Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes

2009-05-03T23:10:58Z

Hitchens:

Debate question: Why are there so few homosexual athletes, especially in the United States?

To me this seems to be a very strange phenomenon, since the [[homosexual agenda]] would have you believe that homosexuals are present everywhere. Yet in sports they seem to be lacking. I think there's a few reasons. First off, in sports, you have to be strong-willed to succeed, yet homosexuals were weak-willed enough to succumb to their temptations. Secondly, sports help reaffirm the young athletes with people of the same gender. Boys unconsciously observe how other boys act and model their behavior on this; the same with girls. This is one of the reasons Dr. [[James Dobson]] encourages parents to have their children play sports -- it helps discourage the gender dissociation which is one of the causes of homosexuality.<ref>''Bringing Up Boys'', Dr. James C. Dobson. Tyndale House Publishers, 2005.</ref> In that vein, it's not surprising that the majority of homosexuals in sports come from individual sports, such as [[tennis]], [[golf]], [[figure skating]] or [[diving]]. In team sports, the players have to be like-minded with the others to form an effective team, so if one of them is having distracting thoughts, the whole team suffers. The homosexuals become a liability for teamwork and either must adopt a straight lifestyle or leave the sport. This is why there are so few homosexual athletes. Opinions welcome. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:13, 3 November 2008 (EST)

I know professional athletes tend to not be gay, but I'm not sure the trend extends to amateur athletes. When I was in high school, nearly a third of our football team was openly gay. Maybe the drive needed to become a professional athlete is not common in many homosexuals, but because amateur sports require less drive, their weak will is successfully hidden? [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 19:20, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:If you don't mind me asking, how old are you? I just want to place when you were in high school - recently, last decade, older? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:40, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:: This was three years ago, in a school in southern California. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 19:59, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::: I figured you were young, because I would have never heard of such a figure in my day (and I'm not all that much older than you -- amazing what difference a decade makes!). A figure like this is what I was afraid of. Score one for the homosexual agenda. It seems the youth of southern California are in their hands. One third?!?! That figure is staggering -- it's more than even the homosexual mouthpieces would give themselves credit for (they generally think they're 10% of the population). It's shocking that our schools are becoming so overrun with immorality. I'm glad you seem to have made it out of there okay, TGeary, but I must confess this news saddens me greatly. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:18, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: It was really pretty sad. I am hopeful that the professional sports culture successfully resists such a trend in the coming years and decades. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 22:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Maybe the sports world environment is more hostile to gay people? That would both discourage gay people from entering the sports world and make any gay people in the sports world less likely to be public about it. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 19:41, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:I hear that argument a lot, but I don't buy it. How is the sports world more hostileto gay people than the business world or the military? We wouldn't have [[Don't Ask Don't Tell]] if there weren't a sizeable minority of homosexuals in the military. But in sports no one's suggesting Don't Ask Just Play, simply because the homosexuals aren't there to demand it. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:47, 3 November 2008 (EST)

::Foxtrot, did you participate in any sports in junior high or high school? I ask because I went out for several sports in the 1980's, and it seems hard for me to believe that someone who did would have to ask whether such an environment is (or at least was) hostile to gays. It was an ''absurdly'' hypermasculine environment and ''flagrantly'' hostile to homosexuality. All the athletes were 'motivated' with being called antigay slurs for any perceived deficit in performance. How many laps have you run with a coach calling you a bunch of XXXs? How many times have you been berated for not beating those XXX from the other school? How often have you XXXs had to do extra wind sprints? Hit harder, you XXX! Stop XXX XXX XXX and hustle! If you were the only Christian on a team of Muslims that constantly used anti-Christian slurs, how long would you stick with the sport? Would you openly declare yourself Christian and risk ostracism or physical abuse? Could you keep it up for the ten or more years needed to make it to the major leagues of your chosen sport? Especially when it's so easy for a coach to put someone else on the field when the scouts are in the stands?
::Maybe things are different in school sports now; I certainly hope so. Still, it would take years for changes in the entry-level sports culture to trickle up to the high-level sports culture - especially since changes have to come from coaches who came up in the traditional system.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 20:22, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::I played some tennis in high school, but never made it to varsity. I'll admit there were several jibes calling some guys pansies, etc. but no more than calling someone a weakling, klutz, idiot or any other number of insults from frustration. In a competitive environment, these jibes are motivation for the person with the flawed performance to improve himself. If he doesn't, then it is his failure. A high school team (and more so a professional team) wants the best players, so the ones which drag upon the team are the ones which get cut. I did, and while it was a disappointment that I wasn't a Pete Sampras, I learned to focus on my other gifts, like mathematics. I still play tennis as a hobby, by the way.
:::Back to the point: if a student receives these jibes, it's usually a reflection of his performance. If there was a star quarterback who was gay, the jibes wouldn't happen because he's excelled and met or exceeded expectations. However, this doesn't happen, because it seems that homosexuals generally do not seem to excel in sports. I doubt that once Martina Navratilova aced past her opponents on the court there were still insults being thrown about how her lesbianism effects her play.
:::The comparison to Christian/Muslim slurs is misguided. Those are insults about someone's beliefs, which have nothing to do with their performance on field, court, pool, etc. A homosexual might become attracted to his opponents or teammates, and that could have a profound effect on the game. In contrast, a Christian isn't going to throw the game because he wants to pray with one of his teammates (sorry for the inappropriate parallel that sets up). It's just a different ballpark. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:50, 3 November 2008 (EST)

::::You appear to have entirely missed my point. Why would ''anyone'' want to participate in an activity in which they were ''only'' referred to in demeaning and offensive terms - if indeed something about them was used as the ''default insult''? The point is not that athletes are berated for poor performance; it's that the berating almost always takes (took?) the form of antigay slurs. If nobody knows that you're gay, does that make it less insulting, or frightening? If you're the star player, is it less offensive because some ''other'' player gets the demeaning label? It may not be enough to say "oh, never mind what I called him, ''you're'' one of the ''good'' ones." The Christian/Muslim analogy is entirely appropriate: how many Christians would make it to major league sports if they had to run a ten year gauntlet of a very hostile Jihadist environment? Wouldn't the Jihadists wonder why Christians were such poor athletes, as evidenced by the lack of openly practicing Christians in professional sports?

::::As for whether a homosexual athlete might be attracted to a teammate or opponent - so? A straight athlete can hate a particular teammate or prefer a particular opponent; they can play favorites; athletes change teams and have divided loyalties; best friends have petty arguments; ballhogs are resented by others; teammates compete amongst themselves for playing time, etc. The interpersonal dynamics of team sports are highly complex and ever-changing. If a teammate hits on me, is that worse than if he assaults my sister? Or sabotages my equipment? Or gets MVP instead of me?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:56, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:Yet, military service requires the same things cited above (strong will, teamwork). [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 19:58, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::And when the military tried to throw them out because of their disruptions to morale (and worse), they had the PC left wing breathing down their backs. There have been no studies showing homosexuals make a stronger military unit, and with the PC stranglehold, it's doubtful any such studies would see the light of day. They're hiding the clear results, which only a few politicians are willing to mention and fight against for the strength of our military. Many homosexuals join the military not out of a strong will, but out of a fantasy of being near many men in close quarters and this mentality is not conducive to teamwork. BHarlan, for a simple comparison--imagine if a homosexual coworker expressed his interest in you. I'm sure that afterwards there would be an extremely awkward atmosphere at work. Now imagine if concentration on your work had your and others' lives depending on it. Is that the clarity and focus that makes for a good team?-[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:26, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::You misunderstand me terribly. You claim there is a "sizeable [sic] minority of homosexuals in the military". If that is so, the mystery is why it is not so in sports when military service and team sports require some of the same virtues.
:::It seems your explanation of this is that the military is a job and has cramped quarters. Only the former applies to professional sports, I suppose. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 07:47, 4 November 2008 (EST)

:Hmm well consider the percentages, only a very small percentage of people are homosexual and out of that even less would even consider becoming a proffesional athelete. I just think that maybe a lot of atheletes are scared to come out about their sexuality because of the reasons that foxtrot quoted up above, because sport is seen as very gender oriented, they're intimidated into not breaking the mold. Just a thought. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::I am taking into account the proportions, but it still doesn't make sense. Sports are something they are exposed to from a young age, and are a clear option for a career path. You'd expect they'd be inclined to follow that path as much as they are inclined to be actors, or dentists, or lawyers. It's not like I'm questioning the paucity of homosexuals in some obscure field like ceramics engineering (though the gays supposedly like pottery...) -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:55, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::You have kind of a weird view of gay people. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that sports are really not a clear option for a career path for most people, and kids are made aware of that, just as being a famous actor or musician is known to be highly unlikely. Additionally, yes, it's very common to throw around gay slurs at other people (even the word "gay" has become slang for bad). It's become a way of questioning masculinity, which males are likely to react negatively to, which is the point of calling someone a name in the first place (getting someone to improve themselves is a pretty weak excuse for out-and-out insulting them). Being gay is obviously still not an accepted thing, as you've demonstrated, so if a star quarterback were gay, do you really think he wouldn't get flack for it? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 23:21, 3 November 2008 (EST)

There is an interesting series on espn.com about this.

http://espn.go.com/otl/world/timeline.html

[[User:MikeAndrews|MikeAndrews]] 15:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)

This is a stupid discussion. It's because many athletes need endorsements, and pro athletes don't want to get kicked out of the sport. Look at Australian gold medalist Matthew Mitcham. Gold Medalsit, but no endorsements. It's clearly homophobia in society. Also, the Canadian Forces has lots of gays, including me. And there's no problem with unit cohesion. Conservapedia makes God cry. --[[User:Hitchens|Hitchens]] 19:10, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Sports]]

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2009-05-03T23:07:08Z

Hitchens: /* Funny, maybe? */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]
# [[Debate:who created God?]]
# [[Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?]]
# [[Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?]]
# [[Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate: Why do people believe the earth is less than 1000 years old given that there are recorded histories predating that?]]
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?]]
# [[Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?]]
# [[Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Debate:Did God create evil?]]
# [[Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?]]
# [[Debate:AntiSemitism]]
# [[Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?]]
# [[Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Debate:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|Debate:If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Debate:Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Debate:Why the Bible|Debate:What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Debate:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Debate:Antisemitism]]
# [[Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Debate:Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Debate:Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[Debate:Would the Flood and Noah's Ark cause inbreeding?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion?]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]
# [[Debate: Can Christianity exist without Apostles and Prophets?]]
# [[Debate: What do you think about the violence in the Bible?]]
# [[Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?]]
# [[Debate: Which version of the Bible should be used as the authoritative reference on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate: Should Christians celebrate Christmas?]]
#[[Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
#[[Debate:Creationist]]
#[[Debate:Did Joan of Arc truly hear voices?]]
#[[Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?]]
#[[Debate:Epicurus' Trilemma]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Debate:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Debate:Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Debate:Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate:Does Abstinence Only Education help or hurt us?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain Declined?]]
# [[Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Debate:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Debate:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Define torture]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Debate:If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Debate:Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Debate:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Debate:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[Debate:Women in the Military?]]
# [[Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Debate:Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?|Debate:Does Single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Debate:Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[Debate:Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Debate:Define Civil War]]
# [[Debate:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Debate:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Debate:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Debate:Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]]
# [[Debate:Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Debate:Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Debate:Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Debate:Is president Bush ignoring human rights violations in China?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]
# [[Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]
# [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Was McCain's threat to pull out of the debates a political stunt?]]
# [[Debate: Are Cantonese people a non-Chinese ethnic group?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama Was Conservative]]
# [[Debate:What level of Gun Control is appropriate?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare?]]
# [[Debate: Why do political views appear to be correlated with others?]]
#[[Debate:What should be America's policy toward Islam]]?
#[[Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]]
#[[Debate:Is the 2009 Stimulus Plan the right approach, and if not what would be?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama being unfairly criticized, or is too much being expected of our new president?]]
# [[Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Debate:Why haven't intelligent designists published a single scientific article?|Debate:If intelligent design is just as valid as evolution, where are all their scientific findings and publishings?]]
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?|Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?]]
# [[Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Debate:Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Debate:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Debate:Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Debate:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Debate:Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Debate:Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Debate:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Debate:Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Debate:Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Debate:Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Debate:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]
# [[Debate:What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election?]]
# [[Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs]]
# [[Debate:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?]]
# [[Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]
# [[Debate: Does Harry Potter promote Satanic witchcraft?]]
# [[Debate: Is Jesus or Lazarus the Original Zombie?]]

==Other==
# [[Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Debate:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Debate:Mall Shootings]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]
# [[Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
# [[Debate:What Is Music?]]
#[[Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2009-05-03T23:06:49Z

Hitchens: /* Funny, maybe? */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]
# [[Debate:who created God?]]
# [[Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?]]
# [[Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?]]
# [[Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate: Why do people believe the earth is less than 1000 years old given that there are recorded histories predating that?]]
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?]]
# [[Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?]]
# [[Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Debate:Did God create evil?]]
# [[Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?]]
# [[Debate:AntiSemitism]]
# [[Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?]]
# [[Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Debate:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|Debate:If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Debate:Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Debate:Why the Bible|Debate:What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Debate:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Debate:Antisemitism]]
# [[Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Debate:Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Debate:Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[Debate:Would the Flood and Noah's Ark cause inbreeding?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion?]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]
# [[Debate: Can Christianity exist without Apostles and Prophets?]]
# [[Debate: What do you think about the violence in the Bible?]]
# [[Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?]]
# [[Debate: Which version of the Bible should be used as the authoritative reference on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate: Should Christians celebrate Christmas?]]
#[[Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
#[[Debate:Creationist]]
#[[Debate:Did Joan of Arc truly hear voices?]]
#[[Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?]]
#[[Debate:Epicurus' Trilemma]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Debate:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Debate:Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Debate:Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate:Does Abstinence Only Education help or hurt us?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain Declined?]]
# [[Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Debate:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Debate:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Define torture]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Debate:If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Debate:Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Debate:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Debate:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[Debate:Women in the Military?]]
# [[Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Debate:Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?|Debate:Does Single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Debate:Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[Debate:Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Debate:Define Civil War]]
# [[Debate:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Debate:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Debate:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Debate:Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]]
# [[Debate:Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Debate:Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Debate:Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Debate:Is president Bush ignoring human rights violations in China?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]
# [[Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]
# [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Was McCain's threat to pull out of the debates a political stunt?]]
# [[Debate: Are Cantonese people a non-Chinese ethnic group?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama Was Conservative]]
# [[Debate:What level of Gun Control is appropriate?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare?]]
# [[Debate: Why do political views appear to be correlated with others?]]
#[[Debate:What should be America's policy toward Islam]]?
#[[Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]]
#[[Debate:Is the 2009 Stimulus Plan the right approach, and if not what would be?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama being unfairly criticized, or is too much being expected of our new president?]]
# [[Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Debate:Why haven't intelligent designists published a single scientific article?|Debate:If intelligent design is just as valid as evolution, where are all their scientific findings and publishings?]]
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?|Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?]]
# [[Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Debate:Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Debate:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Debate:Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Debate:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Debate:Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Debate:Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Debate:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Debate:Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Debate:Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Debate:Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Debate:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]
# [[Debate:What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election?]]
# [[Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs]]
# [[Debate:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?]]
# [[Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]
# [[Debate: Does Harry Potter promote Satanic witchcraft?]]
# [[Debate:Debate: Is Jesus or Lazarus the Original Zombie?]]

==Other==
# [[Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Debate:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Debate:Mall Shootings]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]
# [[Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
# [[Debate:What Is Music?]]
#[[Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad

2009-05-02T01:12:49Z

Hitchens:

{{debate}}
::
Someone is going to have to explain to me what bias is in the context of this argument. When I look at the Wikipedia pages for Barack Obama and John McCain I see what I would call relatively straightforward narratives of their lives and careers. There are things about each which could be questioned but nothing too substantial. When I look at CP I see a similar portrayal of Senator McCain but I see something quite different about Senator Obama. It's nothing short of a hatchet job, filled with unsubstantiated rumors about his birth certificate and stating as fact that he Muslim. It also says if he's elected it'll be because of affirmative action.

I understand that liberals and conservatives have different worldviews but this is beyond the pale. The page about Senator Obama doesn't look like a conservative view of agreed upon facts but is simply a recounting of wild accusations.

At some point liberals and conservatives are going to have agree on what constitutes a fact. I need help understanding how Wikipedia's Obama page is liberally biased and upon what actual facts CP's Obama page has to back up the accusations.
::

What is needed is something different than each. Something that is actually unbiased. CP is certainly biased, so is wikipedia, the difference is that on wikipedia the bias is pretty much accidental; people edit wikipedia from all over the world, people of every conceivable religion, certainly liberal beliefs would come from such a diverse background. Most people haven't even heard of CP on the other hand, and it's unlikely that many people that aren't passionately conservative would bother with the site. Certainly the American flag is not going do draw many people from the rest of the world. Most of the articles that have any real content are from the domain of religion/politics, and this obviously is going to create a huge bias in CP. You would be missing knowledge from more than half of the American population, and that isn't good either.-gendoikari4

Conservapedia in it self is a good idea, but it does have its own flaws, short articles (the page on G W bush on conservapedia is at least 1/8 the size of the wikipedia version) practically no articals on Popular culture(artists, video games, tv shows ect.) the articals are short and could never be used for informative purposes. My question is how can cp ever even compare to wikipedia. what do you think needs to be changened to help Cp thrive?- Serg1

: One of the biggest concerns of Conservapedia is to counteract a perceived bias of Wikipedia. What this does not address, however, is that Conservapedia is inherently biased in the opposite direction. If it the concern is that it is believed that Wikipedia is biased, then the best counteraction can be to present true objective articles, not ones simply biased in the opposite direction. If Conservapedia can accomplish this, then it can succeed in it can find truth. Otherwise, it is just doing the same things it hates Wikipedia for. -Casi
::Quite so. Wikipedia bias is incidental and reflects the contributors, so that sc-fi is elevated far too highly. However, the aspiration is to impartiality. The intention here is for bias. -Stevendavy

:Size alone is not the determining factor for Conservapedia. Articles that put together a coherent and factual base of information are more strongly sought. As is apparent, we don't wish to become [[Wikipedia]]; we feel there are many shortcomings in the way that system is run that prevent it from living up to its potential. We don't want to compete with what they are, but would prefer to be what they should have been.

:CP has continued to both grow and fill out articles. Pop culture is not our primary concern, but that area has been growing as well. While we certainly have areas where continued improvement is sought, many of the predictions of doom sounded in debate pages back around February and March are rather laughable when read today. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:53, 27 December 2007 (EST)

::I do understand that CP is a good idea(the conservative versiion of wikipedia) but really it hasnt met my standards of any wiki(the information on it is too short) I wish that CP can shadow other wikis and (as learn together stated) become what wikipedia should have been And stay that way. Another question is manifested through this conclusion though; How?-Serg1 07:27, 28 december 2007

:::How do you eat an elephant? -- one bite at a time. While there are a number of short articles, especially in helping to fill out categories and wikilinks, many of the articles that were short 9 months ago have been substantially expanded. Any editors making positive contributions, yourself included, can have a hand in turning this site into the resource that was envisioned upon its creation. Some areas, such as a fluid linking and category structure, have already seen great improvement and are becoming top rate. With each day we continue to improve. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia is far too liberal to be any good. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Oh dear. I can't agree; Joe, I dare say you almost remind me of the obnoxious type of person that goes around claiming the [[New York Times]] has a conservative bias. In any case, I agree with Casi. The point here should not be to right a conservative article or go on a rant Because We Can. It should be to write an unbiased truth about something. And if we go off simply writing rants, then we will not be considered reliable. Unfortunately, I do think that 65% of the population will be uninterested in ''any'' site that openly identifies with an ideology, so that alone will disqualify CP from contention with WP. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:03, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Freethough13: ( i hope the name doesn't get me kicked off). if i may,
it would be a tragic loss. i'm not argueing that wikipedia is liberal (which there is a reason. liberals are consiterably more likly to use the internet. ergo, they/i must at at least one time have a shift one way or another. the supposide liberalness of wikipedia is simply an effect, not an intentional fault itself. i back this off of me testing the theory of a liberal wikipedia. when i put in "Bush Sucks" on the Republican party, hell, even backed it up with sources, it blocked me.), but simply because of the outright, obveouse, pround, and incresingly strong right-wing bias. at least wikipedia has a less stringent intention of holding one political line or another.

::I agree with the unbiased truth. However, I think that Conservapedia is not fulfilling its function as unbiased. For example, the article on [[Feminism]] states that "Feminists prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses," which is not true since I know many Feminist women who prefer to wear skirts and dresses as is the overall trend. Feminism falls along a spectrum, which is why the article is polarized. Also, Conservapedia has a considerable amount of internet references rather than scholarly peer-reviewed articles, which significantly undermines its credibility.--[[User:Skeem|Skeem]] 23:01, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

It should never seek to become Wikipedia, and it never will. Wikipedia tries to be neutral as much as possible. Conservapedia is conservative by definition. Therefore, it will not be used by anyone who isn't a conservative American citizen. People from anywhere else in the world with any other political orientations will not use it. [[User:CappyR|CappyR]] 22:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia can certainly become as BIG as Wikipedia if not BIGGER. But CP should possibly consider renaming itself to something less biased than Conservapedia. Even though Wikipedia is extremely liberal, the name itself doesn't imply it. CP on the other hand announces it in it's name as a conservative only source. Perhaps CP should rename itself BiasFreepedia.com. That's my TWO cents. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:21, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I agree, the name(CP0 doesnt seem non biased

I definitely agree with Casi, and coming from sort of the same direction is that Wikipedia is trying to be a real encycopledia with true information, not true information that is edited to make it suit someones views on how that information should be represented. It is twisting the truth, and that alone makes it unreliable as a mainstream encyclopedia. With that said I am sure many people come here to get the type of 'information' that they seek. I actually think it is rather sad that an encyclopedia used to be something you could rely on, and now it is just another forum for people with a certain way of thinking who are trying their best to make sure others end up with the same belief system as them. Information has nothing to do with opinions...--[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

to Watchman, I doubt Wikipedia intended to be 'liberal'...it is just the way it has come about. This site intends to be conservative, so I don't think the name should be changed. If the name was changed to something less suspicious it would be deceiving people, unless that is of course what you want...just because you view the information here as being accurate because it accurately expresses your opinions on a subject doesn't make it the truth. --[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

I do not believe Conservapedia could ever become as big as Wikipedia and if it ever did I think it would be a great shame. A site condemning the 'liberal bias' and condoning conservative and Christian bias, discussing homosexuality, liberal views and atheism in a blatant negative manner only shows how small minded some people are. The fact that the site only allows for American English to be used only supports my theory that it has been organised and created by a group of fascists; whatever happened to freedom of speech? As a British atheist I can't say that I am a fan of this site and I dare say that the majority of British people, regardless of religion, will not be fans because of the site condemning the use of British English; this is why Conservapedia will never be as big as Wikipedia; they are cutting themselves off from potential users. Though I am sure they wouldn't want people who use the British spelling of the English language using their site...funny that us British are being told that our spelling of a language created by us is wrong, specially when the majority of English speaking country spells things our way; not the American. Also funny that Conservapedia exclusively promotes and supports creationism which would suggest that 'God' is omnipotent yet is against homosexuality...if one believes 'God' is omnipotent then one is saying that he/she/it created all life including those homosexuals but if homosexuality is right then surely one is criticising the work of 'God' and saying he/she/it made a mistake; I find that most interesting.

Dear Brit--- Homosexuality is not the work of GOD, Homosexuality is a choice made by human beings. GOD has given us freedom of will to follow HIS teachings and will or not. You are assuming, without any scientific foundation, that homosexuality is genetic or biological, which the article on this site does not support nor does the scientific community. Reading the complete article first, so you can make an honest and intelligent argument, would be wise, so as not to look the fool.
Concerning the English language, their are many dialects, which result in multiple pronunciations and spellings of words. Your assertion that the rest of the English speaking world follows the British example is rubbish and purposefully deceitful.(a practice commonly used by liberals, due to their lack of core values, lose morals and low intelligence. And in your case, the lack of guts and fortitude to at least sign your online name.) The roots of the English language were indeed "invented" by the Anglo Saxons, with heavy influences from old Norse, German, and French. And as with many languages it has evolved over time, many words used in the U.K. are of American origin and vice versa. Further more, I am forced to use your spelling when I frequent British sites as well, but I'm not whining. Where is Winston Churchill when you need him? Majorpain a.k.a. Mike.

If the criteria for becoming as big as Wikipedia is as the angry atheist Brit has listed, then it's well worth NOT becoming like Wikipedia. Perhaps, it's the Brits that are polluting our online Wiki-resources with such liberal trash. Go George Washington! Cheers! --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:So many people coming to support the site are not welcome. This is why the site is in decline, the pointless anger against people who would support the poject. It is a problem. I acknowledge that some of my spelling has had to be 'corrected', but the deep suspision of anyone not like enough goes against the broadness stated in the word encyclopedia.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't think this site should be as big as Wikipedia, since it's simply a free online resource. No gimmicks. I'm a British atheist, and I'm not here to critize the idea behind this site. It's what makes the internet so wonderful: different opinions. However, this site is dangerously on the verge of becoming another parody of convervatist christians. You, the users, are blantantly making this site hostile to anyone with a different ideal, how will it ever grow or be taken seriously? Not everyone will agree, I don't, I personally think it's extremely homophobic, racist, elitist, sexist, shows bias and mispresents facts, but that's one opinion. In order to grow as an idea, embrace other ideals, no-ones asking you to stop being tories. But just lashing back with anti-foreign, hypocritcal retotrts is what makes me and everyone else dislike your ideas. Don't be like that. Embrace, isn't that what Jesus would do? Don't dare force ideals on anyone. Chris Roberts/chrisroberts

For a start, articles should be licensed under GFDL or CC. Why should anyone be motivated to edit an encyclopedia ''for free'' when their work ends up being owned by that encyclopedia? If I edit conservapedia, can anyone guarantee that my work will not someday fall into someone's hands who will claim exclusive rights over it, without giving me compensation? No. The reason I edit wikipedia is not because I trust the people who run it, but because GFDL guarantees that this will never happen. The wikimedia foundation only owns the servers, not the information on them. If they became corrupt one day and decided to use wikipedia to their personal advantage, somebody would soon create a fork that isn't corrupt. The GFDL allows this. With conservapedia on the other hand there is no guarantee. [[User:Cambrasa|Cambrasa]] 12:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

The problem currently is that various articles are far too biased, and there are too many religious fundamentalists registered on this site. Case in point, historical articles such as "paper" barely has a single paragraph, whereas religious articles such as intelligent design/creationism/etc has many pages.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:12, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

If you really want to get people to read these articles for more than entertainment or a good laugh then you have to take the subjective entries out of your article text. Too many of your articles on controversial issues end up being nothing more than politically and religiously charged attacks or refutes of direct text from Wikipedia. Every article on here that has more than one line of explanation sounds like nothing more than an argument worthy of the opinion page of a bad news paper. It’s not about being bias or not, it’s about presenting both sides of an argument with as much information as possible and allowing the reader to decide which side they believe. This web site is a giant debate fueled by hate and promotion of fear. For as much respect and love for religion that is expressed here there sure aren’t very many people that have learned from it. So the truth might set you free but a strong opinion despite the facts just makes for good entertainment. --[[User:FactMan|FactMan]] 21:52, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

This place can't be the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have to shut down every night for fear of SUBVERSIVE VANDALS. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 21:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

A perceived bias and a genuine bias are two completely different things. Conservapedia tells you about a bias up front, which would scare away anyone looking for a neutral source of information. But those on conservapedia feel that Wiki is biased the other way so they must compensate by leaning conservatively. Typically, those who edit wikipedia are fairly tech savy and probably are fairly young. However, as more people age and they become more familiar with the internet/blogging/etc. , they want to make their voice heard. This argument essentially comes down to older users vs. younger users. Now, I know there has been a trend lately of younger people being more conservative. However, I don't think the trend has changed significantly enough to swing the demographic of young voters over to the Republican side. I don't know who said it or where it is attributed to, but I believe the quote is "If you are young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and are not conservative, you have no brain." Thank you for enduring my rambling. And no, it cannot become the next wikipedia. Anything with a bias up front is not going to gain mainstream attention, especially considering the exposure Wikipedia already has. But hey, articles like this just Conservapedia larger. -[[User:ITfreq51|ITfreq51]] 19 April, 2008

No. It does not matter whether you view this as good or bad. But the two wikis are based on completely different attitudes and perspectives. Conservapedia is from a conservative, Christian point of view(correct me if I'm wrong), while Wikipedia highlights NPOV, which stands for Neutral Point of View(by that it means that so the articles will not offend a particualr group of people). Both Wikis see each other as biased. Wikipedia appeals to all people because it is intended not to target a specific group or to make specific comments about a group. COnservapedia will appeal to Conservatives, but then maybe not the mainstream. (P.S. If you are against this could you also leave your comment on my [[User talk:Faizaguo|talk page]]? Because my Watchlist is flooded. Thanks)--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Can CP become as big as Wiki? Certainly. But we need to point out the outrageous bias that wikipedia stands for and embraces. This bias can be found in almost all articles dealing with issues of contention. NPOV in their eyes is the extreme liberal view, the one that militants will tell you is the only truth. The sad thing is that if we were better organized and had more committed members, Wiki wouldn't be able to get away with the garbage and biases that are so rampant. --[[User:Irpw|Irpw]]

:I think it would be difficult, because, wikipedia is already so big, and conservapedia is not really that well known.[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 12:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
::Stout heart! In AD100 the Roman Empire was very big, and [[Christianity]] little known. Out of little acorns, great oaks grow. We may yet be of small consequence (though that is debatable), but in the future...! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:52, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Yes, I agree. In term s of quality articles, we have already overtaken the liberals!--American78
::::One major difference here is that original research is allowed (instead of relying on experts in fields that largely have liberal points of view) and instead of neutral POV, a conservative POV is implied, as I understand it. So no, this site won't become wikipedia. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 17:52, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Because we focus on the truth and eliminate [[liberal bias]], you're right that that site won't become wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

I think that the entire point of Conservapedia is to be conservatively biased. We don't want to become the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia is full of liberal propaganda. In order to counteract Wikipedia's effect, we need to write articles from a conservative viewpoint. Neutrality and impartiality are impossible. Without going into any specific issues, I think that I can confidently say that our content is completely factual and true. If Wikipedia is different from us, it's because they're wrong (probably because they let just anyone edit their articles). Not us. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]] 12:34, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

CP serves to show what it regards as the underepresented conservative point of view on many current affairs, but there are two forseeable problems with this. The first is that whilst CP claims that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, Wikipedia is not infact overtly or completely biased whereas conservapedia is. Wikipedia does at least present conservative opinions or arguments in some cases, (after all, a conservative user can edit an article just as much as a liberal can) whereas CP makes sure to portray only the conservative arguments. Therefore it makes sense to promote a "Liberellapedia" to go the whole-hock and present pure liberal opinion, at least in the interest of "honesty and fair-play" in debates.The second problem is that CP only appeals to other conservatives, and has little support or contributions (except from liberal vandals) from anyone else. Being British and of no decisive political or religious conviction, I found the articles of CP unappealing, as would many other Non-American people. Infact to me many of the articles seemed so absurd that I can only laugh at what appeared to be crude jokes. Because of this I and many others would never consider supporting CP. The fact that only a specific demographic is encouraged to (and would wish to) contribute means that conservapedia will never grow at the same rate as wikipedia. An encyclopedia's job is to cover as much breadth of knowledge as possible, and as a smaller and less detailed, more discriminating site, CP in my opinion will always be inferior to Wikipedia in that respect.--[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 01:28, 23 September (GMT)

: Don't let the door hit you on the way out.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:35, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia will never become the next Wiki unless the extreme bias and outright lies/fabrications it allows and in fact seems to encourage are addressed. Wiki is not perfect but it at least strives for some semblance of balance. It's understandable that folks on the Right want a site that leans right but Conservapidia is so fatally flawed that it's actually kind of sad that there are people who believe this is a valid and or accurate site for information on the topics posted. Until the bias and honesty issues are addressed Conservapedia will continue to be nothing more than a curiosity and object of derision from people who are actually interested in the truth.

Conservapedia is unable to become the next Wikipedia unless several serious issues are resolved:
* Copyright. GFDL or CC as Cambrasa said. People want to know their work won't be appropriated unfairly. There is no assurance of this. No one is going to put serious effort into articles when they have no control over how that work is re-used.
* Lack of depth. People refer to Wikipedia because it has a wide spread of articles in great depth. Operating for over 2 years, CP has less than 30,000 articles, most in very little detail, lacking citations or lacking accuracy, and often all three.
* Bias. CP does have a bias. There needs to be a strict NPOV policy.
* Academic credibility. Articles without references should be tagged or deleted, with the exception of stubs, which should be marked as stubs to encourage creation of an in-depth article.
* CE v AD. Academia has now all but universally adopted CE/BCE system. Having an encyclopaedia that insists in using the opposite is begging to do the way of the dodo. It is also rubs non-Christians up the wrong way, who may well have good items to contribute, and I include myself in this category, especially since all my articles elsewhere use the CE/BCE convention, as I was taught to do from day 1 in school. It's tradition!
* Global reach. The US flag logo will stop CP ever having a reach even approaching that of Wikipedia as long as it is regarded as US-centric or overly patriotic. You can only grow with international interactivity, both readership and contributions.
* Use of the term liberal in a derogative sense, as an insult by admins doesn't play into the idea of a lack of bias. CP needs to be apolitical, and a document of record if it is to live up to it's own hopes. Much of what I have read does not fill me with confidence, but I am willing to work to contribute good articles if CP is willing to work to live up to it's own claims. As a writer of articles for an encyclopaedia I put aside my own politics, my own religion and my own ideology. The administrators need to do the same.
* Finally, time restrictions. A website that isn't 24/7? It is a major headache for many contributors, and is really something that needs to be addressed poste-haste. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 19:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)

: No, Krysg, we're not going to become another liberal wiki that denies or distorts the truth. We'll stick with A.D. here and you can promote the atheistic, unhistorical CE/BCE somewhere else. You won't be fooling anyone here.

: Suggest a name change to your first and last initial for your account, and I'll move it. The truth does not hide behind phony names, and neither does scholarship. If Wikipedia simply changed its policy about that, then it would immensely improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Why do I need to change name on my account? It is in accordance with the rules. I have no idea what you are talking about with phony names. I am here to contribute articles, not engage on online role play games. Please check my user page and my contributions, and they will prove my point.

I do not understand what you mean by "becoming a liberal wiki". CE/AD, as far as I see it, is about academic integrity, not ideology. If you wish to hold it as some ideological point, that’s fine. As far as I am aware, all my entries use the BC/AD system this website requires. If any are not changed, it is purely an oversight on my part and not part of same hidden agenda. Suggestions were requested in this debate and I gave them. I'm not saying you must obey them, they are merely my observations, as requested.

Conservapedia was, I understand, created to be an academic resource that avoided some of the pitfalls of Wikipedia, such as anonymous editing (which I am glad this encyclopaedia avoids). However to be an effective academic resource, and certainly if it wishes to achieve a status of being able to be cited in academic work, then academic conventions need to be adopted, such as rules of citation, use of CE over AD, and copyright. None of these things are the preserve of liberalism, or some kind of liberal agenda. They are simply however the minimum standards that any publication needs in order to gain academic credibility. I don't make these rules, I am merely stating what I have seen to be the case in academic publications, which is what an encyclopaedia is meant to be. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 08:46, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Still waiting on a reply to the above, paticularly the username comment, which I really don't understand at all. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 15:58, 30 November 2008 (EST)

: Krysg, your contributions have been meager here; your name hides behind anonymity; and your suggestion that "CE" instead of "AD" is necessary "in order to gain academic credibility" is absurd. Unless you raise the quality and quantity of your contributions and statements, this will be my last reply to you. Pursue your quest to spread "CE" (which denies the historical basis of the calendar) far and wide somewhere else, not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)

: Why is CE necessary? CE IS the preserve of liberalism, as who else would change a 2000 year old system (and moreover, one which works and everyone is used to) to appease 1% of the population who haven't yet realised that AD and BC is supposed to offend them? AD and BC offend no-one, and the craven liberals who seek to appease all minorities at the expense of majorities are imagining things. AGAIN. CE has no academic credibility; before CP, I had never heard of it and hope never to hear of it again. I find the idea of CE offensive, but who will defend my rights? Not liberals. [[User:NeilEG|NeilEG]] 12:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:: CE and BCE were introduced to ease discussions in academia with those of other faiths where forcing the purely Christian dating would be offensive. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 11:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::: Markr, you're not fooling anyone here. "AD" is historically correct and if anyone is offended by it (which is doubtful), then they are unsuitable for learning history. CE and BCE are transparent attempts to censor Christian history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::: This is a serious question, even though it'll probably come off as sounding sarcastic: why not endorse the Jewish calendar, with the current year of 5769 (possibly modified to use months/days from the Gregorian calendar with the year from the Jewish calendar)? That seems like it'd be the most historically correct from a religious/creationist standpoint. Is it just because 2008 is the more universally recognized year, and using the Jewish calendar would create confusion, or do you think that 2008 AD is more accurate than 5769? [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 12:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::: So how many people in the world use the Jewish calendar? Listen, if AD and BC offended the Islamic world, use of the Jewish calendar would be viewed as a virtual decleration of war upon Islam; you know how they hate Israel. If you, like a typical Liberal, are ignorant of current affairs in the Middle East, blinkered to facts by your obsession with tolerance and multiculturalism. The use of CE is similar to those who thought that a new language could be taught all around the world, in the name of goodwill and understanding and rainbows and etc. Why should a new language be created and taught when many people already speak English or Spanish or Chinese? Why not teach one of those instead of making up a foolish new one 'to prevent offense'? It's the same with CE; why make a new system when the world already has some it's comfortable with in the name of so-called 'tolernace'. It's just liberals making up problems again. With any luck, CE will fail as terribly as those artificial languages did too. [[User:NeilEG|NeilEG]] 13:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

CE has academic credibility; it's just not a necessary change, especially for American authors. Our audience is not academics, so we don't have to use their [[date formats]]. In years to come, we can make the change if our relationship to academia warrants it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

*(haven't read all the above posts...pardon the certain faux-pas's that I now make) Unless something seriously changes with the way the leadership of wikipedia forms it's relationships, I don't see how that place is going to keep going. [[Jimbo Wales]] figuratively and literally [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumped_the_shark jumped the shark] when he allowed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2 User:FT2] to be a member of its "arbcom," or arbitration committee. When legitimate concerns were raised about FT2 personal interests--however untactful and poorly chosen the phrase "dog lover" may be--these were ignored and the editor was blocked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=255290603]. It's only now come to light because of a possible procedural/process violation, which is apparently no laughing matter over there. Maybe I'm still too much of a country mouse--no pun intended--but I can't see how anyone could support leadership who given full knowledge and evidence of moral bankruptcy, nevertheless, sees no reason to be far more careful with his relations or those of his organization. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 15:27, 2 December 2008 (EST)

It's interesting to see the comments above. One of the biggest things that I would change is to adapt a more neutral stance on the topics. This is a big thing.
* As to the suffix AD or CE, I was taught to use AD. So for me it's easier to use. I prefer AD to CE because, as someone said it above, it worked for 2000 years.
* As to whether or not this site can become as big or bigger than Wikipedia; I am a college student and my instructors told my class that using Wikipedia as a source is not allowed. I find this interesting. I've run across numerous articles that don't list a source or another place to find the information.
* As to citing web articles, I think that's fine as long as the articles are properly cited. Defining what citation needs to be used (AMA, etc.) may help this problem. And citing numerous different sources is better than citing all conservative sources.
* As was noted above, try to prevent both sides of the subject. You should be able to present your view in a more positive light by presenting both sides of the subject and then stating why you believe your side is better. While this may venture into opinion, it prevents having a strictly conservative bias.
*My main purpose for visiting this site is to get an unbiased version of different topics. I've run across several severely biased articles on Wikipedia, so I won't go there for that topic. Other topics, like robotics or astronomy, I would go there for because they have lots of information about that topic that is common knowledge (like the formula to change Celsius to Kelvin) or is easily verifiable (such as physics or astronomy). I go there because this information is in one place. It also includes external links that I can start from to search for that topic off-site. For example, when researching robotics, there are 62 citations and changing to robot, several external links including encyclopedias and research societies. While robotics may not be as hot a topic as creationism, it would be a reason for someone to come here and do research. Maybe conservatives hold a different view of astronomy or robotics. How will I know if it's not listed?
* As I'm reading this particular topic, some of the responses come across as vicious attacks on people. I don't care if your are from India, Britain, or the U.S., your comments should be responded to in a professional manner. This is NOT liberal media where responses are shouted down or changed. This is supposed to be a conservative view of popular topics. If you can't keep this professional, then you will lose lots of subscribers as well as persons just happening on this page. Eliminate Liberal bias? What about conservative bias? Ask [http://www.crawfordbroadcasting.com/~wmuz/bob_dutko.htm]Bob Dudko from 103.5 in southeast Michigan how to present both sides of a topic while still defending what you believe. He does an excellent job.

Summary... If you can present both sides of the topic in an intelligent manner with several citations, people will be more apt to use this site. Otherwise it will become a haven for extremists and fall off the map of every day people with conservative views.--[[User:KevinSSr|KevinSSr]] 22:34, 4 December 2008 (EST)

==View from a longtime Wikipedian==
Wikipedia succeeded because of three things, one of which Conservapedia possesses, the other two of which it ''could'' easily possess.

* A dedicated body of core editors
* Open editing
* Open content

Conservapedia already has a quite sizeable body of people who edit daily on a diverse range of subjects. This means that there is something to read on Conservapedia and the content grows as time goes on, and there is a sense of community about Conservapedia. Having some of the most experienced Wikipedians, like Ed Poor, around the place can only help in this regard.

But one thing that is missing is open editing. It is this aspect of Wiki editing that Wikipedia successfully imported (with significant modifications) from traditional "Meatball-style" wikis, which means Wikipedia's rate of growth took off and its use became viral.

At the moment on Conservapedia editing is closed, in the sense that if you discover an error or omission in an article, then you have to make an effort to register an account just to make a little tweak, add some new content, or even make a comment on the talk page about something that needs attention. It is impossible to overstate how costly that is for an encyclopedia.

Okay, Conservapedia doesn't want to repeat the complete openness of Wikipedia, perhaps because of a perception that it would tend to fill up with trivia the way so many Wikipedia articles do, perhaps because of a feeling that this would invite vandals to trash the content, and perhaps because of a feeling that letting everybody edit every article would tend to dilute the political focus or even end up with what the Conservapedia community perceives to be a liberal bias in Wikipedia.

But putting people through that routine just to make an edit is costly. In May, 2008, just over 1100 people took the trouble to create an account. About the same number created new accounts in October. That's not bad, but remember that accounts for every single edit by a new editor in each of those months. Worse, a good proportion of new editors never even get as far as editing. For whatever reason (perhaps they only wanted to be able to set preferences) they never got to the point of editing an article, so the number of first edits by new editors is probably less than 1000 per month, or about 30 per day. Spread across the articles that is a really tiny number of edits.

Most of those who do edit only make one or two edits but that doesn't matter. The point is that they saw something that needed fixing and they fixed it. With open editing you'd get many more edits, and that would bring new content.

There is a myth, sometimes encouraged by Jimbo Wales, that most of Wikipedia is built by just a few editors. That's wrong. Most ''featured articles'' are written substantially by a tiny subset of the tiny subset of people who come to Wikipedia and edit regularly--the community. After nearly eight years there are less than 2400 featured articles, and that accounts for less than one-tenth of one per cent of all Wikipedia articles.

Actually there is evidence that ''most'' Wikipedia content seems to come from those so-called "anonymous IPs" that are so often denigrated as mere vandals by the regular users. See [http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia this blog piece] by Aaron Swartz.

The downside of open editing is that it does let in a fair amount of unwanted edits. You get a lot of good content but not all of it may be relevant or of suitable quality, and of course some of it is vandalism. It's a cost-benefit equation and you have to decide whether you're prepared to accept the culture changes that happen when, like Wikipedia, your community tools up to handle the unwanted material.

Open ''content'' is another thing missing from Conservapedia, and it beats me why. Logically if I wanted to start a specialized website like Wikipedia but with different quality standards, I'd take a subset of Wikipedia's content and modify it. You can do that with Wikipedia's content because of the open license. It's a great way to get a lot of basically good content and bring it up to your own standard.

Anyway, those are two suggestions for how to improve the way in which Conservapedia works, which I've learned as a Wikipedia editor. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 22:04, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: I do not think Wikipedia is a viable educational resource. I find it to be a a gossip tree, a smear machine, and a trivia database. None of that is educational in a meaningful sense. Anonymous IPs are great for gossip, smears and trivia; they are destructive for education.

: Conservapedia has always been an educational resource, and will continue on that path. We teach teenagers and adults. Hundreds and thousands of them. We learn ourselves in the process. Conservapedia is a place to share insights, advance knowledge, and open minds that are closed. I think we do that far better than Wikipedia, and will continue to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:: I think some of your criticisms of Wikipedia are valid (the Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticisms of Wikipedia] documents most if not all criticisms that have been circulated in the mainstream press). But on most academic subjects, particularly science, the quality is extremely high, and the articles would be yours to take and modify to correct any imbalance if you adopted an open content policy compatible with their licence.

:: Wikipedia does cover popular culture but that's a matter of deliberate policy, not an accidental result of permitting open editing. As for the notion that Wikipedia performs no educational function, that's unsustainable even on a cursory examination. Compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc Wikipedia's] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Zinc&oldid=563001 Conservapedia's] articles on the metal Zinc, look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years'_War Wikipedia's] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hundred_Years_War&oldid=594609 Conservapedia's] articles on the Hundred Years War. As for Twelfth Night, the difference between [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Night this article] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Twelfth_Night&oldid=456977 this one] could not be more graphic.

:: The notion that having open editing would necessitate low quality just doesn't hold up. Wikipedia aspires to very stringent quality standards and the results, on the most important articles, is impressive by any measure.

:: I won't venture further to criticise the quality of Conservapedia's content, because I think many of the site's users and admins have already brought this out. I do think you could do better. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 23:12, 4 January 2009 (EST)

I agree with both of you equally, and I'm not just saying this to be "neutral". Here at CP we have no "neutrality policy": the core requirement is for articles to be trustworthy.

We certainly do need to be able to share insights and advance knowledge. By doing this, we provide the opportunity for the undecided to maintain an open mind. It is only the far left and the far right that hope for the closing of the American mind (with apologies to [[Allen Bloom]]).

I spent nearly all my spare time helping Wikipedia to grow, because I was learning in the process of helping others to learn. It also provided the basis for the success of the [[New World Encyclopedia]].

Tony, you are right when you stress the ability of anyone to edit any article any time. That is one of the essential elements that led to Wikipedia's exponential growth. But Andy is also right when he criticizes Wikipedia's viability as an educational resource.

The bias of Wikipedia against religion (in general) and against non-leftist ideology (in both politics and science) is just as crippling as having a leg shot off with a cannonball. The anti-elitism, which Larry Sanger pointed out so eloquently, is like having the other leg cut off with a sword. Forgive the violent imagery, but this is a debate page, so I figure I'm entitled to a little slack, eh?

Tony, you are also right when you say that Wikipedia has acknowledged most of the criticisms. This is crucially important, as it will determine when and if Wikipedia can ever reform. Wikipedia took a big hit when the arbcom decided to brand me a "tendentious" editor, when all I was doing was correcting violations of NPOV policy. I could have appealed to Jimbo, but I chose not to. Now, I'm not saying I'm a particularly important person; I'm more like a "poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage". But it was the Principle which they violated. Instead of thanking the revealer, they condemned him. (Once again, remember that this is not about me: I am not claiming to be a martyr. I'm fine.) They repeated the mistake of the Greeks who condemned Socrates.

Wikipedia is not going to go away. But it will not be respected as an encyclopedic resource until it solves its chief problems. And Conservapedia can help it, if it is willing to accept this help.

I applaud the high quality of Wikipedia on most academic subjects, but "most" means 51% - not 99.9%. There are glaring errors in every [[politicized science]] article, and materialism (disguised as "methodological naturalism") fuels this. Users like FeloniousMonk and KillerChihuahua actually '''prevent''' the very open editing you espouse. All edits on significant scientific subjects are subject to the liberal filter of what Wikipedia itself calls "tag team editing". Its article series on [[global warming]] is the laughingstock of the scientific community. How can you have the gall to say there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" in favor of blatant pseudoscience? What percentage of climate scientists have to sign a petition or be surveyed before Wikipedia will admit that the science isn't settled? By failing to apply NPOV to the world's most prominent [[scientific debate]], Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot (or would, if it had legs to stand on ;-) and nullifies all its other work. People judge an encyclopedia by its most glaring mistakes.

Wikipedia has profited from open editing, and it will continue to do so to the extent that it lives up to its own creed. But using the "undue weight" policy to undermine neutrality has the effect of censoring minority opinions - even in articles dedicating to describing those minority opinions!

Anyway, I'm glad you're here and that you have (apparently) forgiven our initial lack of welcome. I look forward to more conversations with you about how CP and/or WP can improve. And bring your friends! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:56, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: Taking your complaint about a "liberal filter" operating on Wikipedia, well if you think about it that gives a counter-argument to the notion that open editing leads to anarchy. Your experience is that a policy you disagree with (due weight), and editing practices you don't like ("tag teaming"--which incidentally is ''not'' considered to be a problem by Wikipedia's policies) has led to an outcome you think reflects badly on Wikipedia. This demonstrates that open editing is a relatively weak force in the presence of strong motivation and policy. It introduces diversity, but not (in the case of Wikipedia's science coverage, at least) at the expense of control.

: And of course I don't want to see Conservapedia become like Wikipedia. I don't think open editing and open content would make Conservapedia Wikipedia, because its policies and focus are fundamentally different.

: We could argue about the quality of science coverage on Wikipedia, but I don't really want to hijack this page for that side issue. Suffice to say that an analysis published in ''Nature'' found the quality of the science coverage on Wikipedia (including the article on global warming) to be comparable to that of Britannia. The notion that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming Wikipedia's coverage of global warming] is anomalous can be exploded by a cursory examination of [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567022/global_warming.html Encarta's article on the subject], and [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/235402/global-warming Britannica's]. There are subtle differences of emphasis in all three articles, but they all reflect the IPCC consensus and all provide a good introduction to the subject. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 09:45, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Tony. You have given me food for thought. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:51, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Tony, you're right about one thing: the "policies and focus" of Conservapedia and Wikipedia "are fundamentally different." Wikipedia, in my humble opinion, is not a legitimate or helpful educational resource. It is a mixture of gossip, trivia, and [[censorship]] by atheists. I'd guess that you're an undisclosed atheist who is typical of the editors who dominate Wikipedia. Most of us wouldn't send our children to an atheistic school, and for same reason most of us have abandoned Wikipedia for any real learning.

Feel free to compare Wikipedia and Conservapedia in five years. All atheistic countries and organizations unravel, or worse. It will be like comparing the atheistic former East Germany to the United States. It won't be a pretty comparison for Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 7 January 2009 (EST)

: I think we've all aired our opinions. Thanks to Ed and Andy for that. But Andy, you raise a personal matter concerning my religious beliefs.

: I'm only an "undisclosed" atheist in the sense that I don't mention my religious beliefs (or lack of same) except where it's relevant. I sent my children to a regular English school where religion was an integral part of the curriculum. School events such as musical concerts were held across the road in a beautiful Congregationalist church, the [[Union Chapel, Islington]]. I'll write an article about that edifice. I don't know whether you'd consider such a school "atheistic".

: Likewise I don't think Wikipedia is atheistic so much as secular, as is the government of the United States (and I don't think either is in imminent danger of collapse). You will find [[Christianity|Christians]], [[Hinduism|Hindus]], [[Buddhism|Buddhists]], [[Islam|Muslims]], [[Judaism|Jews]], [[Wicca|Wiccans]], and people who like myself don't have any religious beliefs, working alongside one another in Wikipedia as in the US government. I don't think it's at all correct to describe such [[pluralism]] as "atheistic". --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 13:07, 7 January 2009 (EST)

:: Tony, of course an atheist is going to like an atheistic resource like Wikipedia, and even argue that it is unbiased. Republicans think that George Bush has been a good and fair president, and Democrats tent to think that Barack Obama will be a good and fair president. No surprise, obviously.

:: But you didn't disclose your point of view until I elicited it. And that is a basic problem with Wikipedia. Its key entries are mostly controlled by atheists without admitting it. No meaningful criticism of the theory of evolution, for example, will ever be allowed by the atheists on Wikipedia. No explanation of how atheists censor prayer in the classroom will ever be presented. The undisclosed bias permeates many key entries on Wikipedia and renders it unusable as an objective learning source. If the bias were disclosed, then it would be more useful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)

::: My point of view shouldn't matter in this discussion if my arguments are sound. You will find a neutral discussion of the process by which mandatory prayer, once fairly common in American schools, was ruled to be contrary to the Establishment Clause, in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer Wikipedia article on School Prayer]. None of the key cases involved atheists as parties (with the exception of the case ''Murray v. Curlett'' which was consolidated with a case involving a [[Unitarian]], ''Abington School District v. Schempp'' (1963)). All of them involved conflicts on religious observance between adherents of different, mostly Christian, religious sects. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 15:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Tony, [[atheism]] certainly does slant one's opinions. You can't even discuss the [[theory of evolution]] in an objective manner, because you'll desperately insist that it ''must'' somehow be true no matter what the evidence is. You and your fellow Wikipedians will censor all meaningful criticism of the theory. Ditto for prayer in the classroom: atheists insist on censoring, and deny that is what they are doing. The biased Wikipedia entry, which itself admits it lacks quality, does not use the word "censor" once and is permeated with distortions and falsehoods, thanks to the atheists who insist that Wikipedia represent their point of view.

:::: I'm not trying to persuade you. I am telling you that the majority of the world, and the vast majority of productive people, do not want an atheistic teaching source, which is what Wikipedia is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:46, 7 January 2009 (EST)

(unindent) On some points, I see us talking past each other. Two religious issues raised include the distinction between atheistic and secular outlooks, and the distinction between mandatory and optional prayer.

I think Andy is right about atheism taking hold at Wikipedia, which was co-founded by two atheists: [[Jimbo Wales]] and [[Larry Sanger]]. At first, they agreed that Wikipedia would be neutral on all religious questions including the existence of God and the ability of supernatural forces/beings to influence the physical world. Somehow that changed, and the "secular" perspective of Wikipedia's articles on issues crucial to the 40% to 85% of Americans who have disagreements with [[Evolution]] has trumped NPOV. The naturalism and materialism of [[physical science]] is taken as a given, rather than made explicit.

On a minor point, I noticed that Andy said ''atheists censor prayer in the classroom'' while Tony replied with a reminder that "[[mandatory prayer]], once fairly common in American schools, was ruled to be contrary to the [[Establishment Clause]]". Tony, did you know that Andy is a lawyer? He's probably familiar with the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court rulings about religious issues. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:56, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Truth is not a poll. Conservapedia has a conservative view, yes, but it is in truth. Wikipedia accepts evolution as truth, and in that view it exalts everything that agrees with that view, and disagrees with any counter view. As far as Obama, they are questions that need to be answered, that obviously the liberal side would rather cover and ignore. Here is a challenge, go to You Tube and in the search put Barack Obama, and on the list that comes up, rate how many positive videos come up, and how many negative on the first page. Now do the same with Sarah Palin. Notice how the rate of positive versus negative viewpoints change with her.

So to find the TRUTH, it is not about being all inclusive or being politically correct. There is no such thing as objective news anymore because the world has become split on God vs No God, so the correct thing to do is become the best God believing information center in the world.

: Put another way, if someone wants to wander in confusion amid the self-serving lies promoted by atheists, they go to Wikipedia. I think studies show that atheism makes one less charitable and more depressed; [[Nietzsche]], the leading atheist of the 19th century, went crazy. If someone wants the truth and the freedom and [[faith]] that brings, they come here. Ultimately, each person decides for himself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Not likely. In this day and age, we will receive relentless ridicule and scourn from the mainstream media and other sources. Trust me, I've been on both sides of the issue. I am a former liberal and a former agnostic, although I was never cared much about politics until I became a conservative.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
I would agree

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Emphatic No. --[[User:Hitchens|Hitchens]] 21:12, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

Sociology

2008-01-02T00:49:26Z

Hitchens: /* Symbolic Interactionism */ broken link

{{Template:Sociology}}
'''Sociology''' is a branch of Social Sciences concerned with the study of human behaviour, specifically in social relations, using the scientific method of observation. Sociology, with psychology, is at the crux of the long standing Nature vs. Nurture debate. Sociology represents nurture and psychology represents nature.



==History==
The term sociology was coined by [[Auguste Comte]] in 1839. Comte is also the father of [[positivism]]. <ref> Pickering, M. (2007). Auguste Comte. In J. Scott (Ed.), ''Fifty key sociologists: the formative theorists'' (pp. 21-26). New York: Routledge.</ref> Comte's theory of positivism limits knowledge to the observable, and is crucial in approaching sociology as a science. The study of society dates back to Greek philosophers, however it was not distinguished as its own field of study until Comte.

==Key Theories==
There are a number of formative theorists who laid the groundwork for sociology, who have had a great deal of influence in Sociology through the following key theories:

===Conflict Theory===
[[Conflict theory]] strives to explain social facts in terms of different groups competing for control of resources, or advantages. This process occurs on macro levels, such as class groups, and tries to explain stability and change in terms of the conflict between these macro level structures. Two central premises to this theory are that privileged groups are working to maintain their privileges, while the disadvantaged are constantly trying to attain more. [[Karl Marx]] is regarded as the father of conflict theory, and the idea of human society. Communism is the modern day incarnation of Marx ideal human society. Central to the ideas of conflict theory are that by eliminating privilege, the overall welfare of the society can be increased. That is, a true equality amongst members of a society. Through class consciousness, Marx believed that the workers would eventually recognize they were being exploited, and put an end to privilege. <ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society: sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref>

'''Key Figures:''' Karl Marx, [[Frederich Engels]]

;Notable works include
:''Das Kapital'' by Karl Marx
:''The Communist Manifesto'' by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels
:''The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'' by Max Weber

===Functionalism===
[[Functionalism]] is a theory which examines society through interdependent elements, using a somewhat biological approach. In essence, social institutions have a specific function for the welfare of the entire society, in much the same way that the body's organs have specific functions that contribute to the overall welfare of the body. Functionalists believe that it is stable social relations or structures that influence human behaviour; these structures arise from shared values, and can either contribute to, or detract from the social stability. Functionalists believe that restoring equilibrium and increasing social cohesion can solve most social problems. In the late 40s, Robert Merton made a significant contribution to functionalist thought with his theories of manifest and latent functions. That is, a social structure can have both intentional functions, and unintentional functions respectively. Merton also believed that social structures can have a varying impact on different groups.<ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref><ref>Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.</ref><ref>Gomme, I.M. (2002). The shadow line: deviance and crime in Canada (3rd ed.). Toronto:Nelson.</ref>

Example: The functionalist approach to deviant behaviour takes the position that a certain amount of deviance or crime is necessary in society. At the correct balance, deviance has latent functions that contribute to the health of society. When the balance is disrupted, social cohesion deteriorates. More specifically, latent functions of deviance include providing an example of unacceptable conduct to other members of society. Criminals and ''others'' demonstrate unacceptable conduct by incurring sanctions from other formal structures, such as the courts, or mental health institutions.

'''Key Figures:''' Auguste Comte, [[Emile Durkheim]], [[Talcott Parsons]], [[Robert Merton]]

;Notable works include
:''Cours de philosophie positive'' by Auguste Compte
:''Suicide: A study in sociology'' by Emile Durkheim
:''Social Theory and Social Structure'' by Robert Merton

===Symbolic Interactionism===
As one of the key theories in Sociology, [[Symbolic Interactionism|symbolic interactionism]] concerns itself with social interaction in microlevel settings, unlike conflict theory and functionalism. Symbolic interactionism assumes that person's social behaviour occurs only in the context of the subjective meanings he or she attach to his or her social position. It is important to note however, that the social position of the individual is influenced by his or her own actions; one does not simply ''react'' to one's position in society. <ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref><ref>Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.</ref>

Example: Weber's work ''The Protestant Ethic'' is a prime example of symbolic interactionism. Weber looked at the roots of modern capitalism in Protestant asceticism. Weber argues that the first capitalists were Calvanists, though not all Calvanists becamecapitalists. These Calvanists believed in working hard, and not wasting any money on unnecessary material possessions was the way to gain eternal salvation in the Kingdom of Heaven. The actions taken by the Calvanists who became capitalists cannot be separated from the definition they applied to their actions, otherwise meaning is lost. The idea is, that even a good thing done for the wrong reasons can be wrong. Consider the difference between an ascetic Calvanist, and Ebeneezer Scrooge; both have essentially the same idea, however one is more likely to reach eternal salvation.

'''Key Figures:''' George Herbert Mead

;Notable works include
:''Mind, Self, and Society'' by George Herbert Mead
:''The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'' by Max Weber

===Feminist Theory===
The science of sociology would not be complete without the [[Feminist Sociology|feminist]] perspective. While feminism continues today to be a point of contention, it nevertheless has an important contribution to the science. At the time when sociology was born, and throughout its early years, women were not regarded as full citizens in the same way as men. The best evidence to support that position, is the role women played in the home and their limited participation outside the home. Feminist theory focuses on "the system of male domination in society" (Brym, 2001:15). This theory maintains that the relative positions of men and women in society is a social construct, which can and should be changed for the benefit of all members of society. Feminist theory examines structures on both a macrolevel and microlevel setting. The theory holds that the inequalities are institutionalized, even in the field of sociology. The most notable figure is Harriet Martineau, regarded as the first woman sociologist.

Example: Early theories on social inequality examined the paid work done by men, but ignored completely the unpaid work done by women in the home. To answer the question of why unpaid labour in the home would be of sociological consequence, one must consider the remuneration earned by professional house cleaning services. It is undeniable in light of this evidence, that a spouse's (or parent's) work in the home, is of economic consequence, regardless of the sex of the partner.<ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref><ref>Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.</ref>

'''Key Figures:''' Harriet Martineau, Charlotte Perkins Gilman

;Notable works include
:''Women and Economics: A Study of the Economic Relation Between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution.'' by Charlotte Perkins Gilman
:''Illustrations of Political Economy'' by Harriet Martineau

==Top Ten Most Influential Books==

# Max Weber, Economy and Society
# C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination
# Robert Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure
# Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
# P.L. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality
# Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste
# Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process
# Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action
# Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action
# Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

Source: [http://www.isa-sociology.org/books/books10.htm Books of the Century]

==External Links==

===Professional Organizations===
* [http://www.asanet.org/ American Sociological Association]
* [http://www.csaa.ca Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association]
* [http://www.isa-sociology.org International Sociological Association]

===Resources===
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Project Gutenburg]
* [http://muse.jhu.edu/ Project Muse]
* [http://www.jstor.org/ Journal Storage]

==References==
<references/>



[[Category:Sociology]]

Canada

2007-12-25T04:32:14Z

Hitchens: /* Education */

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Canada pol99.jpg|300px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|''Canada''
|-
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Flag
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|50px|]]
|-
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Arms
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Canada arms.png|48px|]]
|-
|-
|Capital
|[[Ottawa]]
|-
|Government
|[[Parliamentary Democracy]]/[[Federal]] [[Constitutional Monarchy]]
|-
|Monarch
|[[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Queen Elizabeth II]]
|-
|Official Languages
|[[English]] and [[French]]
|-
|Governor General
|Her Excellency the Right Honourable [[Michaëlle Jean]]
|-
|Prime Minister
|The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]]
|-
|Area
|3,854,085 sq mi 9,984,670 km2
|-
|Population (2007 estimate)
|32,907,500
|-
|GDP (2007 estimate)
|$1.105 trillion
|-
|GDP per capita (2007 estimate)
|$35,133
|-
|}
'''Canada''' is the largest country in [[North America]], and the second largest in the world behind [[Russia]]. It also has the longest coastline of any nation. Canada borders the [[United States]] to the south and northwest. The country's motto is A Mari Usque Ad Mare, or "From Sea to Sea" (taken from Psalm 72:8 - "He shall have dominion from sea to sea.") <ref>[http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0000001]</ref>
==Etymology==
The name Canada comes from the St. Lawrence Iroquoian word "kanata", meaning "village" or "settlement". In 1535, two Huron youths directed [[Jacques Cartier]] to "kanata", their village. The village they referred to was Stadacona, the future site of Quebec City.<ref name="Canadian_Encylopedia">[http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&ArticleId=A0001216 The Canadian Encyclopedia]</ref> By 1545, European books and maps began referring to this region as Canada.

The name ''Dominion of Canada'' was adopted during Confederation in 1867, and kept until the Constitution Act of 1982, when "Canada" became the only legal name.

== History and the Constitution ==
[[Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The Supreme Court of Canada.]]
Canada was officially created by the signing of the British North America Act, which came into force on July 1, 1867. The BNA Act was an [[Act of Parliament|Act of the British Parliament]], and is also referred to as the Constitution Act of 1867. The first Prime Minister, Sir John A. MacDonald, was a member of the Liberal-Conservative Party.
The BNA Act was later amended in 1982 by the Constitution Act of 1982. The Right Honourable [[Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada at the time, also established the Canadian [[Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] as part of the Constitution Act. The Charter sets clear, fundamental freedoms for all Canadians. It has been cited in thousands of court challenges and is the fundamental legal document supporting the national legalization of same-sex marriages and the prevention of government intervention regarding abortion.

The Canadian national flag was officially adopted February 15, 1965; prior to that time and subsequent to Confederation in 1867, Canada used a variant of the Red Ensign, a British merchant flag, as its national flag. The new flag was imposed by the Liberal government in an effort to appease socialists and Quebec Nationalists. The Liberal government refused to hold a referendum on the subject; instead the public was invited to submit designs.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df3_e.cfm Birth of the Canadian Flag]</ref> The introduction of the new flag was not without controversy.

In a memo from Diefenbaker’s personal files he wrote:
<blockquote>The Pearson flag is a meaningless Flag. There is no recognition of history; no indication of the existence of French and English Canada; the partnership of the races; no acknowledgement of history. It is a flag without a past, without history, without honour and without pride.” (Source – I Stand for Canada: The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag ).<ref>[http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/cultural/flag/national-flag-canada.html The Debate Over the Maple Leaf Flag]</ref></blockquote>

While the debate has been largely forgotten today, the Red Ensign can still be seen flying on some private homes and the debate does reemerge into the public domain occasionally. <ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070321.wxflag21/BNStory/National/ PM wants Red Ensign to fly at Vimy, sources say]</ref>

The Canadian national anthem, 'O Canada', was written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier as a poem, to which music, composed by Calixa Lavallée, was later added, in 1880. The original was composed in French, and was first translated into English by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson of Toronto, Ontario, in 1906. However, it was not officially adopted as the national anthem until 1980.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm National Anthem: O Canada]</ref> It is important to distinguish between 'O Canada', the national anthem, and 'God Save The Queen', which is the Royal anthem, played as a salute to Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]] as Queen of Canada.

== Provinces and Territories ==
[[Image:800px-Canada-satellite.jpg|right|thumb|300px|A satellite image of Canada.]]
At the time of Confederation, Canada was comprised of four provinces: Upper Canada (now Ontario), Lower Canada (now Québec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Since that time, six additional provinces have joined Canada or have been created. From west to east, the provinces are [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], [[Saskatchewan]], [[Manitoba]], [[Ontario]], [[Québec]], [[New Brunswick]], [[Prince Edward Island]], [[Nova Scotia]], and [[Newfoundland|Newfoundland and Labrador]]. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada, in 1949. The provinces all elect a single (unicameral) legislature, headed by Premier, who is selected the same way as the Prime Minister. A Lieutenant-Governor represents the Queen, similar to the Governor General.
Canada has three territories: the [[Yukon Territory]], the [[Northwest Territories]], and [[Nunavut]]. Territories have only have those powers delegated to them by the federal government

== Government ==
The government of Canada is split into three tiers, as outlined by the BNA Act. The levels are Federal, Provincial, and Municipal; each has very specific responsibilities, with some overlap. For instance, universal health care is mandated by the Federal Government, but it is administered by the Provincial Governments.

In almost all cases, Acts of Parliament are created in the lower house, known as the House of Commons. After passing three readings in the House of Commons, the bill is passed to the Senate. The job of the Senate is to further debate the proposed legislation, before passing it to the Governor General for Royal Assent. The Governor General is the official representative of Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]], Queen of Canada. The Governor General is, in the absence of the Queen, Canada's Head of State, and the Commander-in-Chief of the [http://www.forces.gc.ca/ Canadian Forces]. The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of Government of Canada, acting as the Minister of the Crown, based on the British system. The Prime Minister is the leader of the political party that holds the largest number of seats in the House of Commons, but it is not necessary that the Prime Minister actually have won a seat in that house.

From 1841 to 1844, the capital city of what would become Canada was located in [[Kingston|Kingston, Ontario]]. Subsequently the capital alternated between [[Toronto]] and [[Montreal]] until 1857, when the capital moved to [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]].

== Present Day ==
Currently, the Prime Minister is The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]], a member of the [[Conservative Party of Canada]], while Her Excellency [[Michaëlle Jean]] is the Governor General. At present Canada is governed by a [[minority government]]. In 2005 the city of [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] was voted "the world's best place to live".<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm Vancouver is "best place to live"]</ref>
Canada's population is increasingly urban, with 6 cities recording a population over 1 million ([[Toronto]], [[Montreal]], [[Vancouver]], [[Ottawa]]-Gatineau, [[Calgary]], [[Edmonton]]); these 6 cities represent over 45% of Canada's population. Canada is becoming an increasingly multicultural country, with most new immigrants settling in [[Toronto]], [[Montreal]] and [[Vancouver]]. [[Toronto]] is the world's most multicultural city, and by 2010, over 50% of Toronto's population is expected to be a visible minority. {{fact}}

== Public Health Care ==
In 1984, the Federal Government, under the leadership of the Liberals and The Right Honourable [[Pierre Trudeau|Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], enacted the Canada Health Act. This act was based on the five principles of "universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration"<ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/hise.html History of Canada Health and Social Transfer]</ref>. This public health care system is run in partnership by Health Canada and provincial Ministries of Health, who both contribute tax revenues. The federal government sets policy, while the provinces are responsible for actual administration. In 1995, the Canada Health and Social Transfer was created to replace existing systems for the transferal of tax funding to the provinces to administer social programs. The rationale behind the system is to allow all Canadians equal access to equal treatment, regardless of socio-economic status.

The current state of Canada's public health care system is gathering increasing media attention due to rising wait times. [[David Gratzer]] wrote:
<blockquote>... government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. <ref>[http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare] </ref></blockquote>
Most of the blame for the current state of affairs has been placed on successive government mismanagement. This represents a failure of the federal government to properly regulate the level of service being offered in the provinces. People regularly have to wait between four and eight months for necessary surgeries depending on the nature of the surgery, and province of residence.{{fact}} The median wait time for an MRI across Canada is 10.3 weeks in 2006.<ref>http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753</ref> In fact, former Prime Minister [[Jean Chretien|Jean Chrétien]] campaigned on a promise to shut down private MRI clinics because it creates a two tier system, regardless of the demand for more facilities.

In recent years, there has been suggestion from lobby groups that Canada should adopt a two-tier health care system. However, the government under the Liberal Party was aggressively opposed to this. Some argue that Canada already does have a two-tier health care system as the very wealthy can go to the United States for treatment. The argument for allowing private health care is twofold. The first reason is that competition improves the quality of products and services, while the increase in options will allow those with the means to access private health care and relieve some of the burden off the public system. Critics argue that health is a right, and that everyone should have access to the same standard of care.

Recently, in [[Québec]], a provincial judge has ruled that private health care providers must be allowed to compete with the government-run health care system.

== Secession movements ==
There are separatist movements lobbying for independence from Canada in British Columbia, Alberta, and Québec. The only movement of real significance is in Québec, where the province has twice voted on whether or not to separate from Canada, once in 1980 and again in 1995; the vote in 1995 failed by just 1 percent. On November 27, 2006, the Federal Government passed a motion declaring Québec a nation "within a united Canada". <ref> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#OOB-1799206</ref>

== Culture ==
Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by [[United Kingdom|British]] and [[France|French]] cultures and traditions. In more modern times, Canadian culture has been greatly influenced by United States' culture, due to the proximity and the migration of people, ideas, and capital. Amidst this, Canadian culture has developed some unique characteristics, and many Canadian movies, authors, [[television]] shows, and musicians are equally popular in United States.

Canada tends to reflect more liberal ideals than the United States. Two such examples are the legalizing of [[gay marriage]] in June, 2005<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html CBC news article on passing of gay marriage law]</ref> and, in some regions, the decriminalization of medicinal [[marijuana]] and small amounts of other psychoactive substances. [[Same sex marriage]] has been recognized by the Canadian government since 2005.<ref>[http://marriage.about.com/cs/samesexmarriage/a/samesex.htm About.com]</ref>

Notable sports which are enjoyed throughout Canada include [[hockey]], [[curling]], [[lacrosse]], and [[football]]. Canada generally does not do well in the Summer Olympics: in 2004 Canada only collected 12 medals (3 gold, 6 silver and 3 bronze). This is especially astonishing when taken in comparison with countries that usually perform very well, such as [[Australia]], which, although it has 12 million less people, collected 49 Olympic medals (17 gold, 16 silver and 16 bronze). However, given the nordic nature of the country, it is no surprise that it finished third overall in the Torino Winter Olympics, with a total of 24 medals, one less than the United States and 10 more than next-place [[Sweden]]. The next winter Olympics, to be held in 2010 will be held in Vancouver and Whistler.

==Religion==
For the total population, approximately 44% of the population of Canada is Catholic, with a another 29% being Protestant (all denominations). However, while 16% of the total population has no religious affiliation (including atheists and agnostics), 20% of the population under 25 has declared no religion, which might imply that the younger generation in Canada is becoming more secular, but statistics world-wide always indicate such in the younger demographics. <ref>Statistics Canada - Cat. No. 97F0022XCB2001002</ref>

== Taxation ==
The average tax rate in Canada is much higher than in the United States. In 2003, Canada's tax burden equals about 33.8% of GDP placing it in the middle of the G7 countries, with Japan lowest at 25.3% and France highest at 43.4% <ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/faq1e.html#Taxation Department of Finance Canada: FAQs]</ref>. The US rate is roughly 25.6%; this discrepancy is consistent with the differing levels of social services which the governments funds. Canada also has managed to run without a budget deficit for a number of years. Equalization payments, worth 11.7 billion Canadian dollars are made by the federal government to the provinces from richer provinces (currently Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia) and the poorer provinces (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) . This is to ensure that reasonably uniform standards of services and taxation are kept between the richer and poorer provinces.<ref>Budget 2007 [http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc4e.html]</ref> These payments have not been without controversy as provinces begin to make more revenues from natural resources they do not want to give up the Equalization payments. Additionally Quebec, the most populous of the "have not" provinces, receives the largest payments.

Canada also has a national sales tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 6% on all purchases. Some provinces add an additional percentage in the form of a Provincial Sales Tax (PST), or a combined Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) combining GST and the Provincial Sales Tax. Based on actual income, and a number of other factors, the government will refund GST/HST to eligible tax payers in quarterly installments on the fifth of the month in July, October, January, and April.

== Education ==
Education in Canada is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments; curriculum and marking schemes are completely removed from the control of the federal government. Each province uses a different method of administering education. For example, Ontario has public, separate (Catholic), and private schools. Alberta has an additional category, known as charter schools. Charter schools are schools that have been created in the community to surround a particular theme. They could be artistic, vocational, etc.

The Canadian grading scale markedly differs from the grading scale in the United States. In the US, a 59% or below earns you an F, a 60% nets a D-, and 80% a B. However, in Canadian universities, only 49% or below is an F, 60% will net a C+, and 80% is an A-. <ref>http://www.federal-realestate.com/info-schools/mcgill-university.html</ref> This differs somewhat from their secondary schooling systems, where the mark F is absent and substituted by E. A are marks of 86% or above, B is from there to 75%, C is from that to 65%, and D fills the gap between C and E. This may vary from province to province. It is also important to note that comparison of educational achievement requires more than a cursory observation of grading scales. Perhaps a better source of comparison is the Human Development Index, a measurement of literacy, education, life expectancy and standard of living. Using this scale, with Iceland at number one, Canada falls in at number four and the United States ranks at 12.

== Military ==
As of the most recent cabinet shuffle, Conservative MP Peter MacKay has assumed the role of Minister of National Defence.

The [[Canadian Forces]] is comprised of the Regular Force, the Reserve Force, and the Special Force (when so in service). The Regular and Reserve Forces employ over 62,000 and 25,000 members respectively. While the various branches wear distinctive elemental uniforms (DEU), the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force were amalgamated in 1968 into one common command structure <ref>http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp</ref>.
The Canadian Forces are <ref>http://www.canadianally.com/ca/forces-cf-en.asp</ref>equipped with modern vehicles such as the Canadian-built LAV III, the German-built Leopard CII tanks and both the American-built CF-18 Hornet and CC-177 Globemaster III. The Canadian government spends about 17 billion Canadian dollars annually on defence<ref>[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp]</ref>.

The Conservative government has continued the trend of increased defence spending initiated by the Liberals, and have also taken steps to decrease red-tape preventing the troops from having the necessary equipment to keep them safe and effective.

Over 3000 Canadian troops are currently deployed around the world, with over 2500 in [[Afghanistan]] where they are assisting in anti-terrorism & reconstruction operations, and another 500 are deployed to the Middle East where they are attached to a US-led coalition fleet and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1). These are prime examples of Canada's capability for interoperability with foreign military forces.

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

== External Links ==
* [http://www.gc.ca/ Government of Canada]
* [http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Parliament of Canada]
* [http://www.pch.gc.ca/ Department of Canadian Heritage]
* [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html CIA World Factbook:Canada]
=== Political Party Websites ===
* [http://www.blocquebecois.org Bloc Québécois]
* [http://www.conservative.ca Conservative Party of Canada]
* [http://http://www.fpnpoc.ca/ First Peoples National Party of Canada]
* [http://www.greenparty.ca Green Party of Canada]
* [http://www.liberal.ca Liberal Party of Canada]
* [http://www.ndp.ca New Democratic Party of Canada]
* [http://www.partyofalberta.org/ Party of Alberta]
* [http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ Progressive Canadian Party]
* [http://www.mlpc.ca/ Marxist-Leninist Party]
* [http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/ Canadian Action Party]
* [http://www.peoplespoliticalpower.ca/ People's Political Power Party]
* [http://www.animalalliance.ca/ Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party]
* [http://www.westernblockparty.com/ Western Bloc Party]
* [http://www.chp.ca/en/index.html Christian Heritage Party of Canada]

===Political Advocacy Websites===
*[http://www.canadadivided.com/ Canada Divided]
*[http://www.projectalberta.com/ Project Alberta]
*[http://onthefencefilms.com/video/twowomen.html Two Women]

[[Category:Canada| ]]
[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]

Symbolic Interactionism

2007-12-24T00:13:29Z

Hitchens: fixed link

{{Template:Sociology}}

'''Symbolic interactionism''' is a theory of sociology which frames individuals as social ''actors'', and the self-society relationship is defined by ongoing symbolic gestures. <ref>Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.</ref>

==Symbolism==

Everywhere in the world, humans are surrounded by [[symbols]]. These symbols include such things as [[Symbols of the Holy Spirit]], Egyptian [[Hieroglyphics]], tattoos, and road signs to name but a few. But, one must consider ''other'' types of symbols, such as the aforementioned symbolic gestures. For instance, there are formal practices of addressing persons holding office in society, such as the [[President]], or [[Supreme Court]] Justices, senators, mayors, and religious figures. The respect of office is generally reflected in the full, formal title for the person, like [[Elizabeth II|Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second]].

Another form of symbolism related to the person, is in the equipment viewed as part of the job, or the uniform required. Members of the armed services wear distinctive elemental uniforms, doctors wear white coats, and so forth; each group elicits a different response depending upon the interpretation of the symbols by the subject actor.

For the most part, the reactions to symbolic stimuli are part of a [[socialization|socialized]] response. As we develop and grow to adulthood, we are taught directly and indirectly how we are to interpret these symbols. However, there will always be non-conformists who fail (intentionally) to recognize these symbols, and respond appropriately. This [[Deviant Behaviour|deviant behavior]] will be addressed accordingly in either a formal, or informal manner depending on the type of transgression.

==References==
<references/>



[[Category:Sociology]]

Symbolic Interactionism

2007-12-24T00:12:03Z

Hitchens: Created legitimate article

{{Template:Sociology}}

'''Symbolic interactionism''' is a theory of sociology which frames individuals as social ''actors'', and the self-society relationship is defined by ongoing symbolic gestures. <ref>Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.</ref>

==Symbolism==

Everywhere in the world, humans are surrounded by [[symbols]]. These symbols include such things as [[Symbols of the Holy Spirit]], Egyptian [[Hieroglyphics]], tattoos, and road signs to name but a few. But, one must consider ''other'' types of symbols, such as the aforementioned symbolic gestures. For instance, there are formal practices of addressing persons holding office in society, such as the [[President]], or [[Supreme Court]] Justices, senators, mayors, and religious figures. The respect of office is generally reflected in the full, formal title for the person, like [[Elizabeth II|Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second]].

Another form of symbolism related to the person, is in the equipment viewed as part of the job, or the uniform required. Members of the armed services wear distinctive elemental uniforms, doctors wear white coats, and so forth; each group elicits a different response depending upon the interpretation of the symbols by the subject actor.

For the most part, the reactions to symbolic stimuli are part of a [[socialization|socialized]] response. As we develop and grow to adulthood, we are taught directly and indirectly how we are to interpret these symbols. However, there will always be non-conformists who fail (intentionally) to recognize these symbols, and respond appropriately. This [[deviant behavior]] will be addressed accordingly in either a formal, or informal manner depending on the type of transgression.

==References==
<references/>



[[Category:Sociology]]

Auguste Comte

2007-12-23T23:41:42Z

Hitchens:

{{Template:Sociology}}
'''Isidore Auguste Marie François Xavier Comte''' was born in Montpellier, [[France]] on January 19th, 1798, and died in [[Paris]] on September 5th, 1857. Comte is best known as the father of [[positivism]], and was the first to utilize the [[scientific method]] in exploration of the social world. It was Comte who coined the term ''[[sociology]]''.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Comte, Auguste}}

[[Category:Sociologists]]

Max Weber

2007-12-23T23:40:41Z

Hitchens:

{{Template:Sociology}}
'''Max Weber''' (1864-1920) was a German [[sociology|sociologist]], [[economist]], [[political science|political scientist]], and writer. One of Weber's main interests was developing a methodology for social science. His works had a considerable influence on 20th-century sociologists. He devised the concept of "ideal types," generalized models of historical situations that could be used as a basis for comparing societies. He opposed the orthodox Marxian view of the time that economics was the primary determining factor in social causation, and instead stressed the plurality and interdependence of causes. Weber emphasized the role of religious values, ideologies, and charismatic leaders in shaping societies. In his most famous work, ''Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'', he developed a thesis concerning the connection between the ascetic ideal fostered by Calvinism and the rise of capitalist institutions.

Weber viewed the [[Reformation]] as a critical period in European history that saw a reorientation of basic cultural frameworks of spiritual direction and human outlook, destined to have a great impact on economic life as well as other aspects of modern culture. Weber tended to view Protestant rationalism as one further step in the series of stages of increasing rationalization of every area of modern society.

== Sources ==
http://www.answers.com/topic/max-weber#Encyclopedia

{{DEFAULTSORT:Weber, Max}}

[[Category:Sociologists]]
[[Category:Economists]]
[[Category:Political scientists]]

Karl Marx

2007-12-23T23:40:21Z

Hitchens:

{{Template:Sociology}}
[[Image:KarlMarx.jpg|right|frame|Karl Marx]]
'''Karl Marx''' (1818-1883) was born in Prussia, educated in [[Germany]], and a writer in [[London]]. Marx was an economist who sought to set [[socialism]] and [[communism]] on, what he saw as, a scientific basis.

Marx saw "primitive" socialist thought as fundamentally a moral movement with no base in a practical science. Marx's solution was to ground an analysis of society on his principle of dialectical materialism.

[[Dialectic]] was a principle created by German philosopher [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]] which, although ferociously complex in his works, is based on the fairly straightforward conception of action and reaction. A situation arises that is less than perfect ("thesis") which provokes a reaction ("[[antithesis]]"), eventually a settlement is reached ("synthesis") which, is still far from perfect and provokes its own antithesis. Hegel saw the driving force of changes being the "Geist", variously translated as "spirit" or "mind".

Marx took the dialectic and replaced Geist with [[materialism]], at root the [[metabolism]] of man. To put it bluntly: you've got to eat!. The difference between the ideal spirit and reality translates into Marx's view that man had become [[alienation|alienated]] from his true nature. Man had been created different from animals: he is creative, this is essential to his nature. However, in modern days, man is just automatically producing: he works to earn his wage, but has no tie to the product of his labor at all. This is the alienation from his true nature. Marx proposed a solution: outlaw wages.

The necessity for material sustenance gives rise to an imperfect [[means of production]], which changes as the internal contradictions of [[thesis and antithesis]] work themselves out. A key feature of Marx's theory was his contention that [[competition]] for resources splits society into mutually antagonistic classes ("The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of [[class struggle]]s.") whilst the operation of the dialectic serves to continually reduce the numbers of classes until, in the [[Industrial Age]], society was almost wholly split between "[[bourgeoisie]]" and "[[proletariat]]".

[[Capitalism]], according to Marx, is just one system in a long series of [[economic systems]] in the world. He held that a so-called "[[capitalist society]]" had strong internal inherent tensions. In the development of capitalism, [[capital]], which Marx confuses with money or [[currency]], would be increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people. <ref>See his "Law of the Centralization of Capital".</ref> The difference in income between the poorest and richest would always increase. Through economic crises, the poor laborers could be inflamed to believe that the system would always be disadvantageous to them.

''Das Kapital'' (''Capital'') seeks to explain that the "bourgeoisie" make [[profit]]s by [[exploitation]] of the "proletariat." The exploitation arises where the value of the goods produced by workers is much more than the wages paid, and this "[[surplus value]]" is allegedly stolen from workers by the people who make it possible for them to earn a living. Marx sought to agitate class envy by alleging that the competition amongst the bourgeoisie forced them to exploit their workers as much as possible. If an individual bourgeois refused to continue the "exploitation" he would soon be forced into [[bankruptcy]] or be taken over by someone who would. The result is persistent low wages among the proletariat who, eventually, would rebel and replace the existing capitalist system with a [[socialist]]/communist system.

However, in his other works, Marx could not foretell if this fantasy would make an end to the capitalist system: he knew there are too many factors in history to make a prediction possible. He did not have a clear idea about what the next supposed stage after capitalism would be. The increasing concentration, he thought, would facilitate a [[communist]] system. In that system, however, man also would have to eliminate his "alienation." One possibility, which Marx imagined, was complete mechanization of production, so that any man could do any job<ref>Marx, K. Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, [[Berlin]]</ref>.
In the ''Communist Manifesto'', Marx went into greater detail about how this [[revolution]] would unfold. As well as proposing an economic system, Marx also advocated [[education]] for all including women and the lower classes who at the time were without any education.

==Critique of Marxists==
[[Mikhail Bakunin]] observed how rather than discussion of issues, the tried and tested method of [[leftism]] and [[Marxism]] was spread through the art of [[character assassination]], <ref>Guy A. Aldred, ''Bakunin'', Strickland Press, [[Glasgow]], (1940). </ref> close associates of Marx were adept in the art of
{{Cquote|cowardly, odious and perfidious insinuations. They seldom make open accusation, but they insinuate, saying they "have heard - it is said - it may not be true, but', and then they hurl the most abominable calumnies in your face.}}

===Views on Religion===
Marx' view on [[religion]] is mostly based on [[Ludwig Feuerbach's]] ideas<ref>Feuerbach, L. ''The Essence of Christianity'', New York, 1957</ref>. Marx is considered very controversial in religious circles for his statement, "Religion...is the opium of the masses." This was written in his 1843 work "A Contribution to the [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right]" and expresses Marx's belief that religion offers a false palliative to assuage the suffering of "the oppressed", which in his view essentially blames [[faith]] in [[God]] as the hindrance to carrying out the Marxist program.

Karl Marx is often labeled an [[anti-Semite]] or a "self-hating [[Jew]]" for statements such as, "Money is the [[jealous god]] of [[Israel]], in face of which no other god may exist", "The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the [[god of the world]]. The [[bill of exchange]] is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange", and "What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly [[God]]? Money."

== See also ==

*[[Baldomero Ortoneda]]
*[[Max Weber]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Marx, Karl}}

[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:Communists]]
[[Category:Sociologists]]

Emile Durkheim

2007-12-23T23:39:47Z

Hitchens: Added politics and major works

{{Template:Sociology}}
One of the formative theorists, '''Emile Durkheim''' (1858-1917) was a [[French]] scholar known as the 'Father of [[Sociology]]'; his life work helped sociology to become established as a reputable social science. Unlike some of his contemporaries however, it was his expressed purpose to develop sociology as a discipline. This is evident through his work ''The Rules of the Sociological Method''(1895).

==Biography==
Emile was born on April 15th, 1858 in Epinal, France, as the son of a [[rabbi]].<ref>Edles, L.D., & Appelrouth, S. (2005). Sociological theory in the classical era. California: Pine Forge.</ref><ref>Thompson, K. (2007). Emile Durkheim. In J. Scott (Ed.), Fifty key sociologists: the formative theorists (pp. 40-46). New York: Routledge.</ref> Initially Durkheim seemed destined to follow in the footsteps of his paternal line, and become a fourth generation rabbi. However, he appears to have abandoned religious belief as he concluded his education, considering both [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]] "outmoded". Durkheim went on to study at École Normale Supérieure in Paris beginning in 1879. Initially studying [[philosophy]], he shifted his studies to sociology. While still intrigued by larger, philosophical questions, his method of exploration was through sociology. Sociology had developed as a social science, and thus followed a rational, scientific method of exploration. Following his studies, he went on to teach philosophy at several small secondary schools outside [[Paris]].

1887 was a busy year for Durkheim, as he began two new phases of his life almost simultaneously. Durkheim married Louise Dreyfus, with whom he had two children, Marie and Andre. In addition, Durkheim was appointed as a professor at the University of Bordeaux. It was here that he wrote most of his major works. Of these works, he is probably best known for his work on Suicide, published in 1897. Rather than focusing on the personal aspects of suicide, Durkheim focused on the social aspects. In this he borrowed the idea of [[anomie]]. As one of two major uses of the term anomie across the field, Durkheim's use refers to a state of normlessness. This is the case of an individual having only very loose ties to society. In the following year, Durkheim started L'année Sociologique, one of the first sociology journals in the world. This publication was an annual publication which ran for 16 years, until the outbreak of [[World War I]].

In 1902 Durkheim was offered a position with Sorbonne University in Paris, after having established himself in the field as a leading authority. His position at Sorbonne became Chair of Education and Sociology in 1913, after his education courses became compulsory for students of philosophy and other humanities.

===Politics===

Emile Durkheim was a true social scientist, and as such he refrained as much as possible from political activism.<ref>Ibid 1</ref> He instead concerned himself with studying [[social fact|social facts]], asserting that any such social facts could be studied using scientific methodology. However, unlike Marx who studied society from a perspective of conflict, Durkheim's approach was more interested in the moral fabric of society. For instance, Durkheim noted a link between strong religious ties, and lower suicide rates. Many believe based on Durkheim's apolitical stance and his focus on the morals of society, that he was in fact, a conservative.

==Major Works==
;Notable works include
:''The Division of Labour in Society'' (1893)
:''The Rules of the Sociological Method'' (1895)
:''Suicide: A study in Sociology'' (1897)

==References==
<references/>



{{DEFAULTSORT:Durkheim, Emile}}

[[Category:Sociologists]]

Martial arts

2007-12-22T04:16:20Z

Hitchens: New page: '''Martial Arts''' is the collective name given to a variety of hand-to-hand fighting styles, or fighting styles that involve weapons that are used as an extension of the body. Most fighti...

'''Martial Arts''' is the collective name given to a variety of hand-to-hand fighting styles, or fighting styles that involve weapons that are used as an extension of the body. Most fighting styles are unique to a particular culture, such as Karate to Japan, and Tae Kwon Do to Korea. While many have roots in the period BC, there are variations of the styles that evolved in the last 200 years.

Interestingly enough, Karate is more of an anti-martial art, designed to help common folk prepare to fight against martial rule, during a time of weapons bans. ''Kara te do'' means "empty hand way" referencing this style without weapons. ''Tae Kwon Do means'' "the way of the hands and feet"

Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?

2007-12-22T04:07:59Z

Hitchens: /* More Research Needed */

{{debate}}

==YES==

You'd have to be crazy to do something which you know is forbidden in the Bible, and then like the adulteress, "wipe your mouth and say you have not sinned". Denial of the sinfulness of homosexuality is part of the insanity of it all.
:Just so you know, not everyone believes in your Bible. You'd have to be crazy to believe that everyone does.
:: Loads of sane people sin. Sex before marriage, murder greed, etc.
Furthermore, it is a development disorder which begins in early childhood. Attempts to consider it "normal" are politically and ideologically motivated.

Homosexuality comes from unhappiness within the family and leads to further unhappiness when embraced. It's like a facial defect (such as a cleft palate) which could be corrected with plastic surgery.

Gay rights activists complain that society's refusal to accept them as they are and to okay their sexual activities, is the only thing that stops them from being happy. But this is a foolish falsehood. Within the "gay community", the murder rate is high, The murder rate is 15 times higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. <ref> Manfred E. Kober, "Homosexuality: Degeneracy, Debility, or Disease?" class notes, p. 1 [http://logosresourcepages.org/Believers/homosexuality&.htm] </ref>
and even in "gay enclaves" like Provincetown, Massachusetts where there is no societal disapproval at all the rates for depression, suicide, Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since longterm gay male relationships are rarely monagamous, it is hardly surprising if suicide attempts are proportionally greater. <ref name="SecondRef"> http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html [http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html] </ref>
drug abuse, etc. are much higher than normal.

Homosexuality is not a normal way of being. It was not created or intended by God. It is a sin and a mental illness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D., wrote:
*:A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that "the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes." Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else--not even life and health itself--is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. <ref name="SecondRef"/> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:I wanted to start off by saying that a few comments that Ed Poor made are not scientific. If this is a scientific debate, than keep it that way. If you want to turn in into a theological debate justifying homophobia than move the debate elsewhere.

:To state unequivocally that homosexuality "is a development disorder which begins in early childhood," is dishonest. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization. <ref> http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html [http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html] </ref> <ref> http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ [http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/] </ref> Assuming homosexuality was a mental disorder, there is no justification for excluding theories discussing the origins of homosexuality. There may still be a biological or environmental basis for such sexual orientation even if it was remotely close to being considered a mental disorder. Mental disorders are arguably subjective classifications, do not address why such disorders occur, and such a classification is overall irrelevant to understanding homosexual behavior. <ref> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/ [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/] </ref>

:If "attempts to consider [homosexuality] 'normal' are politically and ideologically motivated," then attempts to consider it abnormal are also politically and ideologically motivated.

:I'm really not sure why the cleft palate analogy would make sense. Does cleft palate develop "from unhappiness with the family?" And does it lead "to further unhappiness when embraced?" That aside, the gist of this statement is that homosexuality can be treated. I'll explain how that is just plain false.

:People who denigrate or attack homosexuals for their behavior can negatively impact those individuals and can lead to depression. Is that so hard to understand? Again, making statements about the correlation of homosexuality with crime rates, depression and suicide is intellectually dishonest. Correlation is not the same as causation.

:By far the biggest concern with Ed's statements is the use of his references. The first reference leads to "Notes From the Adult Classes 2006 Evening Vacation Bible School" at http://www.logosresourcepages.org. These notes, not to mention the parent site, are chalk full of religious ideology and scriptural references. Remember my first paragraph concerning the religious realm cutting into scientific inquiry? Keep it scientific and leave theology out of it.

:The second reference is even more disturbing, hands down. NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality espouses using reparative therapy to "cure" homosexual behavior. Reparative therapy has never been proven to work and papers published by those who use this method are never peer-reviewed. <ref> http://www.nd.edu/~amanier/leftjab.html [http://www.nd.edu/~amanier/leftjab.html] </ref> Here is one of their mission statements from their website:

<blockquote>
"NARTH, founded in 1992, is composed of psychiatrists, psychologists, certified social workers, professional and pastoral counselors and other behavioral scientists, as well as laymen from a wide variety of backgrounds such as law, religion, and education." <ref> http://www.narth.com [http://www.narth.com] </ref>
</blockquote>

:Again, what does religion have to do with a scientific issue? Why are there pastoral counselors and religious lay-people working for a research and therapy organization?

:Not only that but, those working as psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and educators at NARTH are not backed by their peers. Organizations that do not accept reparative therapy include the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, and the National Education Association. <ref> http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html [http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html] </ref>

:Finally, N.E. Whitehead's, or Neil E. Whitehead's, quote makes serious assumptions and leaps of logic. If a gay advocate sees the "outlaw" aspect of homosexuality as a positive benefit, that doesn't mean that all homosexuals do. Nor does it mean that "outlaw" behavior is negative. "Outlaw" behavior is in response to what society already deems to be taboo, or a sin. To then say that many people who value same-sex behavior and therefore see this behavior as the only value of existence, is just false. Is there not room to be gay, have a family, do community service, go to church, and generally "value life?" Everyone values life. In sum, this debate has already been settled by the scientific community. --[[User:Edge333|Edge333]] 16:33, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

A person should not be said to have a mental illness unless the person's actions substantially impair their ability to function in their work or personal life. Homosexuality does not impair one's ability to function; it does not impair a person's ability to fulfill their responsibilities at work, and does not prevent them from creating and maintaining meaningful and healthy personal relationships. Additionally, homosexuals are as psychologically healthy as heterosexuals. (Strickland, B.R. (1995). Research on sexual orientation and human development: A commentary. ''Developmental Psychology, 31,'' 137-140). Problems with homosexuality stem from the attitudes and actions of others toward homosexuals rather than from a homosexual's sexual preference.

On the other hand, one could certainly make a strong argument that homophobia is a mental illness. Homophobia, as an intense, irrational hostility toward or fear of homosexuals, has a high potential for impairing an individual's ability to perform in their employment. The majority of careers will require interacting with homosexuals at some point. If a person has such a loathing or fear of these individuals that he cannot work well with them, his homophobia will prevent him from fulfilling his employment responsibilities. --[[User:Laches|Laches]] 16:07, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Laches, in that case it sounds like you might be suffering from heterophobia. If people want to apply the label of mental illness to everthing they don't approve of then that can be a serious problem also. Such as the person that said the children of Christians going to public schools should be treated as if having a mental illness. Can you see the problem with that? I would hope that such people wouldn't be allowed into a position of authority over anyone. But it is just as well they say such things so that it will show the rest of us how intense and irrationally hostile people can be.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:48, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

While I don't know what Roopilots6 is trying to say with the heterophobia comment, his basic argument is concise and accurate. The fact that some individuals disagree with homosexuality does not justify the labeling of it as a mental illness.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 12:46, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

NO!!! Homosexuality is not a mental illness,is not immoral, and is not wrong in any way, ask yourself is it your fault you like choclate, or, better yet is it your fault your conservetive, there is nothing wrong being homosexual, and homosexuality s not a mental illness, twins may have identical genetics but just grew up differently and one became homosexual it has no basis in genetics -RG :{

I understand why some people disagree with homosexuality, but, as Laches said, just because people disagree with it does not constitute calling it a mental illness. If that was so, you could call democrats, conservatives, Michael Moore (alright, he is kind of nuts), liking or not liking a TV show, or any number of things a mental illness. Also, tolerating homosexuality is different from accepting it. You don't have to think it's totally alright. Heck, I don't think a lot of things the government does are totally alright. That doesn't mean that I'm an anarchist. I tolerate it. The same thing goes for homosexuality. You may not agree with it, but at least be respectful of it. --[[User:SapphoChan17|SapphoChan17]] 7:16, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Let me say that it is as much a mental illness as liking the color red, or living in a big house, or anything else that is just a way of life [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 08:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Are you kidding me? Whoever thinks homosexuality is a mental illness is so wrong. The majority of homosexuals are mentally sane and probably moreso than most of the idiots who think there is something wrong with it. Have you people been living in caves? A large proportion of people who have really made an impact on the world in some way are/were homosexuals...think about Oscar Wilde etc!
You people who think it is a mental illness, I have one more thing to say to you,
Return to your amish hovels and churn butter until you can do so no more, then sod-off back to the dark ages from whence you came! [[User:bealecr]] 14:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

leave the bible out of this! For gosh sakes, not everthing has to do with the bible. It is a book, and like the Koran, even Harry Potter, you can chose to believe in it. If you don't want to, thats fine. Homosexualioty may be a disorder from birth, a disorder won choses, or even just someone choosing to be gay. Most gays proby wouldnt chose this though considering how much flack they get mind you. if it is a disorder who cares though? Being gay should be no differnt then being black, white, or born with only one leg. We should all strive to achieve whats best for ourselfs and if being gay makes you happy, then go ahead. it doesnt matter if you chose to or not, do what you want. And by the way, how is discriminating against the gays good for heterosexuals? It benifits them in NO way.

==More Research Needed==

I dunno about this one. I know it's not normal, but I think before we go trying to fix or change something, we should understand it. I'm definitely in favor of research into homosexuality. Only then can we find the right way to fix it. --[[User:Hitchens|Hitchens]] 23:07, 21 December 2007 (EST)

==References==
<references/>

Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?

2007-12-22T04:06:52Z

Hitchens: