suckers! The Cabal will have your children, mwahahaha! Oh yes, there will be gays ...

official statement (copied from Talk:Homer's Phobia)
The Wikipedia Gay Lobby must be revelling in this article. Articles such as this clearly demonstrate that advocates of homosexuality intend to strongly affect children, knowing that young people are easily influenced. Also, by emphasizing it as a feature article, the damage is maximized. Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself.Lestrade 19:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
 * What? Take your anti-homosexualness (is that even a word?) elsewhere, thankyou. Gran2 20:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you listening to what you're saying, Lestrade? How can you possibly have an opinion like that? You make it sound being homosexual is the end of the world. We live in the 21st century. Grow up. Metty 20:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he may be kidding... Ab e g92 contribs 20:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We live in the 21st century. Grow up. This is proof that homosexuals are succeeding in making their psychosexual aberration seem acceptable. They have systematically achieved this through the entertainment media, which appeals to younger generations. Wikipedia is encouraging this by giving such articles a featured article status. It is ironic that Metty tells me to grow up. The reason for the irony is that homosexuality is, itself, adolescent behavior that is exhibited by immature persons. Mature people grow past that stage into normal, healthy, natural heterosexuality.Lestrade 21:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Gee, thanks for your wonderful insight, Fred. Tony Myers 23:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The truly sad thing is, he's not kidding. Freshacconci 21:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is really love and all, but take it somewhere else. The talk page is the place to discuss improving articles, and comments stating an article should not become featured (re: that an article should not be improved) aren't productive.  If there is something in the article that promotes homosexuality, then please point it out, though you should note that the subject of an article promoting homosexuality and the article itself promoting homosexuality are two very different matters.  And if you're going to go on tangential rants about the gay cabal, then find somewhere off-wiki to do it.  17Drew 23:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahem! CaveatLectorTalk 15:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Won't somebody please think of the children! Freshacconci 15:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I applaud Lestrade's comments. It shows they've been thinking about homosexuality and gay issues a lot! It's hard in a world full of change to assert what is normal and therefore needs defending - bravo! Benjiboi 22:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Official statement from the gay cabal, if there was one, which there isn't: There is no gay cabal. At all. There is no, I repeat no, massive conspiracy of hundreds of editors across several continents scheming via talkpage and hidden IRC channel (which if it existed, which it doesn't, would called #evilgaycabal, and the password to it would be "Mariah!") to carefully construct Wikipedia articles in such a manner that innocent young recruits children reading them will suddenly be possessed of an urge to wear pink (or flannel) and watch Queer as Folk (or The L Word) five times in a row before our crack Faery teams swoop down on them and carry them off to our perverted nests high up in the Brokeback Mountains for unnatural instruction in lisping and DIY. No conspiracy at all. And there is no "gay cabal". In fact, the words gay cabal don't exist. You're imagining it. And yes we would revelling in the article right now if we existed, which we don't. Well done Gran, if he existed, which he doesn't. All hail Xenu!(if he was real, but he really, REALLY isn't). Signed (or not), Dev920, Supreme Mugwump, if there was such a position, but there's not, of the Wikipedian Gay Lobby ™, if there was one, which there isn't. But if there was, would we tell you? 22:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)