Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2009-12-17T20:26:50Z

JEMBenton: /* "Interesting" law against Polygamy */

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=="The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong==
"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is ''not'' the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The ''actual'' liberal rational:

* Marriage, like '''all''' institutions of the law, should not be defined by ''one'' or ''any'' specefic religion, or religion all together.

* The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. ''See also: [[seperation of church and state]]''

* Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.

* A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with ''yours'', and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, ''you'' should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than ''sounding'' right if you ask me.

==Bias==
I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.[[User:Strata|Strata]] 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

==Is page protected?==
B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't.
[[User:Won4tide1|Won4tide1]] 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to Rationale ==

<big>There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.</big>

Essentially it is as follows: 

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States. 

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another 

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections. 

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation. 

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions. 

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. 

<big>There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.</big>

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman. 

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman. 

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners. 

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character. 

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

== Adding mores links ==

The article seems fine at this point, but it could use some more links to other Conservapedia articles after the introduction. I thought it was a little odd that editing was disabled in this article, or else I would have added the links myself. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== What? ==

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?
:I think they are saying that that is liberals' true purpose (intention), even if the people supporting same-sex marriage don't actually say it and openly admit it. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:50, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

==Supporting Gay Marriage==

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you here, Graham. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do ''not'' seek to force religion to do ''anything'', and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a ''better'' alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. [[User:Nateland|Nateland]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a [[power of attorney]] to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== This sentence is gramatically wrong... ==

"It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==Tremendous pressure... needs revision==
<blockquote>Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality, oppose the gay agenda, or believe in the sanctity of marriage.[Citation Needed] "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).</blockquote>

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and in several other countries, so if this assertion of "tremendous pressure" is true, it should be easy to find cite-able examples of it. I've had no luck thus far, so perhaps someone else should try... if not, we'll have to remove this section, because the article is seriously weakened by assertions we can't justify. Also, we need a working definition of the sanctity of marriage -- I'm sure that many people, churches, groups, etc. consider same-sex marriage perfectly sanctified, so we need to be more specific. I'm removing the language for now, and please, if you put it back in, clarify what is meant by 'sanctity.' Also, the 'fighting words' link appears to be dead, so I'm removing it.

Cheers!
[[User:Mermaid|Gabe]] 14:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Sauce for you.==
For the homosexual violence statement in the box beneath the spiffy graphic on the upper-right corner of the page: [http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=5a6dc0ec-3807-4f5c-a5ad-c50855986682&k=55181&p=2] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That article also says that common law relationships (IE live-in but not formally married) are 5 times more likely to experience violence and is the only category seeing growth in violence. Thus, allowing gay marriage would, statistically speaking, reduce domestic violence among homosexual couples. This article actually supports gay marriage from a statistical standpoint....[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 19:28 16, January 2008 (EST)

:Yeah... But let's ignore the facts. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::What facts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::What the study shows. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:Non sequitur. It isn't saying that abusive people who get married will suddenly stop being abusive, which seems to be your argument. A more logical conclusion is that abusive people are less likely to get married in the first place. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Move?==
Seriously, that would be a good idea. It's called same sex marriage throughout the article, why isn't it titled correctly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:Yes, no? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== A counterfeit counterfeit ==

The following is unintentionally amusing:

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation
marks around the word marriage, to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as
well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore
believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Why did the author put quotation marks around the word counterfeits? Is it to call attention to his belief that "Dr." Dobson's views on counterfeits are themselves counterfeit? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:I see what you're saying, but I think that's just there to show that it's his words, not Conservapedia's. That's something you do with all quotes, agqain, just to show that it's his word(s). --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Graphic ==

Even if the claim beneath the graphic is true: 1) violence is not a defining characteristic of homosexual marriage--therefore the graphic shouldn't be so prominently displayed here; and 2) the purported cycle of violence is not specific to homosexual relationships--therefore it is inappropriate in an article specifically dedicated to homosexual marriage. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:I was unaware that "homosexual marriage" had '''any''' defining characteristics. It's only a counterfeit, a sham aimed at destroying real marriage. This article is not "dedicated" to homosexual marriage; rather, it exposed the counterfeiting of marriage which [[gay rights]] activists are using to destroy marriage.

:We have no obligation here to respect sin - don't even try that line of argument. Homosexuality is sinful - and it makes people miserable. Why should we respect it? Do your "respect" the "choice" of adults to have sex with children? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:13, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If homosexual marriage is legal somewhere, does it not therefore exist? I fail to see how the argument of respect (which somewhat disingenuously equates homosexuality and pedophilia) has anything to do with whether it exists or not. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Laws permitting this sham are on the books in various places. But giving one thing the same name as another thing doesn't validate it. Once again, the article is not about homosexuals "marrying" - or should not be.

:::It should be about the laws and their purpose. It should illuminate the goals of the [[gay rights movement]] and compare their reasoning with the reality of their purpose, as well as the effect those laws are having.

:::The pathetic attempt to gain love from a sexual partner of the some gender is at the root of this. As [[Richard Cohen]] pointed out - drawing of course on the work of better-educated scientists like Socarides - it's a [[same-sex attachment disorder]]. And by the way, voting [[homosexuality]] out of the manual of psychiatric disorders doesn't change the fact that it's a disorder and a perversion.

:::Legalizing sin and craziness doesn't make it good, any more than calling spoiled food wholesome. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It's really sad to see people like Ed be so bigoted. I take comfort in the fact that by the end of my lifetime, gays will have equal rights.

== move page ==

Can this page be moved to [[Homosexual marriage]], which is a better term for this -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:53, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
:Same-sex marriage seems more precise. Bisexual people can marry a person of the same gender, so "Homosexual marriage" is a bit of a misnomer. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 14:21, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== Out of Date. ==

This article is out of date. Norway allows gay "people" to have equal marriage rights as well. -- Dollfuss.

== I have a question ==

I'm only 16, and maybe there is some sort of generational gap on this issue, but I'm curious to know why people care so much about the homosexual marriage issue? I just haven't ever found the arguments for or against it compelling or relevant. Any thoughts? Questions, maybe? {{Unsigned|Hedgy}} -- 21:23, 13 May 2009

*Welcome, Hedgy. [[Marriage]] isn't a generational issue, nor one between Conservative's and Liberals. Conservapedia's own article on [[Marriage]] states it plainly:

<blockquote>
The unity between a man and a woman in marriage is an expression of the relationship that [[God]] desires to have with his creation. The first marriage occurred nearly 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, in the area of the world that we now know as the Middle East. The first couple was Adam and Eve.
</blockquote>

:[[Barack Obama]], [[Hillary Clinton]], [[John McCain]], [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]] all agree on the matter, that Marriage should be exclusively defined as a union between a man and a woman. Check out the link I have made here to "Marriage" to read more about this. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:43, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
But why do people care so much? Why don't people live and let live on this issue? Why don't we create a separate institution specifically for gay people who want to be married. I don't know what we could call it, I'll think of that later. I've never understood why people care so much on this issue. Personally, I couldn't care less if gay people are allowed to be married, I just hate it when gay people try to flaunt their sexuality and act all offended when you get angry at them. It's a private thing.

Well to respond to your earlier statement, to create a separate institution specifically for gay unions and nothing else would violate the strikedown of "separate but equal" established in Brown V. Board in the 1960s. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Same-sex marriage is just a way to confuse and mislead [[public school]] students as young as kindergarteners and first graders about marriage. In Massachusetts, the public schools immediately began teaching propaganda to young students once same-sex marriage was adopted there, and courts rejected a legal challenge to it. Same-sex marriage is also a way to censor the Bible and call it "hate speech."

: Smoking reduces lifespan by several years. The [[homosexual]] lifestyle reduces average lifespan by even more than smoking does, yet this information is withheld from students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:49, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: But doesn't denying the rights of homosexuals just undermine the choice we have as humans? I mean, if we don't have moral choice, then we aren't people, are we?--[[User:Hedgy|Hedgy]] 22:45, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

==Outing==
''One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual and bi-sexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Although communication between married partners would be classified as privileged and any given partner would be legally obligated to refuse to disclose information without the consent of his/his mate [16], anonymous leaking to the media has been known to happen and the prospect of suffering a "Haggardesque" [17] fate is sufficient to allow manipulative tactics such as blackmail.'' 
Maybe it's just because I've had a long day, but I'm not seeing what outing has to do with same-sex marriage. Civil marriage is a matter of public record, isn't it? So anyone entering into a gay marriage would do so with the understanding that it might lead to others being aware that the members of the couple are gay, right? So how does outing fit in? And blackmail seems very much a stretch - who would pay to prevent someone talking about a matter of public record? Why would anyone wanting to keep a homosexual relationship a secret decide to get married? Is there something I'm missing? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:48, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

*Tired or not, your point is well taken. I removed that part. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:54, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks [[User:TK|'''₮K''']]! One more statement jumped out at me: ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners. (2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005)'' How would getting married make someone seek more partners? Isn't it just the opposite, at least ideally? (It certainly is for my marriage!) I was hoping the reference would enlighten me, but it didn't include a link. I searched and came up with [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/051124/dq051124b-eng.htm two] [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050714/dq050714a-eng.htm sites], neither of which said anything at all about gay marriage. After more looking, I found [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-570-x/85-570-x2006001-eng.pdf this], which noted that "spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples: 15% and 7% respectively. It was not possible to calculate
rates of spousal violence for male and female couples separately due to low sample sizes." That's something to be concerned about, but it doesn't relate to the statement that ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.'' (As an aside, Canada legalized gay marriage in 2005, and the reference was to a 2004 study, so the couples in question were not married couples.) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:11, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

==Issues==
I've got a lot of concerns about the information in this paragraph. Most of these claims either have no relevance to same-sex marriage, are heavily biased or poorly documented. I'd like to give some examples:

1. The Dobson/Kurtz quote constitutes a baseless accusation against proponents of same-sex marriage. According to the author, their motive is not to seek equal rights, but to destroy the institution of marriage per se. Where is there any evidence of this? If homosexual couples didn't really want to marry, why did they turn out in huge numbers to do so in every state that gave them the opportunity to do so? In my opinion, this is nothing more than an unfounded conspiracy theory.

2. How does the fact that adopted children are being raised by homosexual couples constitute an "issue"? Care to elaborate?

3. Even if it were a fact that incidences of partner abuse are more common among homosexual couples, how would allowing them to marry have any effect on this? And according to the posting in the "outing" section, the claim about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners" is both undocumented and counterintuitive.

I hope you won't mind addressing these concerns. In my opinion, this whole paragraph lacks any merit and should be deleted and rewritten from scratch. -- Hubertus

: Yes, the Dobson/Kurtz quote is an opinion, but it is a commonly held belief on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. It is clearly labeled as opinion. Even if it is a conspiracy view, it is a relevant view. Adoption is relevant because adoption by homosexual couples is frequent cited by both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. Some say that marriage provides stability for those adopted kids. Others say that the homosexual couple should not be adopting kids anyway. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:29, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

OK then, would anybody mind if I edit the article to flag this quote as a completely unfounded conspiracy view, which seems to be something that we agree on? And while I'm at it, I would amend the paragraph about adoptions to allow listing of pro- and contra-opinions. Finally, I'd remove the line about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners", because apparently, nobody has been able to back it up with any evidence since Hsmom inquired about it almost a month ago. -- Hubertus

*You have a lot of nerve, coming here as a troll to try and cast doubt/throw dirt on our conservative POV, "Hubertus". You have made no other edits to this encyclopedia, and only posted to this one topic, to dispute a narrow item. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:51, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I do not agree that the quote is a "completely unfounded conspiracy view". Much of it is clearly true. I do agree with removing the statement: "Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners." There is a source for it, but it seems unlikely to me and requires explanation at the least. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:26, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== I just want to know. ==

I really do not understand this.

The reasons that conservatives object to same-sex marriages don't make sense. Over the years I've heard:

*It is a sin against God according to the Bible.
**Same-sex marriage is currently a governmental issue. According to the separation of church and state, biblical texts have no weight in legal matters.

*It hurts the institution of marriage.
**If your marriage were to feel less meaningful to you if gays were to marry, then that is an problem with the confidence of you and your partner's relationship, not the institution of marriage.

*It is unhealthy.
**There are the same health risks as with heterosexual marriage. STDs can be passed between heterosexual couple too.

I am not angry, I just want to know why conservatives feel the way they do. (unsigned by Dacheatbot)

::Point 1, same-sex marriage is an attempt to discredit the Bible. The homosexual lifestyle is anti-marriage. The attempt by the homosexual movement to co-opt marriage is an attempt to marginalize the Bible, which flatly prohibits and warns against endorsement of the lifestyle. Also, there is "separation of church and state," which is an example of liberal [[deceit]].

::Point 2, same-sex marriage hurts the institution just as polygamy would. Are you saying you'd support polygamy too? Both devalue marriage in culture.

::Point 3, the homosexual lifestyle is less healthy, much less healthy, than the heterosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle shortens lifespan significantly. Why should society encourage that? It shouldn't.

::Open your mind and look at this objectively. The logic is hard to dispute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::1. How is homosexual marriage "anti-marriage"? It IS marriage. Marriage is not all about having kids. It is the union of two people who love each other. If you think differently, then you don't understand marriage well enough to block people from engaging in the institution.
:::2. I made absolutely no comments on polygamy. I do however have no qualms with polygamy as long as:
::::1. All members of the marriage are of sound mind and agree whole-heartedly
::::2. All members of the marriage do feel love for each other and that is the sole reason for marriage.
:::Those statements are why people get married.
:::3. How does homosexuality shorten lifespan? True, gays are more likely to contract STDs if they go without protection, but so are heterosexuals.
:::--[[User:Dacheatbot|Dacheatbot]] 19:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::Thanks for asking, Dacheatbot. On the first point, because it's a sin against God, we want to discourage people from sinning in this manner. What's more, with the current anti-discrimination laws, Christians will be prevented from treating homosexual couples differently from opposite-sex married couples. (Example: Catholic Charities was forced to stop its adoption services in Massachusetts after they refused to place children with homosexual "married" couples.)
:::I agree with Andy: homosexual "marriage" hurts traditional marriage just like calling any other non-marriage "marriage" would. When you've heard a name three thousand times to describe something not that good, it seems less worthwhile to you. Example: After Scandinavia legalized homosexual "marriage", all marriage rates plummeted.
:::Again, though I don't have any good sources at the moment, Andy's described the health risks exactly right.
:::If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask politely like you've done.--[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:23, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::::Evan, as I said before, biblical texts do not have any basis for law. Strictly following the rules of one religion makes a government that does not separate itself from the church, as a government needs to be in order to be fair. I'm not against the freedom of religion, as everyone has the right to believe what he or she chooses. However, imposing your religious values upon others violates their religious freedom.
DaCheatBot, besides ignoring our naming conventions, you've also made a number of illogical points here. First, you're assuming what you are attempting to prove: that homosexual "marriage" is marriage. You can't use that claim to support your argument, because that's what you want to prove, not a fact accepted by all sides. Gay "marriage" isn't marriage anymore than a pet rock is a real pet. Second, you endorse polygamy, which frankly leaves me astounded. Why not allow people to marry animals? Why not allow people to kill and steal? Are you against the entire Bible, or just most of it? Which brings me to your third point - that the Bible has no place in law. Believe what you want, but the Bible is the origin of all law. I suggest you read it sometime. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I apologize for the name, I was not aware that it was a violation.

The idea that gay marriage is marriage is not an illogical idea. It is the union of people who love each other. That is what marriage is. And just to respond to your analogy, a pet rock is not the same as a real pet because it does not fit the qualifications. Gay marriage does because it fits the idea that I said before on that it is based on love. A person marrying an animal is not love (Not romantic love anyway) because the animal is not able to give consent of sound mind. Killing and stealing also cause great harm to others, unlike gay marriage, which does absolutely nothing to others. Lastly, the bible may have been the foundation of law, but we have made many, many changes. While certain may have been right all along, such as murder and stealing, others are not because they follow a culture that is thousands of years old. The same way that the original American Constitution is not used in a court of law, but the amended version, the one that defines men and women as equals as well as whites and blacks as equals.(unsigned by Dacheatbot)

:Dacheatbot, please sign your comments by clicking the signature bar (10th one in from the left) at the end, or simply write your name, so we can see who said what.

:Polygamy is based on love also. Marrying a family member could be also. And, yes, people love animals too. The homosexual movement is essentially anti-marriage, and it is only in the past 15 years that it made "marriage" a priority. Why? Because it enables them to legitimize a lifestyle that is essentially anti-marriage. It is also an anti-Bible movement, part of a desire to marginalize and demonize the Bible. If you support same-sex marriage, then I bet you don't read the Bible anymore. The concept is effective at alienating people from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:35, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::The rhetoric above, critiquing traditional marriage and promoting same-sex unions, are rich fields of ideas. Let's mine them for their actual content.

::The [[Gay rights movement]] is well-financed and eminently clever. I suggest we analyze, digest and describe their arguments. Here's an example.

::#If people love each other, it's okay for them to marry.
::#Therefore, a parent and his child may marry. Or a brother and sister may marry.

::However, this violates the [[incest]] rule which has traditionally forbade sexual relations between persons who are too closely related to be married.

::[[Gay rights]] advocates want the old rules to be discarded, but they are too clever to come right and say, "We don't care what the Bible says; we're simply going to fornicate, right or wrong." Rather their strategy has been to convince Christians that the Bible "doesn't really forbid" homosexual relations. It is our job here to expose and critique this campaign. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:33, 17 December 2009 (EST)

==[[Homosexual denial]]==

Here's an example of propaganda:

* Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement."

It is common for homosexuality advocates to deny the existence of the [[gay rights movement]] and/or to pretend that they are not part of it. Let's confront this denial by exposing it and telling the truth.

Better to say that there are various views on same-sex marriage amongst its proponents. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

== "One man, one woman" God-given? ==

Our own article on polygamy states that while the Bible forbids polyandry (several men marrying the same woman), polygyny (several women marrying the same man) is explicitly allowed and was practiced throughout much of Biblical history. I don't think that we can draw the conclusion that the "one woman" part is God-given. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 10:34, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Sorry, I was generalizing from [[Unificationism|my own religion]] to Christianity as a whole. Let's research what various Christians and/or churches say about "one man, one woman".

:The Old Testament has a number of cases where a man of God - seen as an outstanding example of goodness and a role model (of sorts) - has multiple wives or concubines.
:*Abraham, when childless, used [[Hagar]] to pass on the lineage
:*Jacob had two wives; the second gave birth to [[Joseph]]

:When did the idea that marriage should be only two people (one male, one female) come about? Who says it's of God, and who says otherwise? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)

=="Interesting" law against Polygamy==

I would like to point out that defining marriage as being between two people and two people only is not "an interesting consequence" that outlaws polygamy, as the introduction states. Marriage was defined that way specifically to outlaw polygamy, which has been practiced by several religious sects in the United States. I would like to delete this sentence, as it makes it sound like outlawing polygamy was just a happy coincidence due to the framing of the law, which is a completely erroneous conclusion. [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 11:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:You may be thinking of another law, but the article explicitly mentions the [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which was enacted in 1996. At that point, polygamy already was illegal throughout the United States (for about a hundred and fifty years, I believe), so outlawing it probably wasn't the DOMA's purpose. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 14:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::This is exactly my point. That the DOMA is worded to exclude polygamy is not an "interesting coincidence", it is a reflection of the established law of the land since before Utah joined the Union. (Specifically, *because* Utah wanted to join the Union.) [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 15:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2009-12-17T18:02:04Z

JEMBenton: /* Texas, presidents from */

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]==
With the leading scientists of America (I believe the British numbers are even higher), professing non-belief to a huge majority. And masses of scientists from leading universities of America having a massively increased chance of being agnostic/atheistic, what lessons should we take from the fact that the supposedly best educated (and most likely highly intelligent also), have decided that god either doesn't exist, or at the least has no positive evidence?
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3341576

Sorry if this isn't the correct way to get a debate added, but it seems the only way I can spot, not sure where the best place would be for it? [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 15:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)

==Unicorn==
i tried to edit the unicorn page but was unfortunately unable to do so. can u please inform about unicorns.........

Concerned intellectual

==Texas, presidents from==
We put in 3 presidents from Texas, and had 3 wars; a real brain trust. Who supplied the monies to put these Texans into office? We all know the mentality of Texans; shoot first and ask questions later. We are also suppose to welcome illegals into this country, and help support them, says a man from Texass. I could care less about your stupid party affiliations; and A-Hole is an A-Hole no matter the party.
If a demogog was in office instead of a repugnant, he would have been impeached by now. This shows you the power of the repugnants.{{Unsigned|Take13}}

:If you are referring in part to the Bush Presidents, I'm afraid you are mis-informed. Neither George H.W. Bush nor George W. Bush could be considered a "Texan" in the sense that they were born in Texas. Both were born in New England, the first in Massachusetts, the second in Connecticut. While it is true that George W. Bush spent much of his childhood in Texas, he also attended Phillips Academy, which is in Andover, MA, and is the same school his father attended, and both are alumni of Yale. Whatever disagreements you may have with their policies, you cannot blame that on "the mentality of Texans." You could just as easily blame it on East Coast Elitism. Or better yet, lay it at the feet of the men who actually made those decisions, not where they came from, or where they went to school.[[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 13:02, 17 December 2009 (EST)

== Spelling as a Commandment on here ==

The Un-American spelling of the Constitution!

The US Constitution has words like “chuse” and “chusing,” “Pensylvania” (in fact so does the Liberty Bell!), “defence,” and there are more… Oh dear, maybe Conservapedia should edit the US Constitution in accordance to it’s spelling absolutism (hey don’t correct me, the Constitution “improperly” has “it’s” instead of “its” in there… Article 1, Section 10). I’m sure Conservapedia would garner plenty of support since spelling is such a big deal these days. I mean it IS one of the 6 Conservapedia Commandments.

The pinnacle of American ideals and identity is our Constitution, and still I think Conservapedia would find themselves in a rut trying to justify why their spelling should be reflected on there… even though their spelling standards claim to be American, and well, the US Constitution IS American.

Spelling is fluid… it would be interesting to see how American spelling changes. I would hope what it means to be an American doesn’t change as much as spelling…{{Unsigned|Heidilaide}}

:I'll leave it to [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] to decide whether to reproduce exactly the spelling of the US Constitution, or to change the spelling.

:We need to remember that the man who, more than any other man, made spelling standard in the [[United States]] was [[Noah Webster]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 15:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== How to add debate topics ==

Please tell us HOW!! I tried, but apparently got the link wrong the first couple of times... --[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:31, 4 April 2007 (EDT) moved from article page by [[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]]

:The instructions are basically at the bottom of the page. I would also recommend finding another debate page that has a similar format and copying in the appropriate wiki markup, like the debate box at the top, headings for things like "Yes" and "No" (or whatever is appropriate). Also, if answers should fall under such headings, try to make the question very clear to avoid misunderstanding.

Yes, please add instructions. Otherwise, I'm sorry for creating discussions out of order. --[[User:Ephilei|Ephilei]] 10:47, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Dead links==

I notice rather a large number of these are now red links. I assume that is because the topics were deemed inappropriate and deleted by admins. Since the format is "create the link, then start the debate page", there should be ''no'' red links on this page. Therefore, later this evening I am going to goof off from work again and remove them - unless someone asks (or tells) me not to. I am also going to add an exciting new page I'd like to see ongoing discussion about - CPdians ideas and opinions about the 2008 Presidential candidates! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought it was that nobody had bothered to start the debate... [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:23, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Idiotic jokes and pointless debates ==

The last ones should be erased

== What went wrong? ==

I joined conservapedia for a laugh, but SHOCK! These debates are actually interesting and thought-provoking. I'll be sticking around here, deffo. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:25, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:The Vacillating Investor]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. I suggest that it go under a new subheading, "Puzzles." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:29, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Is Sexual Orientation Inherent or Chosen?]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. It should probably go under "Philosophical Debates" or "Scientific Debates".--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:54, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Which_is_better:_science_or_religion%3F|Debate: Which is Better: Science or Religion?]]==
This debate page was created earlier today, though I do not remember who created it. Discussion has already begun, but it is unlikely to continue if not added to the list. Please add, perhaps under "Philosophical". Thanks!

==Request for a sysop to add debate [[Conservapedia: Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be]]==
I realise by its very name this debate might seem contrary to Conservapedia's aims in distancing itself from the site, but please read my argument to see I'm not taking sides, I'm more arguing for the development of reference sources. Hope it's a good debate [[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 20:02, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add debate [[Conservapedia:Is there a problem with simply copying content from other sites?]]==
I feel like this is a valid question, especially during the speedy new page creation during the Team Contest. This should probably be in the "Debates about Conservapedia" section. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:54, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Add: Conservapedia:There is no [[Fossil fuel]] or [[Peak oil]]==
Scientists contend that the supply of oil will [[Peak oil|peak]]. But none can agree on an exact month, year or even decade. Other scientists want to research [[abiotic oil]] (a process where oil is made without fossils) but are prevented by the DOE from conducting their research. Success in this area may mean uncovering vast amounts of oil.[[User:KirjathSepher|KirjathSepher]] 14:08, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

==Locked forever?==

Is anyone ever going to post a new debate topic?[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 11:25, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Ya I want to post a new debate topic actually. I was wondering if it is right that the user "TK" should be able to crank the ban hammer so often. I think his intention is good, however his means are a bit extreme.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:07, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*LOL! Crank out that topic, man....let's see what you got! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 12:15, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Hello TK. I am a recent family friend of the Schllllllllllllafys. They are unquestionably good people. I am not implying that you are not. Mr S. told us recently that you are a "guard dog" of conservapedia. We, being our class, came up with a grand total of about 35 user blocks lol. To be honest I think that is quite funny, barring the fact that two of them were mine. Now there is about 40 or so people in our class, and 35 accounts banned, theoretically assuming noone one has made more than one account each, however this is not true at least in my case. That comes out to roughly 90% of the class has been banned at least once, give or take. Now this class has been going on for three weeks, and I believe that the majority of the students are new to the class, and thus new to Conservapedia. So, the statistics, ROUGHLY, I emphasize this because I do not believe that they are exact, but I feel they are in the ballpark.

STATS:

40 new users
35 bans
3 weeks = a clear disproportionate number of bans. To your defense I am not positive about the nature of these bans. If they were legitamate then I apologize now. However I feel that this would be very unlikely because from at least what I heard they said that the nature of the bans were for "innapropriate names", which were at least from their point of view -IL-ligit'.

That is all I can say if you have anything to disprove me I gladly except defeat and move on. On a random note could you inform me, or at least tell me of any possible way that I could join your team in that contest that I saw your ID listed in. I'm not sure but I think that the name of your team was Air something lol I'm not sure. Any way, thank you for taking the time to right back, it is always appreciated. --[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:35, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*This isn't Wikipedia, we require users to register, and they may have only one account. So, having at least two, you are in violation already. Your "class" will continue to be banned so long as they choose inappropriate names and use proxy servers to mask their true IP. Always good to hear you appreciate my ''righting'' back. As a class project, check the block logs and see who is blocking the most users. Now I wish you Godspeed! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 12:41, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Low blow man with the "righting" back comment lol. Another quick q, I was reading your I guess biography page, or that page regarding you and your life style. I too am a born again Christian and I have to problem admitting this openly. Could you point me to the guidelines on how to create a page such as this. And fyi, I will let Mr. S know about this convo in about two hours when I go to his class. =). Peace --[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:47, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...really scared! :p Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:22, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

== Why do we need debate topics? ==

This seems like a giant spot for Wikipedians to flame us.

:so people can argue their points obviously-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
:So you can flame them back?[[User talk:Faizaguo|Flame.]]--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:30, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

==Archive==

Someone needs to archive these, urgently. Some haven't been touched for 4-5 months! [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 20:36, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Oops==
Alright, I admit it... I mistakenly thought I was improving two questions under the Philosophical Debate questions heading, and I know I broke some links. What can I do to fix this? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:06, 21 December 2007 (EST)

::Ah! I think I've got it! [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:07, 21 December 2007 (EST)

== Why We Should Remove New Hampshire ==

As you know, the American government has accumulated a huge national debt, and they are having a bit of trouble getting rid of it. Getting rid of $8 trillion can be a bit tricky, so they are asking American citizens to come up with ways to help eliminate it. Of course I, like the helpful guy that I am, have come up with the perfect option: Let’s get rid of New Hampshire.

Why New Hampshire? It’s quite easy. New Hampshire has nothing special about it. Not since Old Man in the Mountain collapsed. I mean, it doesn’t have a professional sports team, it has no important colleges, and it’s really small, too. Only 1.2 million people live on 9350 square miles. We could easily get rid of this and no one would care!

Here’s how it happens: First, the government reclaims New Hampshire from private citizens with that wonderful eminent domain power that they have, give the citizens a couple hundred bucks to keep them happy, and then sell the land to another country. It doesn’t matter which one, we’re trying to save America here. Canada comes to mind. They’re already the second-biggest country in the world, so they wouldn’t mind having a nice patch of land south of the Great Lakes. Mexico could be fun. We’d have people complaining of the hundreds of illegal immigrants coming from “East of the border”. Heck, I’d bet Iran or North Korea wouldn’t mind having a small patch of land right next to America. I’d bet they’d be willing to pay top dollar!

Now, let’s get back to actually selling the place. The average price per acre of land in New England is $528,000. If we multiply that by the 2.2 million acres of land in New Hampshire, we’d get over a quadrillion dollars! Not only would we be out of debt, we’d be in in the black! We might even be able to spend a few more years in Iraq without bankrupting the country if we did this!

Hey, here’s another reason: New Hampshire is a bigger money pit than the educational system! New Hampshire spends over $2 billion a year. They also have the second-lowest tax burden in the country! So can you tell me why these people spend so much money with almost no taxes? In addition to that, New Hampshire has the highest per capita sales of alcohol in the country! And speaking of education, New Hampshire doesn’t publicly fund kindergarten! They don’t care about our children and their education! The only thing that they care about is filling their wallets with money and their hip flasks with bourbon. New Hampshirian-ites have the highest per capita income in the country, and none of it is taxed! These greedy, drunken, corrupt, penny-pinching misers deserve to be gotten rid of!

There are political reasons, too. For almost its entire history, God’s chosen political party has governed New Hampshire, but as a result of current trends, New Hampshire is now being ruled… by the left! How terrifying is that? I mean, liberals have wasted enough of this country’s money on health care and alternative energy; can you imagine what it would be like if one more state was ruled by these pagan tax-and-spenders? If we sell New Hampshire, these horrible people will be able to go back to those terrible states that spawned them: California, New York, and Minnesota.

Now, I can tell some of you are squeamish about this idea. You might say that it would cost too much to get rid of New Hampshire. You might say we’d have to redesign the flag to accompany the loss of one state. Surely you jest. Not many people know this, but Texas has a special amendment in its constitution that allows it to split into as many as five separate states if needed. So, after we sell New Hampshire, we can simply split up Texas into two separate states: South Texas and Souther Texas. It would be clean, easy, and efficient.
Besides, if you still think it would cost too much, remember that in 2004, the federal government passed a bill that set aside $25,000 to be spent on researching mariachi music. I think that pretty much proves that this country can afford anything.

Now, my reasons to get rid of New Hampshire are quite clear: New Hampshire is worth a lot of money, incredibly small, and is losing money faster than the Automotive industry. It has no reason to exist, so it shouldn’t. And remember, if you don’t think that we should eliminate America’s national debt quickly and efficiently, it can only mean one thing: you hate America. Thank you and have a nice day.

[[REquest to add Debate Topic: Faith or Morality: Which is more important?]]

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Should we end Medicare?]]==
With the current healthcare debate and alleged waste, this could be a good topic. [[User:CMcFreeze|CMcFreeze]] 19:44, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Was Jesus Conservative or Liberal?]] ==

I'd like to see a debate like this. I mean, if the Christian right want to ban the choice abortion because it's against The Bible, then shouldn't it be mandatory to participate in government programs to help the poor? [[User:NP|NP]] 18:44, 14 December 2009 (EST)

: Don't follow your reasoning there. The Bible doesn't support taxation or forced redistribution of wealth. It does have numerous explicit references to how a person exists as a full human being, one even capable of sinning, while still in his mother's womb.

: More generally, wouldn't your proposed debate topic be better address ''after'' we translate the Bible, rather than before?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 14 December 2009 (EST)
::Then shouldn't abortion (not that I am for it) be a choice, then, if giving to the poor is a choice? [[User:NP|NP]] 18:52, 14 December 2009 (EST)
:::Could anyone respond to the above question? @Aschlafly That would be a better idea. [[User:NP|NP]] 20:18, 16 December 2009 (EST)

::::NP, I see no logic in your comment. I urge you to spend time translating the most logical book of all-time, the Bible. It works wonders for all of us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 16 December 2009 (EST)

:::::You seem to be confused NP, you see Big Gov. telling us what we can and cant do is bad. Unless what the gov. is saying coincides with the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. That is why its ok to ban abortions and gay marriage but its wrong to impose gun control or raise taxes. --[[User:JAiken|JAiken]] 10:12, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::There is no logic in that comment either. Like my suggestion for NP, Like my suggestion for NP, I urge you (Jaiken) to give the Bible equal time, or even 5% of your time. Reading a logical book does wonders for all of us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:23, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::Not only did I read the bible cover to cover in High School, I also attend bible discussion groups at my parish once a week. I am no stranger to how wonderful of a book it is. --[[User:JAiken|JAiken]] 10:48, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::We hear that often about the Bible: "oh, I read it growing up!" Do people say the same thing about eating vegetables, or physical exercise? Of course not. It's what we do each day and each week that counts. Former professional athletes are in some of the worst physical shape today of anyone, for example, because they mistakenly rely on the exercise they did long ago.

::::::::As to Bible discussion groups, they almost never translate the Bible and can be useless in even reading it, unfortunately. Chit-chat is no substitute for dissecting and grasping the logic of the Bible in an intellectual way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2009-12-17T16:58:39Z

JEMBenton:

Same-sex marriage

2009-12-17T15:27:16Z

JEMBenton: Edited information about which states allow same-sex marriage, updated information abt ME & CA

'''Same-sex "marriage"''' is a proposed redefinition or variation on the traditional concept of [[marriage]]. Like [[polygamy]] (and [[polyandry]]), it replaces the God-given pattern of "one man, one woman". What makes it outrageously unacceptable to most adherents of Christianity, Judaism and Islam is that it uses the force of law to justify what scripture has clearly labeled a sin: i.e., [[homosexual]] relations.

Campaigns advocating it are at the forefront of the [[gay rights movement]]'s attempt to normalize the rights of homosexuals with those of heterosexuals, overturning centuries of established tradition whereby homosexuals were required to keep their blasphemous acts hidden, protecting society from their immorality. Some opponents of efforts to normalize same-sex marriage claim its purpose is to destroy the [[family]] as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for [[sexual freedom]]. According to some opponents of same-sex marriage, the primary purpose of marriage is to bring joy to society as much as to safeguard the development of happy families, and it is not for individual glory. They believe that unrelated people living together make each other miserable and harm society. Among the many reasons homosexuals might advocate same-sex marriage are the ability to make emergent healthcare decisions for a loved one in the absence of a durable power of attorney or living will, the alteration of the laws of intestate succession to include gay partners, and equal tax treatment as heterosexual married couples.

United States law defines "marriage" as "one man, one woman" for purposes of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if permitted under state law, and permits a state to disregard a same-sex marriage entered into in another state. An interesting consequence of the federal definition of "marriage" is that it specifically rules out [[polygamy]]. 

__TOC__
==Morality==
Social conservatives regard same-sex marriage as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,Some social liberals will try to use this debate as a excuse to take the socially conservative view of marriage out of the law. In some Christian marriage ceremonies,the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony." <ref>''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html US Code - Title 1, section 7]</ref>

Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] organization prefers the phrase ''same-sex 'marriage,''' with quotation marks around the word ''marriage,'' to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Use of the term "same-sex marriage" was unheard of a few decades ago; however, these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[liberal]] activists.

Some advocates of same-sex marriage view marriage as a purely civil matter, which in the history of the United States is a position taken particularly strongly by Puritan colonists, who viewed the interjection of religion into the franchise of marriage as scandalous to Christ's Church.

== Background ==
In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow [[civil union]]s between two people of the same sex, and five, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[New Hampshire]], and [[Iowa]], currently issue same-sex marriage licenses. These marriage licenses are not recognized by the Federal government.

In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that [[liberal]] activists would soon seek changes to the laws in some states that pertain to homosexuals. It considered the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits same-sex marriage itself—must honor same-sex marriages performed in another state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. Its Constitutionality has not yet been tested under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow same-sex marriage but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. In 2009, the Vermont legislature overrode the governor's veto to pass a bill allowing same-sex marriage.

In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. As of April 2009, same-sex marriage was legal in four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa. <ref>''Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?_r=1&hp]</ref><ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry]</ref>

Beginning in 2008, the states of [[Washington]], and [[Oregon]] also provide for same-sex unions. [[Hawaii]] provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref> The State of New Hampshire issued civil unions until the summer of 2009, when it passed a bill approving same-sex marriage <ref>"New Hampshire Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage" [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/04marriage.html]</ref> The state will begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses in January, 2010.

In the fall of 2009, a same-sex marriage bill was introduced to the [[D.C.|Washington, DC]] city council by At-Large Council Member David Catania (who is openly gay.) After two days of testimony involving nearly 250 witnesses <ref>''D.C. Council hears from both sides in gay marriage debate'' [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/D_C_-Council-hears-from-both-sides-in-gay-marriage-debate-8442433-66188647.html]</ref>, the council voted to approve the bill, 11-2. If signed by the Mayor, which he has pledged to do, the bill will then go to Congress for a mandatory [[DC Home Rule|30-day review period]]. While opponents of the bill have vowed to fight it in Congress<ref>"DC Council Approves Same-Sex Marriage" [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121500945.html]</ref> it is expected to pass, and will become law in 2010.

Same-sex marriages were legal for a brief period in the state of [[California]], but the people of that state voted to repeal the law in the fall of 2008<ref>"California Votes for Prop 8"[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122586056759900673.html]</ref>, through a ballot initiative known as [[Proposition 8]]. The legislature of [[Maine]] approved a same-sex marriage bill in May of 2009 <ref>"Lawmakers approve same-sex marriage in N.H., Maine" [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/maine.same.sex.marriage/index.html]</ref> but opponents lobbied to have the bill put up to a popular vote, and it was defeated by the voters in the fall of 2009.<ref>"Maine rejects same-sex marriage law" [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/04/maine.same.sex/index.html]</ref>

Same-sex marriage is legal in seven countries: [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]]. Other countries, such as [[France]], [[Germany]], and the [[United Kingdom]], recognize [[civil unions]] and [[domestic partnership]]s.<ref>[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm Countries worldwide address gay marriage]</ref>

Some opponents of same-sex marriage believe that the religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. In Massachusetts, however, about 6% of all marriages are same-sex marriages, so this does not appear to be a problem. <ref>[http://www.massequality.org/news/news_story.php?id=273]</ref><ref>http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnchs%2Fdata%2Fnvss%2Fmarriage90_04.pdf&images=yes</ref>

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Issues ==
[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/risk.htm Aforementioned Canadian Study.</ref>]]
[[James Dobson]] cites Stanley Kurtz to argue that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Marriage," The Weekly Standard, August 4/August 11, 2003. - cited in [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>

Studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.<ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples]</ref> Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.<ref>2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref> In addition, studies report that [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior]].{{fact}} These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the [[Homosexuality and Murders|commonness and brutality of homosexual murders]].{{fact}} The prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships.  One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse]].

==See also==
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

==Reference==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage], NoGayMarriage.com
*[http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong, by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Same-sex marriage

2009-12-17T15:11:25Z

JEMBenton: Added DC to paragraph about where same-sex marriage is legal

'''Same-sex "marriage"''' is at the forefront of the [[gay rights movement]]'s attempt to normalize the rights of homosexuals with those of heterosexuals, overturning centuries of established tradition whereby homosexuals were required to keep their blasphemous acts hidden, protecting society from their immorality. Some opponents of efforts to normalize same-sex marriage claim its purpose is to destroy the [[family]] as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for [[sexual freedom]]. According to some opponents of same-sex marriage, the primary purpose of marriage is to bring joy to society as much as to safeguard the development of happy families, and it is not for individual glory. They believe that unrelated people living together make each other miserable and harm society. Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement." Among the many reasons homosexuals might advocate same-sex marriage are the ability to make emergent healthcare decisions for a loved one in the absence of a durable power of attorney or living will, the alteration of the laws of intestate succession to include gay partners, and equal tax treatment as heterosexual married couples.

United States law defines "marriage" as "one man, one woman" for purposes of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if permitted under state law, and permits a state to disregard a same-sex marriage entered into in another state. An interesting consequence of the federal definition of "marriage" is that it specifically rules out [[polygamy]]. 

__TOC__
==Morality==
Social conservatives regard same-sex marriage as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,Some social liberals will try to use this debate as a excuse to take the socially conservative view of marriage out of the law. In some Christian marriage ceremonies,the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony." <ref>''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html US Code - Title 1, section 7]</ref>

Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] organization prefers the phrase ''same-sex 'marriage,''' with quotation marks around the word ''marriage,'' to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Use of the term "same-sex marriage" was unheard of a few decades ago; however, these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[liberal]] activists.

Some advocates of same-sex marriage view marriage as a purely civil matter, which in the history of the United States is a position taken particularly strongly by Puritan colonists, who viewed the interjection of religion into the franchise of marriage as scandalous to Christ's Church.

== Background ==
In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow [[civil union]]s between two people of the same sex, and five, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[Maine]], and [[Iowa]], currently issue same-sex marriage licenses. These marriage licenses are not recognized by the Federal government.

In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that [[liberal]] activists would soon seek changes to the laws in some states that pertain to homosexuals. It considered the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits same-sex marriage itself—must honor same-sex marriages performed in another state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. Its Constitutionality has not yet been tested under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow same-sex marriage but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. In 2009, the Vermont legislature overrode the governor's veto to pass a bill allowing same-sex marriage.

In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. As of April 2009, same-sex marriage is legal in four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa. <ref>''Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?_r=1&hp]</ref><ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry]</ref> [[California]] has repealed same-sex marriage through 2008's [[Proposition 8]].

In the fall of 2009, a same-sex marriage bill was introduced to the [[D.C.|Washington, DC]] city council by At-Large Council Member David Catania (who is openly gay.) After two days of testimony involving nearly 250 witnesses <ref>''D.C. Council hears from both sides in gay marriage debate'' [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/D_C_-Council-hears-from-both-sides-in-gay-marriage-debate-8442433-66188647.html]</ref>, the council voted to approve the bill, 11-2. If signed by the Mayor, which he has pledged to do, the bill will then go to Congress for a mandatory [[Home Rule|30-day review period]]. While opponents of the bill have vowed to fight it in Congress<ref>"DC Council Approves Same-Sex Marriage" [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121500945.html]</ref> it is expected to pass, and will become law in 2010.

As of 2009, California, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Maine also provide civil unions or "domestic partnerships." Beginning in 2008, the states of Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire will also provide same-sex unions. Hawaii provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref>

Same-sex marriage is legal in seven countries: [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]]. Other countries, such as [[France]], [[Germany]], and the [[United Kingdom]], recognize [[civil unions]] and [[domestic partnership]]s.<ref>[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm Countries worldwide address gay marriage]</ref>

Some opponents of same-sex marriage believe that the religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. In Massachusetts, however, about 6% of all marriages are same-sex marriages, so this does not appear to be a problem. <ref>[http://www.massequality.org/news/news_story.php?id=273]</ref><ref>http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnchs%2Fdata%2Fnvss%2Fmarriage90_04.pdf&images=yes</ref>

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Issues ==
[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/risk.htm Aforementioned Canadian Study.</ref>]]
[[James Dobson]] cites Stanley Kurtz to argue that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Marriage," The Weekly Standard, August 4/August 11, 2003. - cited in [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>

Studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.<ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples]</ref> Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.<ref>2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref> In addition, studies report that [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior]].{{fact}} These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the [[Homosexuality and Murders|commonness and brutality of homosexual murders]].{{fact}} The prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships.  One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse]].

==See also==
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

==Reference==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage], NoGayMarriage.com
*[http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong, by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Colbert Report Viewers

2009-12-15T20:29:38Z

JEMBenton: /* Wikipedia is not helpful */

== FAQ ==
''This section will be expanded as it becomes apparent what our new audience wishes to know.''
::''See also : [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]''

=== '''Why is registration necessary?''' ===

Conservapedia discourages anonymous contribution, preferring to lend accountability to our articles by requiring users contribute with an account, based on their real name (first name, last initial).

=== '''Does Conservapedia have a conservative bias?''' ===

Conservapedia is up front about our beliefs and our politics - obviously. Despite this, some might say we have a bias towards the truth. To those who have gone to public schools and been inundated with mainstream media their whole life, this may seem like a strong conservative bias.

=== '''Why does Conservapedia have articles on non-political topics?''' ===

Obviously, liberal bias can creep into Wikipedia's articles on subjects in religion, politics, philosophy, history, culture, and law. It can also appear in articles in science ([[evolution]], for example), or medicine (the effects of abortion).

But there are additional problems with Wikipedia which Conservapedia addresses. For example, many articles on Wikipedia are excessively long, providing extraneous detail that can muddle a subject. Conservapedia offers concise, informative articles. Readers who wish to explore a subject more in-depth are free to enroll in Conservapedias courses for home schooled students, but we do not have a whole courseworth of material on every subject.

== WELCOME COLBERT REPORT VIEWERS ==

For previous discussions, see the archives: [[Colbert Report Viewers/Archive 1|Archive 1]]

=== Please comment or ask questions here: ===
'''Please sign all comments with "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>". Thank you.'''

Why do you have to make the Bible again? It's already been translated so many times. Why doesn't everybody learn to read Greek? Did Jesus even think of people as libreal and conservative? [[User:KhaderA|KhaderA]] 20:41, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Wikipedia ''is not'' helpful ==

Aschlafly said: ''Instead, I know of no evidence that Wikipedia has helped a single student in any meaningful way.''

If you google '''calciumcarbonat''', what's the first article to appear? Of course, wikipedia's. Therefore, countless of students looking for certain chemical compounds got instant information by wikipedia - most of the articles are as helpful as the one on CaCO3.

In fact, nowadays it's hard to imagine any student of chemistry who didn't use the help provided by wikipedia....

[[User:FrankC|ComedyFan]] 18:12, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Also, if you want specifics about math, Vitali Set. Hessian Matrix. Tridiagonal Matrix. Homogeneous coordinates. Hilbert Space. Fermat's factorization method. Error function. Need I go on?
These are just a few of the many topics that I learned about from Wikipedia. I have found these articles to be clear and explanatory to me. What part did you have trouble understanding? Where are the Conservapedia versions?[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 18:53, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Yup, many students from numerous countries use Wikipedia every day to learn about different topics. I've used it for everything from solving minor curiosities to learning about statistical concepts. However, Andy has made it clear that Wiki articles are above his head (too many words), and as a result NONE of us are allowed to learn anything from it. A solid argument, indeed. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 22:18, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:Congratulations on crossing the line into personal insults. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:20, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Well he did say that they were not "concise and clear" enough for him.[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 23:25, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:Not sure whom you're quoting, but I said Wikipedia is not concise and clear enough to help students in a meaningful way. And I've personally taught nearly 200 students and helped them get into good colleges and win scholarships. "Insufficient" insults me and talks big, but gives no specifics. I wonder how many students he's helped, and to what extent. Maybe he'll tell us.

:The unfortunate reality is that many Wikipedia editors are more interested in concealing information from viewers, such as the harm caused by abortion or the flaws in evolution, than actually helping anyone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:35, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::A case in point is Wikipedia's article on [[CSS]], i.e., cascading style sheets. When I tried to put in three simple examples, the information was removed on the grounds that I was providing "how to" information which should only be in Wikibooks. Apparently the article on CSS should be on every aspect of it other than facts such as '''bold''' formatting is obtained by entering '''font-weight: bold;''' into a style tag. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:I find Wikipedia very clear and concise and it helped me study for my exams and has since helped me in my work. From speaking to colleagues and students at the University I work at I believe it is of great benefit to those who use it as an educational tool. I believe that your disagreement with some of its articles has biased you towards disregarding the entire website.--[[User:nicknock|Nick]] 23:15, 11 December 2009 (MST)

But Wikipedia is not just politically related articles (although Conservapedia seems to be). Sure there are articles on abortion and evolution, but there are also hundreds of articles on mathematics. Just because you disagree with the views represented in some of the articles doesn't mean that the entire site is worthless.[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 23:58, 11 December 2009 (EST)
:You're right that there may be some articles free from liberal bias, simply because it would be difficult to insert, but you'd be surprised how pervasive it can be. Obviously, all history, religion, philosophy, and politics articles are susceptible to bias, but so are science articles (evolution being a prime example), personal biographies, etc. For example, it might be hard to imagine how an article on Isaac Newton could be liberally biased, but that's because we've been so inundated with liberal bias we don't even realize it! I didn't know that Newton was a devout Christian, or that his insights came from the Bible, until I came here. I didn't know that the triangular trade never even existed until I came here. And I didn't go to public school - I have sixteen years of Catholic schools under my belt.
:The point it, liberal bias can creep into almost any subject. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:03, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::The reason you didn't know triangular trade didn't exist until you came here is because it ''did'' exist. I've never heard of anyone except Mr. Schlafly deny this, and I'm curious as to why he thinks it didn't. [[User:DanielA|DanielA]] 07:53, 12 December 2009 (EST)
::Also, Wikiepdia states quite clearly that "In the 1690s, Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible." I don't see any whitewash there. [[User:DanielA|DanielA]] 07:55, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::Another science example you might have mentioned-- [[Relativity]]. If you only read Wikipedia, you're not getting a complete or accurate picture at all. I had never heard about the flaws in Relativity before I came here. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 00:09, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::And as for your example, on math articles, even if there is no liberal bias in the wikipedia article, Conservapedia is the better reference. For example, the average student looking up the fundamental theorem of calculus, something every student should know by the time they finish high school, doesn't benefit from being told that it is a weaker form of the generalized stokes theorem, something students couldn't understand until the final year of a math bachelors. We keep our articles concise and informative, not bloated with confusing and unnecessary information. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:06, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::: Well put, Jacob. The math articles on Wikipedia are not good educational resources. They don't earnestly teach. In their best light, they merely try to show off.

::: And thanks for Daniel's observation. As George Orwell said, "all issues are political issues." Liberal bias does creep even into math, as illustrated by the Wikipedian resistance to recognizing the concept of [[elementary proof]], and how the [[Axiom of Choice]] has traditionally been disfavored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Is there something particularly Conservative about an elementary proof? Also, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't George Orwell also say, "Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." [[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:47, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Orwell's quote criticizes the conservative ''party''. I also criticize the British Conservative Party! As to [[elementary proof]]s, there is "something" liberal about denying its significance. Liberals like to try to use math and science in deceptive ways to pull people away from the Bible. The concept of the elementary proof rains on their parade.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 12 December 2009 (EST)

I went to a super liberal community college in Mass and they didn't allow us to use Wiki as a siting source because it's open source. We used databases with professors. Sorry Conservapedia, you lose on that count too. Now, if it's original source you want, you can find that on Wiki. It's a good place to start your research. I imagine that in some instances that's true for this site as well.

:Dear Aschlafly, you made the claim that - to your knowledge - not a single student was helped in a meaningful way by wikipedia. To change your perception of wikipedia, ''one'' [[counterexample]] should be sufficient, and a couple of students have given such examples in this thread. Of course, each example is an anecdote - that's the very nature of counterexamples :-)
:[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:57, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::Which anecdote did you find credible? I'm seen some claims but found them lacking in specifics, and thus I did not find them to be credible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::What sort of specifics would you like? Would you like me to name the time and place that I had a question, looked it up on Wikipedia, found the answer and the citation, and that this information helped me, as a student, achieve a qualification? I would quite happily provide this information, and so would many others, but I think you would dismiss our claims as being contrary to your world view and therefore untrue. If you would like my example, and if it would dissuade you of apparently singular state of mind then please ask. [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 18:45, 31 December 2009 (MST)

I guess our differences come down to whether having more information is a good thing. Personally, I find the math articles on Conservapedia to generally be incredibly lacking. If all you want is a definition of a term then sure, a one sentence article is acceptable, but if you actually want to learn, it is near worthless. Imagine if the article on George Washington only said "George Washington was the first president of the United States. He was in office from 1789-1797". Sure it tells you who he was, but it doesn't tell you why he was significant. It doesn't show you how he fits in with history as a whole.
The problem is that many of your articles define the term, but the fail to provide any elaboration. If you never make connections between topics, then you're no better then a dictionary.

The student may not understand everything in the article but that's not the point. I certianly don't understand all of the math articles on Wikipedia. I am not everyone. Encyclopedias are written for a broad audience. Some people will understnad only the basics, while other people will easily understand everything. Why deny information to the people who could use it?
For that matter, there are many articles I understand and benefit from which I never would have understood a couple years ago. Should we really censor the articles just for the sake of my middle school self?

Looking at your example of Fundamental theorem of calculus, Your article contains the defintion of the thoerem, but that's it. It's suitable for a first year calculus student cramming for a test, but it doesn't help them learn. It doesn't tell them the intuitive basis behind the thoerem. It doesn't tell them the applications of the formula.
It doesn't even try to generalize or connect it to other topics.

Seeing as you apparently think this is a good thing, I guess there's no real way for us to ever be on the same page. Good luck on Conservkitionary. [[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 22:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:Edmund, proper grammar is "no better THAN a dictionary," not "no better then a dictionary." But we're obviously teaching and learning and not trying to be a dictionary, so your point remains unclear.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Edmund. As a general rule, we try to be concise. But I don't think anybody is trying to say that none of our articles need expansion. We welcome any substantive addition that you may have up your sleeve. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 09:24, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:Aschlafly, what's your criterion for ''being helpful''? You wrote earlier ''ComedyFan, I've personally taught nearly 200 teenagers, and 10 or 100 times as many have benefited from our materials here. Take a look at the page views on my lectures. They are in the many thousands for each lecture. '' Being top in the google ranks indicates that wikipedias's page on - for instance - '''calciumcarbonat''' was visited many times. So many people benefited from this material, ergo wikipedia ''is'' helpful.
:Of course, you can always change your definition to: ''being helpful means leading your readers to reading the Bible'', but then I'd accuse you of [[Evolution syndrome|moving the goalposts]].
:And for your statement ''How many lectures does Wikipedia have? Zero. How many model answers? Zero.'' In fact at this moment the right answer is '''11,716''' : While there are no lectures and models answers on en.wikipedia.org, the wikimedia foundation (which includes wikipedia) has a whole project just to ''set learning free'' - en.wikiversity.org
:[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:58, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::Frank, I haven't seen a substantive edit by you here yet. I had to revert your only non-talk edit (to [[Kurt Godel]]) because, as often seen in edits by Wikipedians, your edit added verbosity in a way that obscured the concise point. Wikipedians seem to insist on making professors look better than they are or were. Your style may fit well in the Wikipedia culture. But as I said, I'm not aware of anyone helped by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:12, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::So, your definition of helpful is: ''something is helpful if I'm aware of it being so''. Then open your mind, google "thank you wikipedia", and find people reporting how wikipedia helped them. Afterward you may still chose to ignore this information... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:24, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::I googled "thank you Budweiser" and received nearly 40,000 hits. Do you think that proves that beer is helping people? Certainly not. If you think Wikipedia is helping so many people, then why can't you provide merely one clear, specific, and unequivocal example?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Wikipedia has helped me many times learn many new things. It's also helped me with collaboration skills. I'm sure the same can be said for many others. Would it have hundreds of thousands of contributors and millions of readers, as well as millions of dollars in donations, if no one found it useful? The invisible hand indicates it is quote educational. [[User:DaveC|DaveC]] 09:46, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: (EC) Funny, I googled "thank you Conservapedia" and received less than 900 hits. It's not about numbers, you have to ''read'' the entries. But for a [http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/12/20/the-random-endorsement-wikipedia/ clear, specific, and unequivocal example]  [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:48, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: (EC) Beer companies have even greater revenues, but that doesn't mean they are helpful. Your lack of specifics fail to persuade, Dave. Facebook is perhaps the best analogy: it is more popular and has far higher revenues than Wikipedia, yet at least one study shows it is correlated with ''lower'' grades by users.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::I'm not sure comparing an encyclopedia to a beer company or a social networking site is terribly practical, but no matter. I have my personal anecdotes about Wikipedia, you have your personal anecdotes about Conservapedia, neither, I guess, is a reliable source. Now, would you say Encyclopedia Brittanica is also useless because I can't prove it helped anyone get into college, nor does it have lectures or model answers? Now I'm curious. If how many students something has helped get into college is the sole criterion, then the public school system is the big winner there. Are you endorsing that now? [[User:DaveC|DaveC]] 09:56, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::Obviously any benefit would be offset by the harm. Public schools have produced over 30 million illiterates and wastes many billions of dollars a year, so you're barking up the wrong tree there.

:::::::::Wikipedia is comparable to Facebook, and it's shown to hurt grades rather than help them. The only specific anecdote provided here for Wikipedia (after several requests) is from a 2007 claim by a European that Wikipedia somehow helped him pass some basic exams. Meanwhile, there are compelling, undeniable examples of harm caused by [[Wikipedia]]. In addition, just check out how Wikipedia-supporters like you and ComedyFan contribute here: as far as I can tell, nothing of substantive value. Hopefully that will change, but it's a familiar pattern by Wikipedia types.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:48, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::::I'd like to know more about your claim that Wikipedia is "shown to hurt grades rather than help them". Following this up to your highly biased Wikipedia page I found a link to a story (that I believe is your source) reporting that a Wikipedia founder gets many emails from students who get poor grades because they cite Wikipedia. I agree that citing an encyclopedia is foolish and that you should always cite the source, as the Wikipedia founder also states. If this is the reason for your statement that I think you are foolish for blaming the method of the student over the resource, surely we should be better teaching the students to cite the original sources, which Wikipedia contains many of. In fact, if this is the only reason for your statement then it should equally read "Conservapedia hurts grades rather than helping them", since the same method applied to Conservapedia would result in equally poor grades. Or perhaps you have other evidence for your statement that you'd like to cite? [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 18:36, 13 December 2009 (MST)

::::::::::Reading this, it seems to be apt to quote Stephen Colbert who said to you during the interview ''I want to create my own reality the way you are.'' There, Colbert will fail, I'm afraid. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:08, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::::Frank, the more you talk, talk, talk in a silly way, the more you illustrate my point about your Wikipedia being a waste of time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:29, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::::::'''"Funny, I googled "thank you Conservapedia" and received less than 900 hits."''' Actually, that seems pretty impressive to me, given that Conservapedia doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator, and as a result is considerably smaller than Wikipedia or similar sites. Having 900 people thanking Conservapedia for helping them is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:33, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Just a note to anyone still following: I got blocked for a couple of days for my dissent in this board. The reason given was "liberal name calling," though I have yet to determine what name I called and where I did so. It seems that the majority on this website have no problem ridiculing those who differ in opinion (see evolution syndrome), but they certainly can't take it when it's returned in kind. I had really hoped to contribute to the discussion on Orwell, but couldn't because of my removal...I really hope the irony of that isn't lost on anyone. Either way, I'd rather be blocked for dissent than embraced for compliance. But thank you Jacob, you are always so helpful at proving the points I am trying to make. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 15:35, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:Oh, and way back (at the beginning of my block), Andy accused me of "talking big." I would just like to point out that HE is the one claiming to represent all Wikipedia users, saying that nobody has benefited from it in a meaningful way. I am merely trying to represent my own voice. And yet I am the one accused of talking big? Ridiculous. Also, I have nothing to personally gain from the defense of Wikipedia (I have invested no time or money into its creation), whereas Andy has a vested interest in slandering the competition, making his opinion biased from the beginning, and thus meaningless in this discussion. Andy keeps demanding "specifics, specifics!" But you know what? I don't need to prove myself to you. If the "liberal" statistics were good enough for my professor, then I couldn't really care less if you disagree. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 15:43, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::''If the "liberal" statistics were good enough for my professor, then I couldn't really care less if you disagree.'' See our page on [[professor values]]. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:08, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::I like how most of your arguments revolve around distrust in experts. You can think whatever you want of my professor's values, but he, like myself, has no vested interest in Wikipedia. Administrators on this site on the other hand, have a strongly vested interest in discrediting it (it is, after all, the competition). Therefore, your opinions are far more biased than my professor's. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 17:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

This is absolutely ridiculous. You repeatedly insist that noone has ever been helped by Wikipedia, despite the fact that people have testified on this very page multiple times on how Wikipedia has helped them. What do you think? That we're some sort of conspiracy to promote Wikipedia? Are you really so committed to your belief that Wikipedia is useless that you also believe that anyone who says otherwise must automatically have an ulterior motive? Debate is so easy when you simply dismiss everything that anyone else says.
It's funny how you seem to know whether I have learned something or not better then I do myself. Generally, a theory of mind is developed by the age of three.

I also like how you responded to my arguments by pointing out a typo. I suppose that means that you don't actually disagree with my characterization of the dispute. The problem is that what you call "concise", I call "lacking in information".[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 18:07, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:"''Generally, a theory of mind is developed by the age of three.''" Best quote of the whole discussion, Edmund. I find it ridiculous that Andy thinks he knows us better than we know ourselves, and yet he has the audacity to accuse me of "talking big." I can't remember if you were around for the evolution debate, but they played by the same tactics there as well. They had a ton of questions that they believed could not be answered, and then dismissed the answers that I gave without reason. Also, I am confused by the seemingly contradictory arguments that I am getting from this group. On the one hand, Andy is trying to use the number of students that he has helped to give himself some sort of authority (though I have yet to determine its relevance in this discussion). On the other hand, Jacob is saying that professor values are not reliable. This seems to take the wind out of Andy's sails, because the "help" he gives students is also dependent on "professor values." [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 19:46, 13 December 2009 (EST)

'''Two replies:''' First, to NickNock, you say "I agree that citing an encyclopedia is foolish and that you should always cite the source." You're clueless: encyclopedias, published ones, are valid references for any academic paper. It is encyclopedias like Wikipedia which are not published which are not valid references.

: I'm sorry I completely disagree. The fact that an encyclopedia is published has no bearing on its validity and studies have shown that many published encyclopedias have errors. If a student is to properly learn and understand the material they should follow the encyclopedia's citation to the original source, read that and then cite it. To do otherwise is poor academic behavior, and I would never submit a paper for publication with such a citation. If I read an academic paper that did cite an encyclopedia instead of the original source I would be very disappointed because it would show a failure to have investigated the original source. [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 18:55, 13 December 2009 (MST)

::You don't seem to understand, that wasn't an opinion, it's a fact. If you cite an encyclopedia in a college paper, you'll be fine. Cite wikipedia (or Conservapedia, for that matter) and you'll be marked down. Whether you think that's right or wrong, that's how it is. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::Ah, you've changed your definition now. You originally said 'academic paper', meaning a paper published in an academic journal for which many journals hold a policy of not citing encyclopedias but only the original source. You now say 'college paper', which I presume you mean any piece of work handed in by a student to a college. If so, the requirements come down to the standards of the college itself. I would hope that a good college would encourage students to locate, understand and cite the original source, as that will improve their education in the subject. However, if you have experience with other colleges then I accept that. However, I stand by my earlier statement that the publishing of an encyclopedia has no bearing on the validity of its entries. [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 19:13, 13 December 2009 (MST)

::::You're right - that's my mistake, I meant college paper. I graduated from the [[University of San Francisco]], a tier 1 Catholic school, so if you'd like to find fault with their methods of grading, be my guest. But you will be hard pressed to find a school which considers Wikipedia a valid source, or Britannica an invalid source. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:17, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::(edit conflict) OK, Nick, but your argument begs this question: what would make an online encyclopedia worthy of citation, in your view? Certainly it is not the volume of entries or its ease of editing. Wouldn't you agree that allowing gossip and lacking rules to reduce liberal bias by numerous anonymous editors are disqualifying conditions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::In my opinion an online encyclopedia shouldn't ever be cited, and I would honestly prefer that no encyclopedia be cited. My reason for this is that all encyclopedias should present a wide and unbiased view on any subject, and one that backs up all statements and sources with a citation. That way anyone studying the subject can gain a more detailed understanding by pursuing that citation and hopefully citing it. Faced with all the arguments and evidence a student can then come to his or her own decision on the subject. While I'm sure you'll agree there are some facts that are unassailable (e.g. France is in Europe, the second World War did happen), many areas of science, politics and religion should be open to honest debate. I think a good encyclopedia should present as many sides to these arguments as possible and allow the reader to come to their own decision, instead of being forced to accept the thinking or beliefs of their peers without questioning it. One of the things I like about Wikipedia is that you can often find both sides of the argument on its website. If you feel this isn't the case and that your worldview isn't properly represented then I appreciate your concern. However, I do feel that Conservapedia goes too far in the other direction and only includes the arguments for your own opinions and not those of the other side. I think this does your encyclopedia an injustice and while this discrepancy stands will make it the inferior choice to Wikipedia. [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 19:28, 13 December 2009 (MST)

::::::Really, Nick, you honestly feel that Wikipedia has "both sides of the argument" on [[evolution]], [[abortion]] and other important issues? Please show me where, for example, Wikipedia's entry on abortion informs readers about how it causes premature birth (the major cause of infant mortality and lifelong disabilities) in future-born children. The scientific evidence and common sense are overwhelming that abortion causes such harm, yet Wikipedia omits it. Among African-Americans, abortion is at three times the rate for Caucasians, and devastating premature birth in the African-American community is three times the Caucasian rate. Why does Wikipedia omit that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:49, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::I admit I'm not an expert on abortion, but I believe the statement "Patients who had undergone previous induced abortions have been shown to have a higher risk of preterm birth" is what you're looking for in the article on 'Preterm birth' that I followed through from that on abortion. Perhaps you don't feel it was placed prominently enough in the article or that it should be in the abortion article itself? Perhaps you should add this risk under the section 'Health Risks' on the Wikipedia article. I would be inclined to agree that it should be noted more prominently, but I'm not an expert on the relative dangers of this, and both Conservapedia and Wikipedia present conflicting citations. Clearly a discussion is needed and unbiased scientific studies should be done. I would note that the Conservapedia article is highly biased to other degree, with only arguments against abortion and little information about the process itself. Faced with these two articles, that from Wikipedia appears less biased to a neutral and has more useful information about the process. [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 20:03, 13 December 2009 (MST)

::::::::Of course that should be in the abortion entry itself, not buried in an obscure other entry. Everyone knows that readership falls off sharply after the first page, and falls even further respect to links. In fact, how would ''anyone'' learning about abortion even think of looking at an entry on "preterm birth." The connection would not even occur to most people.

::::::::An abortion entry should explain the harm, and risk of harm, and let the reader assess that information. You essentially seem to oppose providing the information for the reader to decide, and instead want an entry to appear neutral rather than provide substantive information. Wikipedia is a good home for your approach. We emphasize information here, not a (false) appearance of neutrality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::I agree that the statement should be more prominently placed, thats what I meant by "I would be inclined to agree that it should be noted more prominently". Perhaps you could place it more prominently? Also, I certainly do not oppose providing the information for the reader to decide so please indicate where that idea originated from. I feel that the Conservapedia article has less information allowing the reader to decide about abortion than the Wikipedia article does, so I would suggest that statement more appropriately applies to you. I do believe an article in an encyclopedia should be neutral and provide substantive information, neither of which apply to the Conservapedia article. I do not believe that Conservapedia provides sufficient information on many subjects, but I know that is because of the strong conservative bias that your encyclopedia has. That bias, in my opinion, invalidates it as a useful reference source for any seeking impartial information on a subject. [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 20:29, 13 December 2009 (MST)

::::::::::Nick, your defense of the bias on Wikipedia is unpersuasive. Wikipedia won't allow the more prominent placement of key information, which you say you support, and I doubt you'll even try to correct it. Nearly 99% of your edits here have been talk, talk, talk, and your minor substantive edit here had to be reverted for its incompleteness. We provide information here, and welcome others who want to do that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:57, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::::It has not been my intention to defend the bias of Wikipedia, but merely to point out that your website is much more biased, and therefore less useful to someone seeking impartial information. It is you who have not defended your own bias, or perhaps you are alright with your encyclopedia being highly biased? Certainly that allows you to control the information such that it conforms to your own world view. On the subject of the information in the Wikipedia article on abortion, why haven't you tried to correct it if you feel so strongly about it? I am not an expert in that field and therefore I feel it would be wrong to make such a correction myself. Maybe you have tried to change it already and it has been changed back. That would indicate to me that more people on average feel it shouldn't be there. Perhaps you should persuade more people to change it so that the weight of numbers is on your side? Or perhaps gather some experts to advocate the change? If you are choosing to attack my work on this site then I'm disappointed in you. I don't think my liberal or scientific views would be appreciated here. The one change I did make was to point out a very strong piece of evidence for General Relativity in an article devoid of such evidence. That such an important piece of information was unconstructively removed echoes my concern that your articles are often highly biased. [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 21:08, 13 December 2009 (MST)

::::::::::::Nick, the bottom line is that you seem fine with consensus defining "truth", and your edits here reflect that. Nearly all talk, plus one edit that reflected Wikipedia-style consensus rather than the truth (the Mercury perihelion data no longer confirm relativity predictions within the standard of error). You're unaware of the flaw in your sole substantive because you rely on consensus to guide you, rather than relying on principled authority. I urge you to reconsider, but you have free will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Second, to Insufficient. Why are you even here? All you have done is debate on this page, even though you've admitted that you don't read the Bible. It doesn't surprise me that your arguments are poorly formed and illogical, because you've never read the book which is the source of all logic and order. I suggest you open your mind, take some time to go read the Bible, read some articles here on Conservapedia to learn what your liberal professors don't want you to know, and then come back and we can have some intelligent discussion. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:44, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:(edit conflict)Edmund, typing "better then" rather than "better than" is not a "typo". The keystroke "e" is not next to "a". It's not a big deal either, but let's admit it when we're wrong and not let a mistake spread to mislead others.

:"Insufficient", you have over two dozen ranting edits on this page, and not a single enlightening edit on any substantive page in this entire encyclopedia. You're illustrating what Wikipedia is like. It's a place where liberals pretend to know more than they do, and shout down anyone who's actually trying to post a conservative insight for others to genuinely learn. I'm confident that a study of Wikipedia would yield the same results as the study of Facebook did. I bet both are correlated to lower grades, not higher ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:51, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Yeah, I wonder why I'm here too. From past experience, I know that such arguments are completely pointless and never accomplish anything. As the saying goes, debating on the internet is like running in the special olypmics: even if you win you're still retarded. I guess the main reason is because arguing is fun. It produces feelings of superiority in both participants.[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 23:19, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:Ah, so you're just here to argue then. Time to experience my own feeling of superiority. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::I'm going to increase Edmund's block duration because he offended those having disabilities. Obama did the same thing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 14 December 2009 (EST)

This is sort of in response to the frustration insufficient and edmundG have been experiencing. Firstly, for full disclosure, I vote republican - always. I believe in conservative policies in general. This site doesn't actually have a lot to do with conservatism though. What I have gathered from reading some of the rather heinous articles and following what might only loosely be described as argumentation on this Colbert discussion page, is that it must be true that ASchlafly and his cronies are just con men. Some of the things said here are so incredulous as to defy disbelief. I watched the interview and I don't think he's insane or stupid, so I can only conclude that the act that is put on here is a complete sham. The argumentation you're proceeding with is only dragging people here to watch the train wreck. They will never agree with you, they CAN'T. It's part of the rules. They aren't allowed to be open minded.

That being said, I understand the attempt. There are one or two things that I found particularly off the mark that for no practical reason I will try to answer - even though I know no matter what the answer is, they can't allow it. I will do myself the service of allowing them the last word so as not to drag myself into a slime pit of argumentation.

The first is the unbelievable argument that people aren't evolved because they don't have a third pair of teeth. Holy cow. Well that's true - but we also don't know how to run at 70 miles an hour like a cheetah. The answer in this case is very simple. By the time you would replace your teeth, you would no longer be child bearing in all likely hood. Even if you happened into the mutation, there is no selective pressure to distribute that gene around as it never helped you when you were young and alive. On the contrary it may have been a hindrance initially - prone to infection and possibly distorting the earlier rows of teeth. Additionally, mutations like that usually develop from some more vestigial part of the body. There would need to be something that could be mutated to something more and more like teeth. More teeth wouldn't just appear as a mutation. This is just a fact of embryology.

The second is the almost laughable point that Andrew tries to make about teaching "nearly 200 hundred" students. Most teachers do that every day. You made a horrible complaint that public schooling creates illiterates. Not true- they were illiterate to begin with. At best, they failed to get the child and the parents to participate. But surely you don't mean to let the parent off so easily do you?. The numbers appear overwhelming because an overwhelming number of people go to public school. And thank god for that. Public school was one of the most dramatic changes of fortune the country ever saw. And thank goodness conservatives of the time failed to block the laws instituting it.

Finally, at best I may respond to the question of evolution - but ONLY if someone is interested in understanding it and not arguing it for arguments sake. [[User:Mhildred|Mhildred]] 00:12, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:We're very open minded here, Mhildred. I suggest you take our quiz to see if you are: [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]. Second, we are here to create an encyclopedia, it is most of the Colbert crowd who have come here to argue. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:16, 14 December 2009 (EST)

::Exactly my point about the charlatanism! Those questions are so leading, so tuned and biased as to be useless. You might consider letting a trained psychologist explain how those kinds of quizzes are properly created. You can't create a quiz with questions that have ONE ANSWER and call it the open mindedness test! For example, the question regarding evolution - apparently if you are are not an evolution denier you're closed minded. In other words, you're closed minded if you don't hive mind with conservapedia. Wow, truly! [[User:Mhildred|Mhildred]] 00:19, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Turning from something you are taught in school to learn what others have to say is open-minded. Accepting without question what liberal schools teach somebody as a child is close minded. What part of this obvious truth do you deny? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:24, 14 December 2009 (EST)

All of it! You don't have to turn from something you were taught in school to question. You can question it and decide that it was correct after all. The openness is in the ability to to decide to the way of where you think the evidence leads you. Openness is not in the making of the wrong or right decision based on that evidence. Secondly is that you can turn from something you were taught in school and be completely close minded about it! My mom could tell me that i'm a bad boy to believe in evolution and I therefore turn away from it. That's closed. Asking if that may be true or not is open. Finally, even if i'm wrong about that ONE question, that isn't a defense of that pitiable quiz. [[User:Mhildred|Mhildred]] 00:29, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:Leave until you can learn to discuss these issues respectfully. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:30, 14 December 2009 (EST)

To follow up the discussion on open minds and turning from something you were taught I would like to submit a small piece of my life. From birth I was taught strict conservative Christian ideals in a traditional southern home. Between the ages of 16 and 18 I started to question the reality that I knew and began researching many avenues to find the "truth." Now, ten years later, I find truth to be relative to perception. Personally, I find that logic leads to a scientific view of the world. I feel that all knowledge should only be provisional and subject to modification based on better evidence. So, am I open minded for turning from something I was indoctrinated with as a child?[[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 09:28, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:Do you give equal time now to the Bible, the most logical book ever written? I bet that what really happened is that liberals succeeded in pulling you away from the Bible, to the point where you spend less than 5% of your time on it now. It's a censorship that is often repeated, with tragic results. Those who wake up and start giving the Bible equal time again never regret it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:51, 14 December 2009 (EST)

::I will admit that no I do not spend equal time on the bible now. The Bible being the most logical book ever written is certainly a moot statement. If I were to only use one reference point as the base for my perception of the world then I would miss the valuable insight that other points of view offer, weather they be flawed or not. You don't have to agree with something in it's entirety to glean some fundamental knowledge. I find the bible to have sets of ethics and values that transcend dogma. At the same time, I don't believe science and its practices to be all knowing just a method by which to draw provisional conclusions. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 11:11, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:::Dave, you have free will. The Bible is like a good diet. One can choose to ''never'' eat foods that are good for you, but the outcome is not pretty or desirable. Put another way, you're not helping anyone by refusing to read the Bible, least of all yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:25, 14 December 2009 (EST)

::::A diet, like an open mind, should be well balanced. Too much of any one thing is a bad thing. -- I've never "refused to read the bible." As I stated previously I was raised Christian. I have read and studied the Bible.[[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Dave, I'm confident that your statement above is artfully misleading, like saying you have eaten lots of vegetables but omitting that you haven't eaten any in the last 20 years. Diet is a daily matter, and so is reading. The issue is what you do now, not what you did in the distant past.

:::::Someone who is in denial about he censors the Bible from his own life is going to be in denial about many other important points also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:08, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Continuing with the diet metaphor, if you eat only vegetables on a daily basis you will find yourself surviving but malnourished. I do respect the idea that the Bible is the sustenance for ideas and ideals of the Christian community. -- I certainly do not censor the Bible from my life. I think about it frequently and occasionally read from it, just not in the way that you might want me to. Please, provide some examples of other points that I may be in denial about. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 11:10, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Dave, the issue is ''excluding'' vegetables or the Bible virtually ''entirely'' from the daily diet. You say you "do not censor the Bible from" your life, but I'm confident you do not give Bible reading equal time or even 5% of your time. If that's not censorship, then what is? Liberals would be jumping up and down and if they were ever censored by limiting them to less than 5% of one's daily diet of information.

::::::What else are you in denial about? I bet you're in denial about the very real existence of Hell. Many of us, even those who allow Bible reading to be more than 5% of our time, fall into denial about that. Yet Jesus talked about Hell more than he talked about Heaven, a fraction greater than 50%--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:19, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I don't devote a specific amount of time to any book everyday unless it is part of my studies. Even then the time would come when I have extracted all the practical knowledge and it would be time to move on to a new subject. If I kept reading the same book for the last 26 years I would still be reading "Good Night Moon" and other children's books. -- To censor something, such as the Bible, would be to actively block it from others or myself. I don't intentionally block or exclude the bible so it's not censorship. My daily actions do not fall under any traditional definition of the word censor or censorship. -- A persons choice of daily information is theirs alone, a liberal would never know if someone chose to limit them to 5%.

::::::I do not deny the existence of hell, nor do I confirm it. The existence of hell cannot be tested, cannot be proven and cannot be known. Therefore, It cannot be denied. -- Fear is a powerful tool. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 15:11, 15 December 2009 (EST)

It is very sad how these people refuse to let themselves be enlightened by reading the Bible. I'm not sure where this hatred and animosity for a book that has been nothing but beneficial to the world comes from. I only hope it is a passing phase. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 10:36, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:Some would argue the point that the Bible has "been nothing but beneficial to the world." Throughout history it has been used as a means to justify atrocious action. Some examples are Jim Jones and the Jonestown Massacre or the notoriously bloody Crusades. I realize these events are the actions of individuals who distort the Bibles meaning and intent but they do serve as examples of how the Bible has been used in a negative way.

I've got to say, this is literally my favorite website in the world! This like the only bible-thumping online-community/denial generator that actually backs up what they say with the truth, and not the liberal "truth", that's shoved down our throats from birth, but true, conservative half-truths. The only truth you need.

:Wow, what brilliant sarcasm! You might break the record for the highest score yet on our [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|closedmindedness test]]. Please give it a try.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:31, 14 December 2009 (EST)
"Do you believe evolution ''must'' have happened?" What an awful question. So what you're saying is that those who believe creationism must have happened aren't equally closedminded? What's funny about that quiz is that the people who wrote are the ones who are actually closedminded.

== The most logical book ever written ==

My candidate would something like Euclid's ''Elements'' - but certainly not the Bible as
#the Bible includes ''miracles'', i.e., happenings which are remarkable as they defy logic and
#an almighty God certainly is not bound by our understanding of logic
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:43, 14 December 2009 (EST)
:Maybe you should read our essay, [[Essay:Quantifying Order]]. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 16:45, 14 December 2009 (EST)
::The words ''logic'' or ''logical'' don't appear even once in that essay, it seems to be about ''order''.... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 17:00, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:::The essay points out how there is nothing illogical about miracles, and you haven't provided anything illogical about them. Miracles reflect greater order in a world plagued by disorder. "Signs" is the better translation of the term for miracles ... signs of the greater underlying order.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:25, 14 December 2009 (EST)

::::''And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.'' What's logical about this? It's a surprising event, a miracle or a sign, at least something out-of-order happening... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 17:35, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Logic can be surprising, as in the Monty Hall three-door paradox or the [[Coase Theorem]]. But there's nothing illogical about God projecting His voice from a bush that He originally created. I think you mean to say it is "out of the ordinary." It is NOT illogical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:49, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: Well put, Andy. From my experience it seems like many people only read brief passages from the Bible and don't fully understand them, which is why they may think it's "illogical." But a careful study of the full meaning of the scriptures leads one to realize that it is indeed the most logical book ever written. To all those trying to argue against the Bible here - I urge you to spend a bit more time meticulously studying its contents, and perhaps you will be enlightened. God bless, --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 21:43, 14 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: ''Projecting His voice from a bush that He originally created'' sounds as logical as ''visiting Leda as a swan''. It doesn't become more logical by just repeating the statement! Conservapedia's article on [[Logic]] states:
:::::::''Logic is also used extensively in theology, and especially the study of the Bible, which, due to its divine inspiration, is very logical. ''
:::::::IMO, things get illogical because of divine inspirations, as an almighty God shouldn't be restricted by out ideas of logic!
::::::: [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: It is difficult to argue the logic of the Bible with those who's foundation for logic is the Bible. Those who believe in it's absolute faultlessness as a starting point for logic can not be convinced of it's fault. Any reference to it's contradictions will only be met with vehement conviction of it's supreme divinity. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Andy, I think you have a good discussion going on here. Maybe you should consider moving it to a more relevant topic page as we have moved far beyond the The Colbert Report. We have a great discussion with a respectable tone going on here and I would like to see it progress and perhaps invite more from all sides to join in. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Illegal immigration

2009-12-13T23:38:08Z

JEMBenton: /* Illegal Immigration in Mexico */

Some pretty sweeping statements there. Not all illegals are Mexicans, and many of them do speak some English. Also, many American citizens do not speak English. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 16:06, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Misc ideas I just had==
Seems to me the reason for so much illegal immigration is that it takes upwards of a decade to get citizenship. Maybe we should do something to streamline the process and make it easier to get citizenship? That gets rid of tax-dodging, insuranceless illegals working for less than minimum wage.

Also, I think that forcing schools to teach in two languages is crap, and what we need to do is to build special schools where immigrant children are given one year of intensified English language training, which will prepare them for learning in an English school curriculum. Just put them right where they left off in a normal school once they're done learning English.

Of course, we absolutely wouldn't have any of these problems if Mexico wasn't such a cesspool of subhuman living conditions around the border. Believe me, I've been there, and it's awful. People living in unfinished houses and whatnot.

I used to live in Mexico. They view their north the way we view our south...[[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? ==

Why does the entry for "Guatemalan" redirect to "Illegal Immigration?" I call RACISM! [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 21:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's been deleted, and the user has been warned. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Illegal Immigration in Mexico ==

I used to live in Mexico. They were not kind to the illegals who came there from Central America. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:53, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me that some of the illegal immigration hysteria is based on prejudice. In New York City I hear the same things about Asians as about Hispanics. In northern New England I bet they're hysterical about French Canadians coming into the U.S. I have the impression that many people don't make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. As long as the immigrants don't come from Europe, they're all considered illegal.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 17:46, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

While I agree that prejudice against all immigrants is common, and feeds mistrust and hatred of "illegals," you would be wrong to assert that people in New England have a hysterical dislike of French Canadian immigration. As someone who was born and raised in New England, whose grandfather was a French Canadian immigrant, I can confidently state this is a non-issue. Firstly, because there are comparatively few French Canadian immigrants, and secondly because the New England states are, and historically have been, very welcoming of people from across the country and the world. [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 18:38, 13 December 2009 (EST)

== Liberty ==

Like the Lady says:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I will build a fence to keep them out! [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 20:53, 19 June 2007 (PDT)

Fences at the Mexican border, fences in Palestine...fences everywhere...this is progress? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:56, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:No different than the fences in one's own yard. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:03, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:Just a little higher than the average Joe can jump.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:15, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

The debate over illegal immigration is thinly disguised racism. It used to be Irish, Swedes, Poles, Jews, Italians, Blacks, et al. that were ruining the country. Now it's Mexicans. Who's next?[[User:Panini|Panini]] 13:46, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
:Does that same standard apply to opposition to Mexican laborers goods being sold in the United States? If Mexican's are kept out because of racist laws, wouldn't laws that restrict, prohibit, or tax the fruit of their labor being sold in the US also be racist? Isn't opposition to [[free trade]] and [[NAFTA]] racist then, granting the special privilege of higher income by virtue of birth to US citizens, over foreigners, who can starve to death, for all we care? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:58, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm pretty sure none of what you just said makes any sense [[User:NRupert|NRupert]] 22:35, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

== crimes committed by illegal immigrants ==
what is the relevance of this section? [[User:NRupert|NRupert]] 22:34, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

==Welfare and ILLEGAL Immigrants==

The article is about '''illegal''' immigration. The cite is about welfare paid to '''legal''' immigrants. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:38, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:And perhaps next time you revert another user perhaps you could consider raising the issue on the talk page yourself rather than leaving it to others. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:38, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
::Thankyou [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:43, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Sorry for the sarcasm--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:48, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

== Unsubstantiated statement ==

The statement 'Many Mexicans will return to Mexico after they have made some money because they do not like certain aspects of American culture, such as the homosexual agenda, the abortion industry and teenage promiscuity' is not supported by any source in the article and seems like pure speculation. If a reputable source cannot be found, it must be removed. [[User:ABunny|ABunny]] 13:23, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
::I dropped it. There once was a tendency to take to Mexico teenage daughters in order to control their sexuality. Since 2001 it is too hard to go back and forth and this practice seems to have fadedd away.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:34, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==PRI==

The PRI is socialist only in name. in truth they are an oppressive right wing party that has always sided with landowners against the the poor. and they haven't "limited economic growth" either. the pri was instrumental in most of the free trade policies that are currently ravaging mexico.

St Matthew

2009-12-10T22:06:07Z

JEMBenton: Redirected page to Matthew the Apostle

#REDIRECT [[Matthew the Apostle]]

Kyrgyz language

2009-12-10T20:37:25Z

JEMBenton: Expanding article with desciption of language

Kyrgyz is the language spoken by the Kyrgyz people, a Turkic ethnic group who make up the majority of the population of the [[Kyrgyzstan|Kyrgyz Republic]]. The word "Kyrgyz" is one of the oldest recorded ethnic names for a [[Central Asia|Central Asian]] cultural group, appearing in ancient Chinese writings. The word is thought to be derived from "Kirk Kyiz" ("Forty Girls"), which is said to be a reference to the legendary original forty Kyrgyz tribes.

Like all Turkic languages, Kyrgyz is [[agglutinative]]; meanings are created by adding endings to words, instead of using prepositions as in English. For example, the Kyrgyz word for eat is "zhe" (pronounced "jay"), adding a "b" sound to the end indicated not doing the action, and adding an "aim" to the end makes it a first person action: "zhebaim" ("jaybaim") means "I do not eaten/will not eat."

The above example also demonstrates another facet of the Kyrgyz language: it contains no future tense. The past tense is a expressed by adding a "d" sound to the ending, but the same ending is used for present and future tense. Whether the speaker means current events or future ones depends on context.

The Kyrgyz language also employs vowel harmony, like many Turkic languages. The vowel sounds used in Kyrgyz are paired together, such as in the case of the Kyrgyz "a" and "y" or "o" and "u." A true Kyrgyz word would never contain both "a" and "o," making it easy to recognize [[loanword|loanwords]]. Due to their colonial history, Kyrgyz people have been heavily influenced by [[Russian]] culture and language, and the Kyrgyz language contains many Russian loanwords.

Kyrgyz language

2009-12-10T20:13:16Z

JEMBenton:

Kyrgyz is the name for both the Kyrgyz people, a Turkic ethnic group who make up the majority of the population of the [[Kyrgyzstan|Kyrgyz Republic]], and the language they speak. The word "Kyrgyz" is one of the oldest recorded ethnic names for a [[Central Asia|Central Asian]] cultural group, appearing in ancient Chinese writings. The word is thought to be derived from "Kirk Kyiz" ("Forty Girls"), which is said to be a reference to the legendary original forty Kyrgyz tribes.

Kyrgyz language

2009-12-10T20:12:59Z

JEMBenton:

Kyrgyz is the name for both the Kyrgyz people, a Turkic ethnic group who make up the majority of the population of the [[Kyrgyzstan|Kyrgyz Republic]], and the language they speak. The word "Kyrgyz" is one of the oldest recorded ethnic names for a [[Central Asia|Central Asian]] cultural groups, appearing in ancient Chinese writings. The word is thought to be derived from "Kirk Kyiz" ("Forty Girls"), which is said to be a reference to the legendary original forty Kyrgyz tribes.

Kyrgyz language

2009-12-10T20:12:35Z

JEMBenton: Created page with 'Kyrgyz is the name for both the Kyrgyz people, a Turkic ethnic group who make up the majority of the population of the Kyrgyz Republic, and the language they speak...'

Kyrgyz is the name for both the Kyrgyz people, a Turkic ethnic group who make up the majority of the population of the [[Kyrgyzstan|Kyrgyz Republic]], and the language they speak. The word "Kyrgyz" is one of the oldest recorded ethnic names for a [[Central Asian]] cultural groups, appearing in ancient Chinese writings. The word is thought to be derived from "Kirk Kyiz" ("Forty Girls"), which is said to be a reference to the legendary original forty Kyrgyz tribes.