Talk:Same-sex marriage

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

archive 1

This page has been moved to archive 1

JonM 22:08, 20 December 2011 (EST)

Excellent Article

should be required reading before editing this page. We should link it in the main article:

In fact, I recommend much of Dissent Magazine.

Same sex marriage revert

Hello, and hope you are well. I am still learning, and I hope only to make quality edits to this site. What was wrong with my edit to the same-sex marriage page? Specifically, what's wrong with the jargon of "Abrahamic religious faiths"? KatieKomori 10:35, 1 December 2012 (EST)

First, I'm confident other religions ban it. Hinduism has been against the homosexual agenda, for example. Second, the phrase "Abrahamic religious faiths" is jargon at best. Third, it is a redefinition of marriage, and "expansion" would be euphemism.--Andy Schlafly 11:29, 1 December 2012 (EST)
I don't think that your confidence is substitute for citation. Is there a rule against "jargon" on this site? What does that mean? And I guess that redefinition is another way to describe it, but I won't argue semantics and will concede that. KatieKomori 01:14, 3 December 2012 (EST)

"...contrary to thousands of years of success..."

The Civil Rights movement of the 60s and 70s was similarly 'contrary.' Is that to be supposed as somehow wrong or undesirable as well? If not, why not? Tox 07:48, 24 December 2012 (EST)

update on population info

Removed statement that population had dropped starting 2005. The cited article stated that this was the second year in a row that Ma population had dropped, not that it started dropping in 2005 in response to the legalization of gay marriage.

Further, this article from the Mass Secretary of State: shows that the MA population actual grew by at least 2.2% every year of that decade. The cited editorial clearly has its facts incorrect.

Grumfan 18:57, 11 October 2014 (EDT)

Food for thought for liberals on same-sex "marriage"

If same-sex "marriage" is really as great as its supporters and the mainstream media like to make it out to be, then why does the media see fit to censor, suppress and silence any and all opposing viewpoints and criticism against it (including selectively editing and twisting the opposing views to make them and their proponents look bad)? When they see a need to resort to that, that tells me that the supporters have something to be afraid of in the opposing views. Northwest (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2016 (EST)

Good point. From the liberal MSM like The Washington Post, you'd never know that people like Bishop Harry Jackson even existed, much less that they had anything to say on the subject. DavidE (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2016 (EST)