Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Vermont

2007-05-21T16:24:40Z

Poblano:

[[Image:Vermont_State_Flag.gif|thumb|right|The state flag of Vermont.]]

Vermont is located in the Northeastern region of the [[United States]] and on March 4, 1791 became the fourteenth state to enter into the Union. It's name comes from the French term for 'Green Mountain.' During the [[American Civil War]] Vermont supported the United States. The capital of Vermont is [[Montpelier]] and its largest city is Burlington. The current governor of Vermont is Jim Douglas, a [[Republican]].

[[Category:US state]]

Columbia, South Carolina

2007-05-21T16:23:05Z

Poblano:

'''Columbia''' is the capital city of [[South Carolina]]. There are also cities named Columbia in Missouri, Washington state, and Colorado.

[[Category:US Towns and Cities]]
[[Category:US State Capitals]]

Catch-22

2007-05-21T15:12:47Z

Poblano: he wasn't Armenian, either...that was a mistake on Heller's part

'''Catch-22''' is a humorous anti-war novel by Joseph Heller (1961). It deals with American bombardier John Yossarian. Yossarian is stationed on the Italian island of Pianosa during [[World War II]]. He attempts to get out of flying more combat missions by pretending to be crazy. The problem is, only a sane man would want to get out of combat, therefore Yossarian cannot be considered crazy.

The term 'Catch-22' has come to mean an unwinnable situation.

==References==

Heller, Joseph. ''Catch-22''. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1961.

Catch-22

2007-05-21T14:51:39Z

Poblano:

'''Catch-22''' was a 1961 anti-war novel by Joseph Heller. It deals with [[Syria|Syrian]]-American bombarier John Yossarian. Yossarian is stationed on the Italian island of Pianosa during [[World War II]]. He attempts to get out of flying more combat missions by pretending to be crazy. The problem is, only a sane man would want to get out of combat, therefore Yossarian cannot be considered crazy.

The term 'catch-22' has come to mean an unwinnable situation.

==References==

Heller, Joseph. ''Catch-22''. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1961.

Homosexual rights advocacy

2007-05-21T14:49:12Z

Poblano: /* Support for Gay Rights */ typo

The '''gay rights''' movement seeks to elevate [[homosexuality]] to the same level of social and political respectability as heterosexual relationships. It denies or dismisses the Biblical prohibitions against homosexual acts and the proven health risks of gay sex. "Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof." [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html]

It seeks to remove the stigma of [[sexual perversion]] from homosexuality by arguing that either,
# Homosexuality is an immutable trait, and discriminating against immutable traits is wrong (cf. race discrimination), or,
# Homosexuality, if not immutable, is highly correlated with personality, and discriminating against such deeply rooted notions of self is wrong, as well (cf. religious intolerance).
The movement does not seek to convince others that homosexuality is ''right'': rather, it seeks to convince the public that it is not ''wrong'' enough to regulate, criminalize, or stigmatize.

== Legal Success ==
Courts, including the Supreme Court, have accepted either one or both of these rationales. In ''[[Romer v. Evans]]'', the Court found that discriminating against homosexuals could only be explained by a rational of animus laid bare, which was not enough even to allow state condemnation of homosexuality under the [[rational basis review]] test. ''Romer'', then, protects the status of homosexuality from undue discrimination that occurs without a rational basis.<ref>Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620</ref>

Homosexual conduct was formerly illegal in many states.<ref>See generally ''Bowers v. Hardwick'', 478 U.S. 186</ref> In the last decade of the twentieth century, although these laws existed, they were rarely (if ever) enforced.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas,'' 539 U.S. 558, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the Opinion of the Court, found this in his historical analysis.</ref> Without disclosing whether it saw homosexuality as a status protected from discrimination at as high of a level as gender and race, the Court struck down bans on homosexual conduct, framing it as an expansion of its privacy jurisprudence.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', 539 U.S. 558</ref>

The status of homosexuality before the law, then, is in some degree of flux. While bare discrimination against homosexual status is facially unconstitutional lacking a rational basis, and while preventing homosexual conduct is similarly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has held in these landmark cases that the state may discriminate against homosexuals to preserve an "institution that the law protects" - namely, [[marriage]].<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas''; Kennedy & O'Connor both reached this conclusion explicitly.</ref> As such, the standard to be applied in deciding if discrimination against homosexuals is wrong is somewhere in between [[rational basis review]] and [[strict scrutiny review]]. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] thinks that this uncertainty will surely be resolved in the favor of gay rights, and he warns that such a legal erosion will result in the downfall of the law's moral authority.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', Scalia, J., dissenting.</ref>

== Opposition to Gay Rights ==
Polls consistently reveal that a clear majority <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031800484.html | Clinton, Obama Slow to Respond to Questions on Homosexuality] Washington Post, March 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/963906/posts| New poll shows Americans oppose gay civil unions 58%-37%] Washington Post, August 18, 2003</ref> of people agree homosexuality is immoral, sinful, distasteful, degrading, or less than ideal, and prefer that public policy does not encourage it. They also do not think that we should lose rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and traditional marriage in order to promote acceptance of homosexual behavior.{{fact}}

Conservatives criticize attempts by gay rights activists to prohibit any statements which are critical of homosexuality, such as the idea that it is "unnatural" or "sinful", using [[hate crime]]s statutes and anti-[[discrimination]] laws:

*The EU parliament called on Polish authorities to publicly condemn and take measures against declarations by officials "inciting discrimination and hatred based on sexual orientation." [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OOFTCO5&show_article=1]

== Support for Gay Rights ==

A [[Newsweek]] poll, conducted March, 2007, found that 61% of those polled felt that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military ([[margin of error]], plus or minus 3%).

The same poll found that 50% of those asked favored legal recognition of same-sex unions, either as marriages or [[civil union]]s. 44% felt same-sex couples should have no legal recognition, with 6% unsure.<ref>Polling Report http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm</ref>

==History==
As Amazon.com said in a review of a book of [[Harry Hay]]'s writings, he "is the acknowledged father…of the modern gay liberation movement." As a [[Communist Party of the United States]] (CPUSA) organizer, he turned out "essays, position papers, critical studies, and manifestos concerning what it means to be gay in the world." <ref>Accuracy in Media, [http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A269_0_2_0_C/ ''Red Roots Of Gay Movement''], Cliff Kincaid, September 10, 2003. </ref>

The [[Human Rights Campaign]] referred to Hay as "founder and architect of the modern movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights" and "Harry was one of the first to realize that the dream of equality for our community could be attained through visibility and activism". <ref>[http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/News_Releases/20021/HRC_Mourns_the_Death_of_Gay_Rights_Pioneer_Harry_Hay.htm Human Rights Campaign Mourns the Death of Gay Rights Pioneer Harry Hay], Press Release, Oct. 24, 2002.</ref> Hay not only promoted homosexual rights, he actively campaigned for the "rights" of [[pedophile]]s. ''The Boston Phoenix'' noted that nowhere was this more evident than in Hay's persistent support of the right of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, [[NAMBLA]], to march in gay-pride parades. <ref>''The Boston Phoenix'', [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm The real Harry Hay], Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002. </ref> NAMBLA maintains a website with a body of Hay's work and a tribute to Harry Hay on its homepage. The [[Human Rights Campaign]] and other gay rights organizations, while revering Hay for his contributions to gay rights, do not support NAMBLA or communism.

==Tactics==

*Kirk and Madsen predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among opponents, "if we can actually make them like us." <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html, arguing that Hollywood movies sometimes show homosexual men or boys taking a harmless "Cupid" role to help solidify a budding heterosexual relationship.</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

== External Links ==
*A gay rights perspective, the Human Rights Campaign, www.hrc.org
*An anti-gay rights perspective, Accuracy in Media, [http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A269_0_2_0_C/ ''Red Roots Of Gay Movement''], Cliff Kincaid, September 10, 2003.
*[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay]

Wounded Knee Massacre

2007-05-21T14:46:33Z

Poblano: typo

'''The Wounded Knee Massacre''' is considered the last great battle between the [[United States Army]] and [[Native American]] forces. On December 29, 1890, the U.S. calvary tried to force some Lakota Sioux off their reservation in [[South Dakota]] to be transported to another reservation in [[Nebraska]]. In the ensuing fighting, over 150 Native Americans, including women and children, were killed, along with 25 U.S. soldiers.<ref>Barber, Nicola. ''Question and Answer Encyclopedia: The USA''. Bath, UK: Parragon Publishing, 2000.</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:history]]

Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?

2007-05-21T14:45:53Z

Poblano: /* YES */

{{debate}}

==YES==

The European colonists brought Christianity to the Americas and ended the Central American practice of [[human sacrifice]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I wonder how many people were killed to achieve this (latter) laudable aim? [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:32, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

They sensibly replaced it with the human sacrifice to the concept of justice (capital punishment). The improvement here is that efforts are often made to avoid sacrificing innocent individuals. Thus the blood-lust of the population could be nurtured without arbitary victimisation of innocents. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
: North American Indians did not practice human sacrifice. [[User:Poblano|Poblano]] 10:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Am I allowed to argue on both sides? I don't think this is a black and white issue.

If the reports of "smallpox blankets" and Caribbean slavery are true, then Columbus took advantage of several thousand native Americans. Also, I've heard that the native population was reduced 90% by European colonists - presumably through conquest and starvation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:37, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure what the point of this debate is, the question seems bit of a Trojan Horse, but I would imagine that those who survived would say no. Bringing disease, alcohol and superior firepower to wipe many of them out, then settling their land out can hardly be a good thing from their point of view. Hopefully a few of them will respond here. Of course from the colonists' point of view everything has turned out pretty good. Also European colonization of the Americas covers a very wide range of incomers and indigenous peoples so there can be no simple answer. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

No. Just look at the [[Trail of Tears]] and the [[Wounded Knee Massacre]]. I don't think after the North American Indians (who did NOT practice human sacrifice) who surivived mass slaughter, deportation, the rape of their women, the capture of their land, the deliberate and inadvertant spread of disease were thinking: and they brought us Christianity! What benevolent people! [[User:Poblano|Poblano]] 10:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?

2007-05-21T14:45:23Z

Poblano: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

The European colonists brought Christianity to the Americas and ended the Central American practice of [[human sacrifice]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I wonder how many people were killed to achieve this (latter) laudable aim? [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:32, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

They sensibly replaced it with the human sacrifice to the concept of justice (capital punishment). The improvement here is that efforts are often made to avoid sacrificing innocent individuals. Thus the blood-lust of the population could be nurtured without arbitary victimisation of innocents. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Am I allowed to argue on both sides? I don't think this is a black and white issue.

If the reports of "smallpox blankets" and Caribbean slavery are true, then Columbus took advantage of several thousand native Americans. Also, I've heard that the native population was reduced 90% by European colonists - presumably through conquest and starvation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:37, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure what the point of this debate is, the question seems bit of a Trojan Horse, but I would imagine that those who survived would say no. Bringing disease, alcohol and superior firepower to wipe many of them out, then settling their land out can hardly be a good thing from their point of view. Hopefully a few of them will respond here. Of course from the colonists' point of view everything has turned out pretty good. Also European colonization of the Americas covers a very wide range of incomers and indigenous peoples so there can be no simple answer. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

No. Just look at the [[Trail of Tears]] and the [[Wounded Knee Massacre]]. I don't think after the North American Indians (who did NOT practice human sacrifice) who surivived mass slaughter, deportation, the rape of their women, the capture of their land, the deliberate and inadvertant spread of disease were thinking: and they brought us Christianity! What benevolent people! [[User:Poblano|Poblano]] 10:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is most government criticism really patriotic?

2007-05-21T14:38:12Z

Poblano: /* YES */

{{debate}}

==YES==

If George Washington and the gang hadn't spoken out at their government, Americans would be driving on the left and drinking over priced tea. [[User:Poblano|Poblano]] 10:38, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

"Acts that once would have horrified most Americans now pass below the public radar, as though they were part of the patter of normal political discourse." [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28306] And under the guise of "just having a healthy debate" people are giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a way that would have been called [[treason]] 60 years ago. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:43, 21 May 2007 (EDT)