<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Birry</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Birry"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Birry"/>
	<updated>2026-10-14T03:36:59Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Scientology&amp;diff=663178</id>
		<title>Talk:Scientology</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Scientology&amp;diff=663178"/>
		<updated>2009-05-14T23:29:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Birry: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Wikiproject Religion}}&lt;br /&gt;
== Archives ==&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
[[Talk:Scientology/Archive1|Archive 1]] [[Talk:Scientology/Archive2|Archive2]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Typos ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article has a couple typos in the first paragraph. &amp;quot;Psychology&amp;quot; should not be capitalized the first time, and the second time it is misspelled and again inappropriately capitalized. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:09, 29 December 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:33, 29 December 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Hackers? ==&lt;br /&gt;
C'mon now, must we call them hackers? And if we must, can we possibly say &amp;quot;Hackers on steroids&amp;quot;, add a reference to &amp;quot;Secret Websites&amp;quot;, and possibly put in a few pictures of an exploding yellow van? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 16:49, 24 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Do you have anything serious to add, or just obscure jokes? If you want to improve the wording please be my guest; I'm only as good as my sources. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:55, 24 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::It's not a joke. Hacker carries some unnessecarily dark connotations. The quotes above are from a video from Fox News on this very subject. I can find it for you, if you wish. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:02, 24 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::A link's not necessary, but a straightforward response is always appreciated. What's wrong with the word hacker, what's a better word, and why can't you just change it yourself? The article called them a &amp;quot;hacking group&amp;quot; and I had no reason to call them anything else. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:12, 24 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Because pretty much any time I try to change something that might be even slightly controversial, I get banned.&lt;br /&gt;
::::The word hacker, thanks to the MSM, brings up images of people sabotaging networks/stealing information from the government/what have you. Where I come from, at least.&lt;br /&gt;
::::Could simply refer to them as &amp;quot;a group&amp;quot; instead of &amp;quot;a hacking group.&amp;quot; [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:44, 24 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Well if anyone is confused, they can see [[hacker]], which is wikilinked within the article, and which doesn't bring up images of people sabotaging networks or stealing information. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 24 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Alright. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:41, 24 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
I've removed the reference to hackers.  Barikada's complaint was legitimate, and although the link to [[hacker]] should mitigate that if it was necessary to mention it, I couldn't see that there was any real need to mention it.  The YouTube video doesn't refer to them as hackers, nor even mention anything to do with computers.  Their tactics, just going by the video, seem to lie in other areas.  Yes, the other link does refer to hackers, so in that sense the use of the term was justifiable, but it still wasn't necessary.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:10, 25 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:I've never understood people's deal with the word hacker, but I also didn't watch many movies in the late 80's ;-) Is there a better word than simply &amp;quot;group&amp;quot;, though, because it's more than just a group of ''people'', right? It's people who are highly skilled in a certain area (namely using computers to illegally and skillfully disrupt other people's computers) and I don't know what word covers that. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:00, 25 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::No need to specify computers, given that many Anons are handing out flyers in reality. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:44, 25 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Err... but flyers don't perfom DoS attacks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:01, 25 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Indeed. Which is why I attempted to imply that not all of the activities perpetrated by Anonymous are internet-based. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:04, 25 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I'll say again, I'm only as good as my sources. I found a source that says they are hackers (and I still don't see why it's inaccurate), and it said nothing about handing out flyers. At any rate, just because they do ''more'' than computer-based attacks doesn't change their core purpose or definition. Nobody's been able to come up with any better word than &amp;quot;group of people&amp;quot;. What's so wrong with using descriptive language? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:12, 25 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: &amp;quot;Hackers&amp;quot; is a bit like &amp;quot;Fundamentalists&amp;quot;.  The origin of the word is good, but it's been appropriated by the media to mean someone bad.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: As far as the legitimacy of its use in this article is concerned, the primary evidence, the video, made no reference to hackers and no reference to computer attacks.  The secondary reference, quoting a third source, referred to them as hackers and said that the group had already launched denial of service attacks, but apart from that being their only documented tactic so far, there's no evidence that computer-based tactics are going to be their main mode of attack.  In other words, they could be planning on using several approaches, and the denial of service attack just happens to be the first one.  Actually, the video seemed to be indicating that a tactic would be infiltration.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 26 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A chance? ==&lt;br /&gt;
This might be a chance worth making use of. Christianity and Scientology are certinly in opposition, and Scientology has a known way of destroying families by ordering new converts to sever all contact. They will be in the headlines for a time now, and they have a lot of skeletons in their cupboard which until now have been consigned to websites hardly ever seen. Why waste such a chance to spread the truth around, discredit the church, slow its growth, and score one for the real true religion. Im not entirely sure what that is, but its certinly not Scientology looniness. - Suricou Raven, Jan 24th.&lt;br /&gt;
: Is it your opinion that Christianity and Scientology are in opposition?  Whose opinion is it?  The reason I ask is, opposition is not widely stated by Christian Churches. A few even use Scientology methods (it has been in the news).  If it is certain, it certainly isn't obvious.  Also, the Scientology website claims it is compatible.  Whose opinion is that? [[User:TerryO|TerryO]] 00:59, 8 April 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
Scientology is incompatible with virtually evrey religion in existence in the $cientology book the history of man L Ron states that man evolved from lower life forms. (gasp!) but how they evolved has absolutely no basis in either science or religion. according to Hubbard humans evolved form clams (the sources of our jaw pain and the now disproved Piltdown man. Also im many of his lectures and books he makes his disdain for Jesus Christianity and just about every other major religion. The final blow to the &amp;quot;you can be a Cristian and a $cientoligist&amp;quot; notion. Is the revelation one you spend  200000$ to get to 0t3 is that the memory of Jesus and all the old religions were implanted into the dead alien souls that now inhabit your body by The evil Galactic Lord Xenu.  {{unsigned|Craan}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Meow ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Needs a cat. Can a sysop add one? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Cat problem==&lt;br /&gt;
Scientology is a religion, not a science. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 17:17, 22 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
: Agreed. The category should be changed to &amp;quot;Religion.&amp;quot; Funny, whoever put &amp;quot;Pseudoscience,&amp;quot; but completely inappropriate for an encyclopedic resource. -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 22:49, 25 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It's not a religion - it's an evil cult that destroys lives, and we should say so. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 16:34, 2 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*For purposes of this encyclopedia, &amp;quot;Scientology&amp;quot; (''no matter what our personal opinions are'') is categorized by most major governments as a religion, including the Government of the United States.  CP is an American wiki.  End of discussion. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Missing Parenthesis ==&lt;br /&gt;
There is a missing parenthesis, and I have bolded where I believe it was meant to be in the following - &amp;quot;Later Hubbard refined his ideas and moved toward a structured system of belief involving the human soul, or &amp;quot;thetan&amp;quot; (each person's spiritual self, and the origins of life and the universe.''')''' [[User:Luminite2|Luminite2]] 12:32, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Fair Game == &lt;br /&gt;
Can this article include information on Scientology's Fair Game policy, stating that enemies of the church are &amp;quot;fair game&amp;quot; for being &amp;quot;deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.&amp;quot; -[[User:Birry|Birry]] 07:78, 14 May 2009 (EST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Birry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Star_Wars&amp;diff=654262</id>
		<title>Star Wars</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Star_Wars&amp;diff=654262"/>
		<updated>2009-04-19T05:12:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Birry: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:462px-Star wars dvd cover.jpg|right|thumb|Cover of the 2004 [[DVD]] widescreen release of Star Wars Trilogy.]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''Note:  This article deals with the science fiction saga, not the American [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI).''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''For the original'' '''Star Wars''' ''film, see'' [[Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Star Wars''' is a [[science fiction]] film saga and fictional universe created by American director [[George Lucas]].  The original ''Star Wars'' movie (Episode IV) came out on May 25th, 1977.  The earlier set of ''Star Wars'' movies (''Episodes IV, V, and VI'') are renowned as classics of cinema, and were some of the first &amp;quot;summer blockbusters&amp;quot; ever made.  Episodes I, II and III were released in 1999, 2002 and 2005 respectively. All six movies are amongst the top 50 highest grossing films of all time.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In 1984 and 1985, two spinoff movies to the original trilogy (Episode IV, V, and VI) were made featuring the Ewok characters seen in ''Episode VI: Return of the Jedi''.  An animated film called ''Star Wars: The Clone Wars'' was released in 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Films ==&lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Development of the Monomyth==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[George Lucas]] built on the idea of the [[monomyth]] - a dominant mythic structure that resounds strongly with the human psyche - in structuring his narrative.  He consulted closely with [[Joseph Campbell]], author of the book, &amp;quot;Hero of a Thousand Faces,&amp;quot; in his utilizing of the [[monomyth]] structure for the movie.  In ''Star Wars'' (now known as Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope), the reluctant hero is [[Luke Skywalker]], the teacher [[Obi-Wan Kenobi]], and the archetype villain [[Darth Vader]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fan Films==&lt;br /&gt;
There have been many short films created by Star Wars Fans. One major website is www.fanfilms.com; which contains many fanfilms including TROOPS, The Essense of The Force, The Jedi Hunter, the Pink Five trilogy, Revelations, and Ryan Vs. Dorkman 1 and 2. One major high-quality fan based movie is I.M.P.S: The Relentless; which can be found at www.impstherelentless.com, and is the first chapter of a future full-length, chapter-based movie based on the Imperial Starship Relentless and her crew.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Expanded Universe==&lt;br /&gt;
Since the success of the film [[franchise]], Lucasfilm has licensed a number of novels, comic books, and video games that take place in the Star Wars universe, otherwise known as the Expanded Universe (EU). Hundreds of novels and comics and dozens of video games have been, and continue to be produced. Although these spin-off media often take place before, after or inbetween the films, some take place in &amp;quot;alternate realities.&amp;quot; A major focus of the EU is to feature characters not on-screen or only briefly shown in the films. All officially licensed works are considered canon, except in places where they contradict the films. There are also two cartoon series and three TV movies, two about the Ewoks and the Star Wars Holiday Special, which represented a secularized version of [[Christmas]] known as &amp;quot;Life Day.&amp;quot;  The last has been disowned by Lucas--not for any particular religious reason.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of note is [[Star Wars: The Clone Wars]], the only part of the Expanded Universe to reach the big screen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Miscellaneous==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Star Wars'' became forever linked to politics when a [[Strategic Defense Initiative|missile-defense plan]], devised under the Reagan administration, was nicknamed Star Wars.  Attempts to bring back such a system are still referred to by this name.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Star Wars| ]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Birry</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage&amp;diff=650551</id>
		<title>Same-sex marriage</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage&amp;diff=650551"/>
		<updated>2009-04-09T03:01:34Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Birry: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Same-sex &amp;quot;marriage&amp;quot;''' is at the forefront of the [[gay rights movement]]'s attempt to normalize the rights of homosexuals with those of heterosexuals.  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 &amp;quot;movement.&amp;quot;  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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
United States law defines &amp;quot;marriage&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;one man, one woman&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;marriage&amp;quot; is that it specifically rules out [[polygamy]].  &amp;lt;!-- There are also laws to protect children from being exploited (see [[statutory rape]], incest, [[child molesting]]).  These laws enshrine the scriptural teachings of [[Christianity]] and have the support of [[Judaism]] and [[Islam]]. THESE SENTENCES ARE NON-SEQUITORS BUT SHOULD BE RETAINED FOR FUTURE EDITS BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHRISTIAN IDEALS OF CONSERVAPEDIA   --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
==Morality==&lt;br /&gt;
Social conservatives regard same-sex marriage as immoral, and argue that use of the word &amp;quot;[[marriage]]&amp;quot; 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,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;E.g. In some Christian marriage ceremonies,the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; ''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: &amp;quot;The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage,&amp;quot; p. 423&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html US Code - Title 1, section 7]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;mdash;civil as well as religious&amp;amp;mdash;is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore believes that same-sex unions are &amp;quot;counterfeits.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Use of the term &amp;quot;same-sex marriage&amp;quot; was unheard of a few decades ago; however, these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[liberal]] activists.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Background ==&lt;br /&gt;
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 four, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], and [[Iowa]], currently issue same-sex marriage licenses. These marriage licenses are not recognized by the Federal government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;mdash;even though it prohibits same-sex marriage itself&amp;amp;mdash;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;civil unions,&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?_r=1&amp;amp;hp]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[California]] has repealed same-sex marriage through 2008's [[Proposition 8]].  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As of 2009, California, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Maine also provide civil unions or &amp;quot;domestic partnerships.&amp;quot; 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.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm Countries worldwide address gay marriage]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.massequality.org/news/news_story.php?id=273]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnchs%2Fdata%2Fnvss%2Fmarriage90_04.pdf&amp;amp;images=yes&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Issues ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that &amp;quot;violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/risk.htm Aforementioned Canadian Study.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[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:&lt;br /&gt;
:...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 &amp;quot;couples&amp;quot; be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Stanley Kurtz, &amp;quot;Beyond Marriage,&amp;quot; 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. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[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.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.{{fact}}  Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.{{fact}}  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.  &amp;lt;!-- A particularly worrisome factor among [[gay rights]] [[activist]]s is  THIS SENTENCE WAS BROKEN -- I DON'T THINK I DID IT   --&amp;gt; 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.{{fact}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]].{{fact}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One type of emotional abuse--threatening to &amp;quot;out&amp;quot; a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual and bi-sexual relationships.  Legalization of so-called &amp;quot;gay marriage&amp;quot; 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 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Privileged Communication, Glossary of Legal Terms, Child Welfare Manual. http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&amp;amp;start=2&amp;amp;oi=define&amp;amp;q=http://www.dss.mo.gov/cd/info/cwmanual/section7/glossary/pq.htm&amp;amp;usg=AFQjCNFJEcaFZh0PuFiqrbUh2JyAUhD_yA&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, anonymous leaking to the media has been known to happen and the prospect of suffering a &amp;quot;Haggardesque&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Media Crossed the Line in Haggard Outing, Thursday November 20, 2008.  http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_5152861,00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; fate is sufficient to allow manipulative tactics such as blackmail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Reference==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage], NoGayMarriage.com&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm  Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong, by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.] &lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Birry</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>