Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Yorkshire

2008-03-10T14:32:09Z

Faybelline: /* Image */

'''Yorkshire''' used to be a county in Northern [[England]], and was once the largest county, divided into three 'Ridings' (OE ''thridings'', 'thirds'). However, the Local Government Act of 1972 broke it into three smaller counties - North, South and West Yorkshire, as well as transferring the East (and part of the West) Riding to Humberside, and parts of the traditional county to Durham, Cumbria and Greater Manchester.

The county has varied geography from the hills and mountains of the [[Pennines]] and North Yorkshire moors, to the flatlands of the Vale of York and the fen country of the Humberhead Levels. Principal cities in Yorkshire include [[Leeds]], Hull, [[Sheffield]], [[York]], and [[Goole]], Britain' most inland seaport.

Yorkshire borders with the counties of Greater Manchester, [[Lancashire]], [[Cumbria]], [[County Durham]], [[Cleveland]], [[Lincolnshire]], [[Nottinghamshire]], and [[Derbyshire]].

Historically, the symbol of Yorkshire was the white [[rose]].

==Sport==

The principle sports in Yorkshire are [[soccer]] and [[rugby league]], with the traditional game of Yorkshire being cricket, though in recent years the county side has lagged. Similarly, Yorkshire soccer teams no longer occupy their former prominent positions in the soccer leagues.

==Image==

Yorkshire people are supposed to be dour and of few words, careful with money but loyal friends once their reserve has been penetrated. A traditional rhyme runs:

:''Yorkshire born, Yorkshire bred''
:''Strong in't arm and thick in't head''

Yorkshire folk are also reported to be fantastic sexual partners. Another traditional rhyme runs:

:''Yorkshire born, Yorkshire bred''
:''Yorkshire folk are best in bed''

Yorkshire is associated with the [[Yorkshire Pudding]], and with the [[Yorkshire Ripper]], the serial killer [[Peter Sutcliffe]] (b. 2 June 1946) of [[Bradford]] who murdered thirteen women in northern [[England]] between 1975 and 1980.

[[Category:United Kingdom Counties]]

Same-sex marriage

2008-03-10T13:37:44Z

Faybelline:

[[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.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=5a6dc0ec-3807-4f5c-a5ad-c50855986682&k=55181&p=2 Aforementioned Canadian Study.</ref>]]
{{move|same-sex marriage}}

'''Same-sex marriage''' is the term for a [[marriage]] in which both parties involved are of the same sex. The "same-sex marriage" movement supports the legal recognition of marriages between people of the same sex.

__TOC__

Same-sex marriage is sometimes referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", though these names are technically incorrect as the sexual orientations of the partners do not determine the nature of the marriage (just as a homosexual man married to a homosexual woman would not be part of a same-sex marriage). "Same-sex marriage" is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex. 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,<ref>E.g. 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." ''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.

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."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Abuse of the term was unheard of a few decades ago; however, these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[liberal]] activists. 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 one, Massachusetts, currently allows same-sex marriage. These marriages are not recognized by the Federal government.

== Background ==
In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that [[liberal]] activists would soon seek changes to the laws in some states that pertain to gay people. 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. 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.

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. As of 2007, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, 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> In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the sole state to issue same-sex marriage licenses.<ref>Because of an antiquated Massachusetts law, Massachusetts same-sex marriages are all-but-limited to Massachusetts residents. The law says that an out-of-state couple cannot be married if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state. Same-sex marriages are not recognized under federal law or in most other states.</ref>

Same sex marriage is legal in five countries: [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], the [[Netherlands]] and [[Belgium]]. 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>

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 ==
James Dobson of ''Focus on the Family'' suggests 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>[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. 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]]. The prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships.A particularly worrisome factor among [[gay rights]] [[activist]]s is 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}}

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]].

One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Morality cannot be legislated.

Because the studies are decades behind heterosexual studies on violence between men and women, it would be unfair to state homosexual relationships suffer from a much higher degree of physical violence than heterosexual relationships. Many instances of domestic abuse/violence between heterosexual couples remain unreported and this distorts figures and statistics making it impossible to show the levels of violence within homosexual relationships compared with violence within heterosexual relationships.

==See also==
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]

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

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Debate:Did God create evil?

2008-03-06T13:59:14Z

Faybelline: /* No */

Of course God made everything, but man sinned and that means evil came into the world by one man. Actually [[Satan]] sinned first but you could say that God created the opportunity for him to sin. Why do you think an omnipotent, omiscient God allowed Satan to rebel in the first place?
Better yet, why do you think God didn't just start over after Adam and Eve ruined his plans for a perfect society? [[User:StevenM]] Oct 20 2007 18:10

In terms of Adam and Eve you really have to ask where was god when they were talking to the talking snake. Also the basic logic being that if god made man and man sins then it would be the biproduct of god. [[User:Concretemuncher]]

One of the greatest gifts God gave his intelligent creations (angelic or human) was the capacity of free will ... the ability to make choices and to serve Him out of love and desire. Blaming God for the choices made by intelligent people would be like blaming parents who provide the best environment for their child, including an abundance of love and ensuring that nothing is lacking - including a positive purpose in life, and whose child then becames a criminal. The problem is not with the parent ... it is with the child. James 1:14-15 warns that sin is the result of someone allowing an improper desire to develop. Satan wanted the worship of humans, Eve wanted to be like God (able to independently decide what is good and bad), and Adam valued being with his wife more than obedience to God.

* God himself acknowledges his ability to foreknow the future. (Isaiah 46:10) Apparently He chooses to be selective when he uses the ability as is evidenced in other Bible accounts (e.g.., the test of Abraham's faith re: Isaac (Genesis 18:19; 22:11, 12)) and the fact that He extends the opportunity to ''all'' mankind to be reconciled to Him. (Acts 17:30, 31) It would be grossly unfair of God to invite ''all'' mankind to repent if He already ''knew'' which ones would not succeed.
** By selectively using his foreknowledge, God dignifies each of us with the opportunity to prove ourselves loyal to Him and provide an answer to Satan's challenge (Proverbs 27:11) and has the ability to find joy in His own life. Consider how boring your life would be if you knew every facet (the good, the bad and the mundane) of how others would treat you. What might seem advantageous to begin with would quickly grow dull.
* Why not start over after the rebellion in Eden? Satan called God a liar and challenged God's sovereignty (His ''right'' to rule), implying that mankind would be better off without God's rulership. Wiping out the three rebels at that time would not have answered the questions raised by Satan in a setting viewed by millions of angels.
** So God has allowed both Satan and mankind the opportunity to prove whether or not they can successfully rule independently of His guidance. (Jeremiah 10:23) At the same time he has made arrangements to allow those that want to serve Him an opportunity to learn about him (the Bible), to come into an approved relationship with him (the sacrifice of Christ Jesus) and enjoy the prospect originally offered to Adam & Even (eternal life in paradise on earth).
** Not to be overlooked is the fact that God immediately provided a means by which he would undo the effects of this rebellion. In the Bible's first prophecy (Genesis 3:15) God foretold that he would provide a Seed that would crush Satan (Romans 16:20). 1 John 3:8 tells us that Christ was made manifest to break up the works of the Devil. In short, there is no evil act that has been done or can be done that will not be undone. Isaiah 65:17 foretells that the "former things will not be called to mind" and Revelation 21:1-5 promise an end to tears, death, mourning, outcry and pain.
[[User:Brentleigh]]

I believe God ALLOWED evil to exist but did not CREATE it. He allowed Satan to rebel and for evil to exist in order that God be glorified. It's hard for mere mortal man to fathom such a concept. Without evil, Christ would not have needed to come to earth and die on the cross for the salvation of man. But in the end, God will become the ultimate victor, Satan will be destroyed, and God will be glorified for all eternity. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

This is the biggest issue with the whole bible, and christianity.
If you say that God is all powerful, and that there isn't anything he can't do..
Why did he then (if he created everything) create men on earth which were evil in their nature (at least after a while) and began to both destroy themself and everything else on earth, if god was allpowerful, he should have been able to create humans who did not have any hate in them and nothing of evil at all.

But since thats not the case, that only leave's us with two possible answers:
1) Good isn't allpowerfull and was newer able to create a perfect world, and the statement's in the bible most is obviously wrong.
2) The worst one, God is evil.
If God had all the powers in the world to create whatever he'd wanted, why did he create a humanity which has so many bad sides about them, like killing each other, killing other animals, torture, rape and everything like that.
If God truly is allpowerful and have the abilty to create whatever he want,
then God must, without no denying be the biggest sadist in the enitire world. --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 06:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== No ==
...but he created [[Liberal|Liberals]]. (poor attempt at fun by [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 14:51, 10 December 2007 (EST))

God created evil, God created Islam, god created atomic bombs, stem cells, abortion - he/she/it created everything {{unsigned|Smek}}

If 'God' exists then he/she/it created evil...such as extremist Christians who are complete biggots and condemn all those who are different rather than embracing and loving as, I believe, they should.

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

2008-03-06T13:20:13Z

Faybelline:

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

: One of the biggest concerns of Conservapedia is to counteract a perceived bias of Wikipedia. What this does not address, however, is that Conservapedia is inherently biased in the opposite direction. If it the concern is that it is believed that Wikipedia is biased, then the best counteraction can be to present true objective articles, not ones simply biased in the opposite direction. If Conservapedia can accomplish this, then it can succeed in it can find truth. Otherwise, it is just doing the same things it hates Wikipedia for. -Casi

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

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

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

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

Conservapedia is far too liberal to be any good. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Oh dear. I can't agree; Joe, I dare say you almost remind me of the obnoxious type of person that goes around claiming the [[New York Times]] has a conservative bias. In any case, I agree with Casi. The point here should not be to right a conservative article or go on a rant Because We Can. It should be to write an unbiased truth about something. And if we go off simply writing rants, then we will not be considered reliable. Unfortunately, I do think that 65% of the population will be uninterested in ''any'' site that openly identifies with an ideology, so that alone will disqualify CP from contention with WP. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:03, 3 January 2008 (EST)

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

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

I agree, the name(CP0 doesnt seem non biased

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

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

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