Are you actually complaining not about gay pornography in Wikipedia, but the appearance of the phrase "gay pornographic" on the main page? And you're embarrassed that your sister found out you have looked at a webpage containing the words "gay pornographic"? Do you think use of those words is something that we are lacking a proper "sense of morality" about? FormerIP ( talk) 20:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Apologies for my repeated use of the phrase "gay pornographic", btw, but it's quite difficult to discuss without saying it. Blofeld 19:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Rewind just a second, Doc. I have no objection to coverage of articles on pornographic films or actors on here, even gay or tranny ones, I just think linking to to topics like gay pornography on Saturdays afternoons on the front page of one of the most widely visited sites in the world is inappropriate that's all. There is a reason why this conversation appears to have been had many times before is because people have some strong opinions on such topics.
I endorse the view that we should treat all topics fairly but certain topics push the boundary in which most people would consider acceptable on the front page of an encyclopedia. Society has values on certain topics and is opinionated on certain issues like gay pornography, there's no no denying that. OK so child pornography is illegal, but why is this so then? It it because there is some sense of morality behind the decision to make it illegal and that more than one person morally object to it? After all they are merely images, and we should all be open to all images to broaden our "encyclopedic" tastes. Images of child pornography are images same as any other but are clearly inappropriate in the same way that certain topics are inappropriate at least for the front page of wikipedia.
contribs) 18:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Didn't we just have this argument last month?- WaltCip ( talk) 18:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Don't we have this "argument" every month? The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC) The point of an encyclopedia is to expose people to information yes, but certain "information" may be questionable in the same way certain images such as child pornography are inappropriate for the wikicommons for instance which attempts to provide as wide a scope of "encyclopedic" images as possible.If you are fearful of being exposed to new information, or of inadvertently exposing others to new information, don't use encyclopedias. The point of an encyclopedia is to expose people to information. David Levy 18:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC) This is an encyclopedia, not a family picnic. No, okay, so we shouldn't link "objectionable" material at "weekends"? What the hell is this place becoming? (and I don't think you should be letting your sister and her kids into your "toom" by the sounds of things.) The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC) What the hell is this place becoming? A place where a cartoon episode about an anal probe provokes a firestorm, but a true story of murder and dismemberment is fine and dandy (as you know). Hundreds of people killed in Brazzaville, dozens in the US, a gay porn video is somehow more objectionable than real life? Wow. Blofeld isn't embarrassed in front of his sister, who cares what other people and cultures think? - David Levy 18:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Yawn. Blofeld 17:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC) You want us to ban the "certain topics" that you deem objectionable. The argument is that anybody at any time of the week or day in the world may be exposed to it but in my opinion there are certain topics which should not appear on the main page.♦ Dr. Its very embarrassing! Must such content really be linked on the main page on weekends? "Not censored" appears to show no respect to parents who desire for their children to learn from wikipedia but ban them because wikipedia advocates such stuff on the front page at peak times and exposed them to it. I left wikipedia a moment ago and my sister arrived and the main page was scrolled down and the words "gay pornography" emblazened on the front page of wikipedia on the screen when we entered the toom and that's the first thing she saw in the DYK section. that a review for the 2000 gay pornographic video A Young Man's World said its portrayal of fictional middle-aged men was demeaning to actual middle-aged men?