Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Public school culture

2008-04-28T02:41:37Z

Kiss20:

Where are you getting this information from? I am in public school and do not fit into ANY of those categories... Kiss20: 22:26 April 27 (EDT)
:Same here. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 22:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I can usually recognize someone as being from public school by (i) his or her fashion, (ii) his or her demeanor, and (iii) his or her outlook as conveyed by body language. Sometimes I need them to say something, and that reveals the remainder. I'm not kidding. The culture is pronounced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Your experiences justify making enormous generalizations? Kiss20: 22:37 April 27 (EDT)

: It's a culture. Objective observations can be made about cultures. Are you trying to censor that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ok first of all, stop accusing me of trying to censor anything just because I am pointing out flaws in your Modus Operandi. And that is one example of high school culture. There are other aspects of high school culture, and I will add them to the article. Kiss20: 22:41 April 27 (EDT)

Talk:Public school culture

2008-04-28T02:37:49Z

Kiss20:

Talk:Public school culture

2008-04-28T02:37:35Z

Kiss20:

Talk:Public school culture

2008-04-28T02:26:53Z

Kiss20: New page: Where are you getting this information from? I am in public school and do not fit into ANY of those categories... Kiss20: 22:26 April 27 (EDT)

Where are you getting this information from? I am in public school and do not fit into ANY of those categories... Kiss20: 22:26 April 27 (EDT)

Compulsive profanity

2008-04-28T02:20:22Z

Kiss20: This is supposed to be an entry, not a discussion/debate/talk page

'''Compulsive profanity''' is a characteristic common to [[public school]] cultures, [[Hollywood values]], and [[liberal]] [[internet]] users. It consists of nonstop [[profanity]] and vulgarity. Some may find humor in it, and shows featured on the cult channel [[Comedy Central]] cater to this audience.

Talk:Compulsive profanity

2008-04-28T02:18:17Z

Kiss20:

==Sigh...==

This is just another one of those "liberals are bad because..." articles, isn't it? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 20:29, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

: I frequently see [[liberals]] use the "sigh". It's almost as popular among them as the "shame on you" feigned outrage! I'll add the "sigh" to [[liberal style]]. Example usage: "Sigh, is this another example of how [[liberal]] culture harms people?" Answer: yes, it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
::"Feigned outrage"? No, I actually am really annoyed by your constant attempts to portray liberals as evil. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:44, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::: You're clueless. Ideas have consequences, and denying that does not help. I haven't used the word "evil" to describe [[liberals]], but denying that ideas have consequences comes pretty close to that word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:05, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

==Revert==
I just changed it to say that Comedy Central is a station rather than a show. Not sure how that's liberal bias. '''[[user:FernoKlump | FernoKlump]]''' 21:46, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

May I ask why my reverts are being reversed? They are completely justified. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 22:18, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Compulsive profanity

2008-04-28T02:08:38Z

Kiss20: Revert did not add citation and reversed opinionated language not suitable for encyclopediac entries

'''Compulsive profanity''' is a characteristic common to [[public school]] cultures, [[Hollywood values]], and [[liberal]] [[internet]] users. It consists of nonstop [[profanity]] and vulgarity. Some individuals may find humor in it, and shows featured on the cult channel [[Comedy Central]] cater to this audience.

Compulsive profanity

2008-04-28T00:46:37Z

Kiss20: Fact contains no citation and sensationalist language.

'''Compulsive profanity''' is a characteristic common to [[public school]] cultures, [[Hollywood values]], and [[liberal]] [[internet]] users. It consists of nonstop [[profanity]] and vulgarity. Some may find humor in it, and cult shows like [[Comedy Central]] cater to this constituency.

Conservapedia:Censorship

2008-04-27T17:13:06Z

Kiss20: /* They're both pathetic */

{{debate}}

Who's worse? The people who censor scientists who disagree with the prevailing theory of evolution? Or the people who falsely accuse this website of censorship when it blocks users who post false or misleading information about the censorship of those scientists?

==Censorship of dissenting scientists==

==Blocking users who accuse this website==

==Blocking users who post relevant information==
I was the various users MakeTime, TakeTwo, TakeThree, JanEngerlund and HarrietJones, all of whom are blocked. My crime was to post a review of [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]] by ''Time'' magazine in the Conservapedia article about the movie. Although an undeniably negative review of the movie, I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=prev&oldid=433362 posted a selection of quotes from the review] in the already existing 'Reviews' section of the ''Expelled'' article. One would imagine an uncontroversial addition to an article - no matter how disagreeable the opinion, which is after all what a movie review is - would be a review by the biggest-selling weekly news magazine in America.

Ed Poor took offense to this line in the review -

{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup."}}

He then [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=prev&oldid=433931 removed the review], stating there was "no evidence" Stein says this - despite not having seen the movie himself. (At this point in time, the movie had been seen by the journalist concerned, but could not have been seen by Mr.Poor as it had not yet been released). He further accused the reviewer of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=next&oldid=434027 "putting words in Steins mouth"]. This unfounded opinion was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=next&oldid=434179 then placed in the 'encyclopedia' article].

A debate on the Talk page began between Ed Poor[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434041&oldid=434034], ASchalfly[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434034&oldid=434032] and myself[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434047&oldid=434041][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434102&oldid=434078][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434112&oldid=434106], where I was accused of supporting a viewpoint on Intelligent Design and/or Evolution - which was never my position, and nor did I ever proclaim an opinion on such matters. I continued to simply argue for the review to be included. I was repeatedly blocked for arguing that whether or not one agreed with the review, it should remain in the the article for Fair Balance, and for pointing out that it was not me who quoted Stein, but the reviewer, who was in fact the only one of the three of us who ''could'' know what Stein "asks" in the movie. The reason given for the blocks was "misquoting", despite the fact that I only ever posted direct transcriptions from the ''Time'' magazine review[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AMakeTime][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ATakeTwo][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ATakeThree][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AJanEngerlund][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AHarrietJones].

Eventually, Ed Poor [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434071&oldid=434070 admitted that he had not seen the movie], and therefore was not in a position to comment on what Stein did or didn't say in the film. Ed Poor went on to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=prev&oldid=438912 remove some of his opinion](admitting it was "incorrect"), leaving others, and finally [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=next&oldid=438912 removed most of the reviews of the movie], claiming that a movie review is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=next&oldid=438915 "is unrelated to the movie"]. My blocks were [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=next&oldid=434105 not lifted], however my comments were mostly removed from the Talk page[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=prev&oldid=434105][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=next&oldid=434112].

The whole farce is yet another cogent example of censorship in Conservapedia, which always censors information and blocks editors for posting material with which the sysops disagree. Not only that, but it presents pretty low ethical standards, as Ed Poor presented an opinion and slanders a reputable journalist without the slightest foundation. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 17:03, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==They're both pathetic==
The blocking here is almost as bad as the silencing of scientists! I'm a very conservative person, but sometimes this site makes me cringe! [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:38, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:People who make exaggerated appeals to emotion make me cringe! This is not an opinion blog, but a project to create an encyclopedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:43, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Encyclopedias are supposed to be as objective as possible. How can one be objective if one refuses to show BOTH sides of the issue?

==Hyperbole/Editorializing Weakens Stance==
First, I want to thank Ed opening this discussion, the latest act in a trend of fairness I'm beginning to notice. My edits always come with (sometimes overtly) long justifications, and a plea to discuss any reverts with me. Hopefully this is the place to do it. I consider any reverts of edits (excluding vandalism) without an adequate discussion to be censorship.

So, I'd like to make a request to discuss the matter of a "liberal" Variety Magazine in the "Expelled" article with Aaschlafly, and Ed Poor as well. I'll accept it here or back on the article's talk page. [[User:SeanF|SeanF]] 23:54, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Homosexuality and choice

2008-04-24T03:56:47Z

Kiss20:

Hi, I found a link where the APA officially state that [[http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#cantherapychange homosexuality is not changeable]]. It's scary that even the largest group of psychologists in the world can be so wrong on this topic. Do you think it's part of a homosexual conspiracy? We should mention this conspiracy in the article. --[[User:Huffers|Huffers]] 10:32, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Why is it that if you ask almost any gay person, including myself, they will tell you that it is not a choice. Do you choose to be straight if you are? Can you force yourself to be gay? It is really a quite stupid question, considering that the one group that has any authority in the matter is consistently ignored. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 22:02 16 January 2008 (EST)

The two most outspoken men in America on this topic are psychologist [[Charles Socarides]] and therapist [[Richard Cohen]] (an ex-gay). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:08, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Socarides was not a psychologist. And he died a few years ago. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:52, 24 February 2008 (EST)

One of the former presidents of APA is involved in organizations helping homosexuals leave homosexuality, and the University of Columbia published statistics recently that showed that if one twin is gay the chance the other one is gay is about 7%. So yes it is a choice. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 10:36, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

May I ask how your statistic is at all evidence for the idea that homosexuality is a choice? The leading medical organizations all agree that "conversion" programs (which are consistent with the idea that homosexuality is a choice) are ineffective and potentially harmful. These include (among others) the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, World Health Organization, and the Council on Child and Adolescent Health. The following is a quote from one of these organizations denouncing such programs "The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable." ~American Psychological Association 1998. Now, where is your scientific evidence that such programs are indeed effective? Please do not offer and example or two of people who have "successfully" changed because I can come up with equal if not greater numbers of failures. There is no firm basis for such belief as every credible medical and psychiatric organization directly contradicts the idea, as does the only community with direct experience with the topic. (I find it ironic that this website is perfectly willing to quote the AMA or WHO when they offer statistics of increased STD rates in the gay community, but not when it comes to the idea that homosexuality is a choice and can be altered). As a gay man, I can tell you that I in no way made the choice to be so. Even at the young age of eight, I began having same-sex attractions. I did not know what heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or any other form of sexuality even was. I did not even know what sex was, yet I still felt attractions to boys where others my age felt it for girls. Your ignorance on the topic is harmful for my community, and the society as a whole. It is people like you who cause the psychological problems among the homosexual community as well as trying to convince them that it is something that needs to be altered.
[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 14:07 23 April 2008 (EST)

:You apparently are assuming that the following two positions cover every aspect of the subject:
:#homosexuality is not changeable
:#[[homosexuality is a choice]]

:This looks like the [[fallacy]] of the "[[excluded middle]]". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:12, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:#

Treatment for alcoholism also has many failures that does not mean it is not worth it to go through the process still, any chance of leaving alcoholism/homosexuality is a sufficient amount-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 18:21, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

However, no credible medical/scientific organization denies an alcoholic's ability to quit drinking, most promote it. The same medical organizations that encourage treatment of alcoholism condemn attempts to "treat" homosexuality. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 20:20 23 April 2008 (EST)

Because of pressure for them to say otherwise, APA changed their view after a big controversy involving homosexuals being hurt by some means by cops happened npt because of research, if I was a teacher and I said homosexuality for example, was wrong I'd get fired-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:53, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's why in an encyclopedia we cannot rely on appeals to authority. Organizations are beset by politics. What we need is hard science, such as research into cure rates. Alcoholics tell us they were cured, by [[Twelve Steps]] or medicine or detox facilities. Homosexuals are beginning to say the same, but AA started in 1935; they've had 7 decades of experience and continued religious and political and legal support.

:Homosexuality is tied to [[moral relativism]], [[feminism]], [[communism]], etc. A well-funded campaign is lobbying for its legitimacy. This affects votes within organizations like the APA.

:I'm not debating here - merely listing facts that need to go into the article. You '''are''' here to help us write the article, aren't you? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:57, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Many prisoners choose homosexuality in prisons-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Kiss20 you have convinced yourself that an unhealthy beahvior is an acceptable behavior to such an extent you refuse to leave it, for example I used to mastrubate, until I till stopped being a slave to my body, and instead practiced self-discipline and thought myself not to do it-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

It was very hard but I took control instead of being a slave to me body, and I can imagine it is hard to get rid of one's homosexual thoughts but that does not mean it should not be done-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:45, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

First of all, I couldn't if I wanted to to. Second of all, I don't even want to. I have absolutely no problem with who I am. In fact, being gay has made me a stronger and better person. It has taught me how to deal with problems on my own, it has taught me to never be ashamed of who I am, never to let other people's definition of who I am superceed my own. If there was a way for me to "go straight" I wouldn't choose it. Why you ask? Because this is who I am, this is who I have found myself to be. I do not seek your or anyone else's approval, I do not need it. I have my own approval, that is all that I need. There is no way you can convince me otherwise, I am merely trying to bring some objectivism to this site. I personally don't care if you hate me, if you disapprove of my lifestyle, because I know that you have no right to judge me. I only work to build tolerance in that my community can finally be given all the rights that society has thusfar denied us. You can continue on hating us, I am not attempting to change your beliefs. I am merely working to ensure that one day people like me are considered equal under the law. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 23:32 23 April 2008 (EST)

I don't hate homosexuals, I disprove of their lifestyle, major difference-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 23:37, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Hate, disapprove, take your pick. My message is still the same.[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 23:56 23 April 2008 (EST)

Talk:Homosexuality and choice

2008-04-24T03:32:08Z

Kiss20:

Talk:Homosexuality and choice

2008-04-24T00:20:57Z

Kiss20:

Talk:Homosexuality and choice

2008-04-23T20:56:48Z

Kiss20:

Talk:Homosexuality and choice

2008-04-23T18:07:36Z

Kiss20:

Day of silence

2008-03-11T22:09:43Z

Kiss20:

The '''Day of Silence''' is a day supported by many schools and students across the [[United States of America]] in an attempt to create acceptance of homosexual and other alternative lifestyles. It is sponsored by the Gay Lesbian Student Education Network and the Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transvestite Student Empowerment Project of the United States Student Association.

According to the manual on the official web site, the Day of Silence is:
{{QuoteBox|Founded in 1996 by students at the University of Virginia, and currently officially sponsored in
K-12 schools by GLSEN, the Day of Silence is the largest student-led action to protest the
bullying and harassment of LGBT people and their allies ever. Participants take a day long
vow of silence and distribute or wear speaking cards with information about anti-LGBT bias
and ways for students and others to “end the silence.” Through Breaking the Silence events,
students can speak out against harassment and demand change for their schools and
communities.."<ref>http://www.dayofsilence.org/downloads/Manual%20Draft%20Final.pdf</ref>}}
== Reference ==
{{reflist}}

Cramming

2008-02-12T03:16:22Z

Kiss20: /* Educational Context */

Cramming

2008-02-12T03:14:24Z

Kiss20:

'''Cramming''' is a practice in which [[customer]]s are billed for enhanced [[telecommunications]] features such as voice [[mail]], caller-ID and call-waiting that they have not ordered.

== Educational Context ==
'''Cramming''' within an educational context refers to the practice of studying heavily directly prior to an exam or assessment. Cramming is often considered a useful technique for pure factual recall. Cramming does not typically, however, enhance the student's ability to use the information in a less than explicitly taught manner. Cramming is not considered a beneficial technique for long term mastery of the material. <ref>http://www.worldwidelearn.com/education-advisor/questions/does-cramming-for-tests-work.php</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Access charge]]
*[[Slamming]]

[[Category:Telecommunications]]

Talk:Homosexual belief system

2008-02-12T03:07:20Z

Kiss20:

==Proposal for Deletion==
I would like to propose the deletion of this entry. It is putting words into the mouths of thousands of people. It does not even have any form of a source associated with it. This is blatant stereotyping and makes a blanket statement. [[User:Kiss20 | Kiss20]] 22:48 EST 2/10/08
:[[Conservapedia:Deletion Policy]] 
:The Administrators are the final authority for deciding what should and should not be deleted on CP. Some articles will NOT be deleted - no matter what your liberal heart desires. '''This article will not be deleted.''' --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 19:34, 11 February 2008 (EST)
:The question is not the matter whether it is a liberal or conservative issue. The problem with this page is that it does not have a drop of encyclopedic content. It has no sources/references to an form of official creed. It is based on mere speculation by the author. This article has no basis, lacking even a basic statistical source. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 19:44, 11, February 2008 (EST)
::Read above. Anyone criticizing this article's encyclopedic value has a [[liberal heart]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:04, 11 February 2008 (EST)
::That or, just throwing this out there, they actually know what qualification as "encyclopedic" means? Encyclopedic is itself based on verifiable fact. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 22:07, 11 February 2008 (EST)

==Revert==
Not true. Statistically, no study shows that people with religious motives persecute more than people who just hate them. If there is, please include. --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 23:26, 10 February 2008 (EST)

I have added the appropriate reference. [[User:Rodney|Rodney]] 23:28, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Homosexual belief system

2008-02-12T00:44:51Z

Kiss20: /* Proposal for Deletion */

==Proposal for Deletion==
I would like to propose the deletion of this entry. It is putting words into the mouths of thousands of people. It does not even have any form of a source associated with it. This is blatant stereotyping and makes a blanket statement. [[User:Kiss20 | Kiss20]] 22:48 EST 2/10/08
:[[Conservapedia:Deletion Policy]] 
:The Administrators are the final authority for deciding what should and should not be deleted on CP. Some articles will NOT be deleted - no matter what your liberal heart desires. '''This article will not be deleted.''' --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 19:34, 11 February 2008 (EST)
:The question is not the matter whether it is a liberal or conservative issue. The problem with this page is that it does not have a drop of encyclopedic content. It has no sources/references to an form of official creed. It is based on mere speculation by the author. This article has no basis, lacking even a basic statistical source. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 19:44, 11, February 2008 (EST)

==Revert==
Not true. Statistically, no study shows that people with religious motives persecute more than people who just hate them. If there is, please include. --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 23:26, 10 February 2008 (EST)

I have added the appropriate reference. [[User:Rodney|Rodney]] 23:28, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Homosexual belief system

2008-02-12T00:25:58Z

Kiss20:

Homophobia

2008-02-11T03:59:39Z

Kiss20: Definition edited to remove sensationalism and add a technical definition which the page was lacking.

The term '''homophobia''' most directly means the "fear of homosexuality" but, as with terms such as xenophobia, also implies a hate or prejudice against homosexuals. The term implies that everyone who opposes homosexuality is being irrational, i.e., literally suffering from a [[mental illness]] (see also [[Phobia]]). Often the word is used interchangeably: the distinction between "any opposition" and "crazy opposition" is blurred.

It is primarily used by [[gay activist]]s to portray opposition to the [[homosexual agenda]] as irrational <ref>Charles W. Socarides, M.D., [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay], ''America'', (November 18, 1995). </ref>
based on fear or hatred, and to smear Christians and others. It is intended to sound like a form of [[mental illness]], but unlike actual phobias, it is not a term for any recognized psychological condition. <ref> According to the National Association for Research & Therapy on Homosexuality (NARTH), gay-rights advocate Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. wrote that the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture. [http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html Gay Psychologist Creates New Terms for Use in the Social Debate]. "In his paper on homophobia, stigma, and sexual prejudice, Dr. Herek suggests that although the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture, the term may be too limited in its scope today."</ref>

NARTH says,
:"The term "homophobia" is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia—or irrational fear—of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled "homophobia." <ref>[http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html NARTH Position Statements]</ref>

When used in this [[pejorative]] sense, the term is offensive and derogatory (see [[Mockery]]).

===Etymology===
The word comes from combining the Greek prefix ''homo-'', meaning "same", and suffix ''-phobia'', meaning "fear of". In early usage by homosexual activists, the term described heterosexual fears that others might think they were homosexual <ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html</ref> The neologism was promoted by George Weinberg, a gay activist and psychologist, who attempted to define it in clinical literature shortly before the downgrading of homosexuality as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973. Weinberg claimed it was "the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals -- and in the case of homosexuals themselves, selfloathing."<ref>Plummer, David, ''One of the Boys: Masculinity, Homophobia, and Modern Manhood'', [http://books.google.com/books?id=xHGz4f_2_7IC&pg=PA3&ots=U8ktZZgnAk&dq=George+Weinberg+homophobia&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=d7hjCcZ1uuBlgdLyRjUJwEn51uA#PPA3,M1 pp. 3-4]: "'Homophobia was introduced into the clinical literature by George Weinberg in 1972, in ''Society and the Healthy Homosexual.'' </ref> The term then entered common usage beginning with pornographic publications. <ref>Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D., published ''Beyond 'Homophobia': Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the Twenty-First Century,'' in the April, 2004, issue of Sexuality Research & Social Policy. </ref>

The terms meaning has not been accepted or agreed upon within the psychological therapeutic community. William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles <ref>William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/n0264m864t146585/ Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues], Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Volume 15, Number 3, Springer Netherlands, September, 1993. ISSN 0882-2689</ref> have concluded based upon research within the therapeutic community a clear understanding of the term has not been adequately evaluated and it is not clear whether the term can be accurately characterized. They have concluded, "the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality."

==="Internalized homophobia"===
The therapeutic community is largely divided between proponents of [[gay gene]] theory who believe a person is born gay and will always be gay, and proponents of [[Reparative therapy]] who believe with sympathy and understanding a homosexual can be relieved of afflictions if they so desire. Gay gene advocates seek to criminalize so-called "homophobia", despite many homophobes themselves being gay, whereas Restoration therapy advocates point out the cruelty of brainwashing a young person into believing -- based upon theoretical evidence -- there is no hope of ever leading a heterosexual lifestyle.

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi reports homosexuality is a symptom of an underlying problem of [[gender identity]]. Nicolosi says,
:In the classic triadic family we have a sensitive boy who did not get the close, affirming relationship with his father that would have confirmed him in his gender identity, and a mother who is likely to be over-close and standing in the way between father and son. The father was not supportive enough in affirming, recognizing and reinforcing the boy's maleness. <ref name = "griefwork">[http://www.narth.com/docs/griefwork.html Clinical Issues: Grief Work], Interview: Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.</ref>

Nicolosi adds many gay men admit that no matter how liberated they are, they always struggle, on some deeper level, with a sense of inferiority or self-loathing. Some therapists refer to this as internalized homophobia. Nicolosi attributes this feeling to an internal process, unrelated to social stigma, which precedes same-sex attractions.<ref name = "griefwork"/>

=== Homophobia as an "Irrational Fear" ===
The suffix "phobia" <ref>Psychologists do not recognize it as a phobia in any generally recognized publication like the DSM IV.</ref> suggests an irrational fear, but it is most often used as a attack term by [[gay rights]] groups to suggest that opposition to [[homosexuality]] is irrational and hateful.<ref>Eg, this site [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_phob.htm] first defines homophobia as a dread or fear, but says that it includes those who write their Congressmen to oppose same-sex marriage.</ref> Dr. Sander J. Breiner of NARTH has stated, "it would be very valuable for society in general, and therapists in particular, to have a clear picture of homophobia separated from all the other topics that have been lumped under that rubric." <ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-breiner.html HOMOPHOBIA: A Scientific Non-Political Definition], Dr. Sander J. Breiner, National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality, 2003.</ref> Of the myriads of references to the term in popular and other sociologic publications Breiner observes, "There is no personal, internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia. The terms do not exist in the recognized scientific literature...There is only one homophobia, which has been properly defined," in the the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) <ref>[http://anxiety.psy.ohio-state.edu/phobia-d.htm Specific Phobia DSM-IV Criteria]</ref> developed by the American Psychiatric Association. Breiner, an advocate of [[Reparative therapy]], acknowledges "There is no doubt that homophobia exists" as an irrational fear among both homosexuals and heterosexuals. 2 Timothy 1:7 says, "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. <ref>[http://bible.cc/2_timothy/1-7.htm 2 Timothy 1:7]</ref>

=== Violence against gays ===

In 1990, Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act, which required the Attorney General to collect data about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin. In 1994, lawmakers amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include bias against persons with disabilities. <ref>Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005: About Hate Crime[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/abouthc.htm]</ref>

In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 348 of which are property crimes which includes theft and grafitti. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. </ref> While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders. Thus a conclusion that all offenders are heterosexual is faulty, and the methodology does not measure gay-on-gay violence. In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. </ref> Of greater concern among homosexuals is the higher risk and more frequent incidence of [[Homosexuality#Homosexual_Couples_and_Violent_Behavior|Gay Domestic Abuse]] in same sex domestic partnerships than among the heterosexual population.

While 818 bias motivated crimes of persons against gays were reported nationwide in 2004, a earlier study found 5046 incidences of homosexual domestic violence in only nine cities, all of which are crimes of persons. The subject of homosexual domestic violence has not been researched with anything near the thoroughness afforded to heterosexual domestic violence, however the uniformity of conclusions based upon varying sample sizes all point to a prevalence ranging from 20%-35% of homsexual domestic partnerships. <ref>[http://ncavp.org/common/document_files/Reports/2001ncavpdvrpt.pdf Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Domestic Violence in 2001,] National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 2002.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Opposition to homosexuality]]
*[[Gay agenda]]
*[[Gender identity disorder]]
*[[Heterophobia]]

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

==External links==
*[http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/homophobia.asp Homophobia Online: The Westboro Baptist Church], Anti-Defamation League (2001). Retrieved 05/23/07.

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Talk:Overcoming homosexuality

2008-02-11T03:51:39Z

Kiss20: /* Dissenting views */

"Today people still report leaving homosexuality and becoming heterosexuals through their Christian faith."

I propose changing the wording to reflect the idea that some ex-homosexuals simply become sexually inactive, or effectively asexual. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:24, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Also, has anyone left homosexuality due to another faith? Islam, for instance? They have some pretty harsh anti-homosexual laws.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 01:11, 30 November 2007 (EST)

:Well, the President of Iran claims there are no homosexuals in his country, so apparently it has occurred. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:28, 30 November 2007 (EST)

The Apostle Paul says that celibacy is no better nor worse than marriage, so it should be clear that lifelong celibacy is an option. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:24, 30 November 2007 (EST)

==Dissenting views==

The point I made wasn't unreasonable. I thought the whole idea of a free form wiki that everyone can edit is that one person doesn't claim ownership of articles. I say this from experience in Wikipedia (Which I have left) and Citizendium. [[User:MarcusCicero|MarcusCicero]] 22:07, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Mr.Conservative, have you ever met a Homosexual? Just curious. [[User:Reasonableperson|Reasonableperson]] 18:38, 11 December 2007 (EST)

:Judging by the incredibly ignorant views on them, I would say no. [[User: Kiss20|Kiss20]] 22:51, 12 December 2007

Talk:Overcoming homosexuality

2008-02-11T03:50:51Z

Kiss20:

Talk:Homosexual belief system

2008-02-11T03:48:35Z

Kiss20:

I would like to propose the deletion of this entry. It is putting words into the mouths of thousands of people. It does not even have any form of a source associated with it. This is blatant stereotyping and makes a blanket statement. [[User:Kiss20 | Kiss20]] 22:48 EST 2/10/08

Talk:Homosexual belief system

2008-02-11T03:48:02Z

Kiss20: New page: I would like to propose the deletion of this entry. It is putting words into the mouths of thousands of people. It does not even have any form of a source associated with it. This is blata...

Same-sex marriage

2008-01-23T00:38:48Z

Kiss20: Information removed had no citation and no source.

[[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".{{fact}}]]
'''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.

The [[liberal]] rationale for same-sex marriage goes like this:
*Marriage is a freedom.
*No one can criticize what is good.
*A [[same-sex union]], defined as marriage, is good.
*Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions.

The [[conservative]] rationale against same-sex marriage goes like this:
*Homosexuals destroy the sanctity of marriage
*God forbids homosexuality
*Anyone who criticizes this is against God

__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 civil rights 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 civil rights advocates 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.

Although the studies are decades behind heterosexual studies on violence between men and women, the indications are that homosexual relationships suffer from a much higher degree of physical violence than heterosexual relationships. Several studies have been made, and more are ongoing. However, it is safe to say at this juncture, that [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual domestic relationships suffer from violence two to four times higher than the well studied incidence in heterosexual relationships]].

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

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

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Talk:Homosexuality and choice

2008-01-17T03:04:51Z

Kiss20:

Why is it that if you ask almost any gay person, including myself, they will tell you that it is not a choice. Do you choose to be straight if you are? Can you force yourself to be gay? It is really a quite stupid question, considering that the one group that has any authority in the matter is consistently ignored. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 22:02 16 January 2008 (EST)

The two most outspoken men in America on this topic are psychologist [[Charles Socarides]] and therapist [[Richard Cohen]] (an ex-gay). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:08, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Homosexuality and choice

2008-01-17T00:33:37Z

Kiss20: Quote removed is not of a sufficient scientific or objective background

[[Image:Decision_screen.gif‎|right|thumb|150px|Given the existence of [[ex-homosexuals]] and given the [[ Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|existence of human cultures where homosexuality has apparently not existed]], the position that homosexuality is ultimately a choice in individuals or at the very least can be a choice in individuals has strong evidential support.]]
In respect to the issue of''' homosexuality and choice''', given the existence of [[ex-homosexuals]] and given the [[ Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|existence of human cultures where homosexuality has apparently not existed]], the position that homosexuality is ultimately a choice in individuals or at the very least can be a choice in individuals has strong evidential support. In addition, given that the [[Homosexuality and Health|homosexual population has significantly higher rates of many diseases and the homosexual population also has significantly lower rates of various measures of mental health]] it can be strongly argued that engaging in homosexual acts is a bad choice for individuals. Another other factor that makes engaging in homosexual acts a bad choice for individuals is the significantly higher rates of [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|domestic violence in homosexual couples]]. In addition, according to experts [[Homosexuality and Murders|homosexual murders are relatively or quite common and often homosexual murders are very brutal]]. Also, the [[Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use|homosexual population has a greater propensity to engage in illegal drug use]].

In addition, a distinction is made between choosing to have homosexual desires and choosing to engage in homosexual sex acts. "Pro-gay" partisans and scientists alike are united in the view that no one choose to have homosexual desires. <ref>"Neither do we deny that there is an element of free will in the development of homosexuality; not that a child chooses to be homosexual, but that the child chooses to respond to his or her less than perfect environment in ways that can lead to homosexuality [http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/books/sevensteps/Chapter3/index.html Alan Medinger, “How to Raise a Heterosexual Child,” Regeneration News, November, 1992.] </ref> Yet there are other aspects of choice to homosexuality. One can decide the following aspects: whether or not to believe that homosexual acts are detrimental to one's immortal soul, emotional well-being or physical health and one can also obviously choose whether to enter into a homosexual relationship or not. Obviously one must use wisdom and also do diligence in regards to these matters. For example, the [[Homosexuality and the Bible|Bible condemns homosexuality]] and sound [[Bible exegesis]] reveals this matter.

The [[Roman Catholic Church]]'s position is that having homosexual desires can be a choice in individuals but having homosexual desires is not a choice in respect to all individuals.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref><ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html</ref> However, according to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref>

Dr. Nadia El-Awady reflects the view of many adherents of [[Islam]] when he stated the following:
{{Cquote|Much research has been done over the years to discover the scientific origins of homosexuality. Mostly it has been to disprove the fact that homosexuality is a matter of choice.<ref>http://www.unav.es/civil/nsd/nosindebate/elawadi.pdf</ref>}}
==Optimal Choice==
The optimal choice is never to become involved in homosexual activities, given the [[Homosexuality Research|many undesirable consequences of homosexuality]] and given what the [[Homosexuality and the Bible|Bible states about homosexuality]]. However, there is certainly hope for the individual who wants to [[Overcoming Homosexuality|overcome homosexuality]] by the grace of [[God]].

==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Ex-Homosexuals]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]

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

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Psychology]]

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2008-01-17T00:30:42Z

Kiss20: /* Sauce for you. */

{{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.

== 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?

==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)

Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?

2008-01-13T18:50:20Z

Kiss20: /* No */

{{debate}}

''Are homosexuals "born that way"? Would it outrage their personhood to suppress the desire to fornicate with a member of the same sex?''

==Yes==

"Are homosexuals "born that way"?"

I think the science is not all in on that one. All I do know is that many of them have known they were "different" from a very young age.

"Would it outrage their personhood to suppress the desire to fornicate with a member of the same sex?"

What a sick, controlling question. I know it would outrage my personhood to suppress any desire I hold because ''someone else'' finds it abominable or disgusting. As it should, indeed, outrage theirs if I were to expect them to suppress a desire that I think is wrong somehow. Although, now that I think about it, why shouldn't all warmaking people suppress that desire? A bit off topic there. Anyway, yes, I'm certain that it would be a cruel outrage for expect or force someone else to suppress their desires where they do not affect you personally. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, there are elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts. This question is more of a free will versus determinism question than about the science behind homosexuality. People have the choice in whether or not they have a relationship with a person of the same sex. I believe that we have the free will in what we do and so homosexuals have the choice of not committing those sinful acts. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 21:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Those that think the acts are "sinful" can make that choice, yes. Those that don't are free to act in a way that increases their happiness. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Yea but it's so hard not to do it[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==No==

I believe that there are elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out [[homosexual act]]s. Homosexuals are not "born that way", and it would not outrage their personhood to suppress the desire to fornicate with a member of the same sex. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:46, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Answered below.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality is a choice. It definitely isn't something that is programmed into your genes. I was told to compare it to drug addiction. Drug addicts are never "born that way". However, once the choice is made (to do drugs, or engage in homosexual acts) the addicted rarely want to break the cycle. Sometimes the addicted can't pinpoint the exact moment the choice is made or blow off their actions as "just nothing" (Such as smoking a marijuanna cigarette or making out with another boy.) It is a slippery slope once the abuse begins. These addictions can be overcome though, but it is never easy. One must dedicate themselves to the rehabilitation process and truly give themselves to Jesus. That way, and that way alone is the way to overcome the Homosexual addiction. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]

:Out of curiosity, do you believe - following the drug addict analogy - that almost ''anyone'' could potentially become "addicted" to homosexuality? I was never quite clear what the supposed stance on vulnerability to homosexuality was... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 16:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:Oh, and I thought this might be an interesting contribution to the debate: [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316316,00.html Scientists Make Fruit Flies Gay, Then Straight Again.] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 16:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::As far as vulnerability goes, it depends on the person, their mental strength and the environment they grow up in. Some people might be coaxed into homosexual acts because it's the "cool" thing to do, especially since Hollywood appears to be fixated on glamorizing the homosexual lifestyle. Children raised in a secular environment, or by same-sex parents are more likely to become homosexuals because the temptation is always there (Just like how a child raised by drug-addicts is more likely to become a drug addict themselves because there are constantly drugs in the household.) However, children raised in a traditional family that attends a Christian church regularly is far less likely to become a homosexual because the behavior is discouraged and there is little or no temptation. Individuals need a considerably larger amount of mental strength in a secular environment to resist homosexuality than they would need in an environment that embraces Jesus. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]

:So does that mean the apparent "sexual orientation" of homosexuals is merely the expression of the individual experiencing that temptation? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:53, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::Feebasfactor, your article hardly proves anything. Fruit fly behavior is much simpler than that of humans and is entirely based on genetic teachings. Human behavior is much more complex and more learned. I do not believe, however, that being gay is a choice in anyway. I am gay and I certainly did not make that choice. Have you ever noticed that almost every gay person says that it is NOT a choice? Why is it that the beliefs of straight people always overrule ours, when they have no experience in the matter? Those "gone straight" bible stories are people just denying who they are because they can't handle the social stigma or have some hell and brimstone complex. I have known people who have tried that, it never worked for them. It is, however, their choice if they want to put themselves through the emotional pain of these "programs." Some people can't handle it, and I respect that, however, I think in the end they are just harming themselves more. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 13:48, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Maybe==

I think there is a division of homosexuality. I think that some people during their youth are sexually confused by hormones, and they engage is sexual acts that they otherwise wouldn't. I have a friend who is straight as can be, but he's had homosexual sex before, as a teen, and regrets it, because he was not homosexual. Also, I don't believe in "Bisexuality." I can give that people can be attracted to the opposite sex, but I don't think that you can be attracted to both. I think bisexually is just a lack of CARING about what you have sex with, so long as you are having sex.

Now, I am a strong believer in gay rights and I believe that at least some gays are in some way a natural occurrence. I have many gay friends and am a member of our school's LGBTS alliance. I have meet many single sex couples, including a pair of lesbians partners who are currently raising a daughter that is more well behaved than most straight raised couples and she is heterosexual to boot.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:How can bisexuality be a lack of caring? I am bisexual, and besides the fact that I am not legally old enough to have sex, there are plenty of people with whom I simply would not want to do so.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 20:18, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::I just don't think you can be both. I think you can be either one or the other. Being bisexual means that you don't care whether or not you are having sex with a man or a woman. Also, if you are not legally old enough to have sex (No such thing btw, sex isn't illegal) then you may not be bisexual. You might be hormonally confused. It happens. But anyway, I just don't think bisexuality is a valid sexual identity. I think its more like you just want to have sex, and its really irrelevant what you are having sex with. I mean, feel free to think me wrong. It just what I personally feel. You can either be gay or straight, but both is pushing it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:16, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== The Obvious Arguments ==
People have said repeatedly that homosexuality is not "inborn" - rather, it appears at a very early age, such that people don't remember it, so they think it's inborn, but it's not. The question is, how does this matter? If the change is subtle, at a young age, and permanent, how is it any different from being "inborn" in the respect it deserves? The trait is still immutable, and discrimination based on immutable traits is flat-out bigotry (racism, sexism). So, does it matter if the trait is inborn, if it can be proved to be acquired early on, as Ed has argued?

Second, the argument is that homosexuals do not have to be "practicing" homosexuals - they can abstain. The request, then, is for homosexuals to live a sex-less life. Hands up who's male, straight, and adult here (*hand up*). Hands up who'd be mad as anything if they couldn't have sex ever again (*hand up*). Now impute that same prospective frustration onto homosexuals. Can you deny someone, even someone with whom you disagree, someone who you think is a sinner, the basic right of expression & love that sexual intimacy is? Plenty of people do voluntarily - but that's entered into voluntarily, not by forcible compulsion.

A closing thought: if it disgusts you, so be it; don't do it. If you think it'll condemn gays to Hell, so be it; according to fundamentalist Christianity, all Muslims & Jews are going to hell anyways, and you seem capable of getting along with them. Ed, maybe "evil" doesn't deserve your acceptance, but you "accept" evil all the time in the form of different religions. The point is that it doesn't hurt anyone to be accepting of '''a right that infringes upon none of yours.'''-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Very eloquent: "You should be a lawyer." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks Ed! I try. I've just seen too many good people go through pain & trauma because they've been needlessly ostracized for their sexual orientation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::As Ed said, very eloquent. I agree completely; this equivocation is ridiculous. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:23, 8 November 2007 (EST)

:Hey, I didn't say "correct", I just said "eloquent". ;-)
::Yeah, but in the legal world, you don't have to be correct to be right.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:48, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::"if it disgusts you"... The thought of many, many people fornicating/consummating their marriage disgusts me. But, ''it is none of my business who they choose to do it with''. And none of yours, either. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:37, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

==Does It Matter?==
Regardless of whether homosexuality is genetically determined or a personal choice, that doesn't necessarily make it right. It's a no-brainer, guys. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:23, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Homosexual act

2008-01-10T00:44:06Z

Kiss20: Removed portion was opinion and is subjective.

The term '''homosexual act''' can be applied to any romantic or erotic interaction between persons of the same sex.

Attitudes towards such acts vary, subjectively, from culture to culture, and from individual to individual. Liberals claim that references to and records of sexual relations between persons of the same sex exist for almost every human civilization throughout history somehow make the act acceptable.

However, such acts are forbidden by religious texts such as the [[Bible]] and the [[Qur'an]].

[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Homosexual act

2008-01-09T01:24:06Z

Kiss20: Religion is equally subjective as societal views. There are just as many religious views as societal ones.

Talk:Matthew Shepard

2008-01-09T01:21:44Z

Kiss20:

--[[User:Incide|Incide]] 12:26, 17 December 2007 (EST)Could it be that guys who'd brutally murdered someone might just lie about their motives to avoid being charged with a hate crime? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 13:59, 14 November 2007 (EST)

I'm almost looking forward to reading about a bunch of gay dudes that murder a straight guy because he is straight and see how quickly right-wingers pull out the 'hate crime' card.

:Conservapedia's quote from 20/20 is completely irrelevant. If these two individuals are so lacking in morals that they are willing to kill (based on Shepard's sexuality or not) they would obviously be willing to lie as to their motives to avoid a potential hate crime prosecution. Hate crime is a substantially more punishable offense then a non-hate crime. I am sure their lawyer was involved in that statement. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 20:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)

{{unsigned|incide}}

: Check out [[Mary Stachowicz]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: HA! I knew it. Still, I really can't see this as being a hate crime. He didn't kill her because she was straight, he killed her because he had "issues". It looks as if he would have killer her if she continuously told him not to eat cheeseburgers (and inane example I know but I'm trying to prove a point.) Had he randomly picked her out of a crowd as being staright and killed her for that, then it would be a hate crime--beyond any shadow of a doubt. But savagely murdering someone because she disagreed with his sexuality is indicative of something far more serious.--[[User:Incide|Incide]] 09:28, 13 December 2007 (EST)
::So the issues didn't involve hate at all? Did he kill her out of love? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:44, 13 December 2007 (EST)

:::That is asinine! Of course he hated her. But he hated ''her''. Her the person. Her the person that ragged on him all the time for being gay. Does her sexuality come into play? Yes. But inasmuch as it was one of the driving forces behind her nagging along with her 'religious devotion'. Had that not occured and he not be as "troubled" as he is, this would not have happened.--[[User:Incide|Incide]] 10:01, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::::What you're implying is when someone who is GAY kills someone straight it is not a hate crime, but it IS A HATE CRIME when someone straight kills the gay person. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:49, 14 December 2007 (EST)
:::::No. clearly, you've misunderstood what i wrote. but i'm guessing that there is very little i can do to convince you otherwise.
:::::A question, then. If the roles were reversed. If a gay person who tried to "convert" a straight person (putting aside your archaic view of morality for just a moment because i know that it will come into play) and the straight person kills the gay person: whould THAT be a hate crime? Or would the straight person be justified?
::::::There's no justification for murdering someone at all, and no, my morals are not archaic, and no, you are to cease rocking the boat here, because all you're trying to do is to put some sort of justification for homosexuality here...which clearly shows your own hatred for this site and the persons who hold fast to those morals you claim are archaic. It stops now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:38, 17 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::i'm not trying to justifying anything. i'm stating my opinion. you would do the same and should do the same. I thought America still had the first amendment. Has this been revoked? Am i not allowed to say what I believe to be true? Should the fact that it angers people be enough for it to be censored? You have the right to belive and say whatever you want. This website is proof positive of that. What you don't have the rigth to do is tell ME what I CAN or CANNOT say. --[[User:Incide|Incide]] 14:17, 17 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::Then tell me, Incide...do you have a First Amendment right to come on to this website and force your opinion on others? I don't think you do. The only reason you are here is because you cannot stand conservatism; you cannot stand those who criticise homosexuality for what it is and what it could do to people; you cannot stand those who created this website to promote those values you claim are archaic...and if we object to what you say and how you say it, well, then you complain it's your First Amendment rights that are violated. Have a nice day! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:59, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::Oh yes, I forgot something...you have '''NO''' First Amendment rights here. Your IP hails from either Saint Laurent, Quebec, or Toronto, Ontario; both of which are in Canada, which means you're Canadian. Therefore, you are not an American citizen under our constitution by which you could have First Amendment rights. Bye. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::It's a private website, Incide, they control the content, and do not have to justify deletions. Unlike wikipedia, where more than one opinion is allowed and you can only be banned by blatant vandalism. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 13:11, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Mike Huckabee

2008-01-04T22:28:36Z

Kiss20: /* Gossip removed */

This sentence,

("He has criticized President George W. Bush's tax cuts as being too oriented towards the wealthy, although the Congressional Budget Office released a report in 2004, that claimed the opposite." )

does not have a source, and as far as i have seen is not supported by his statements [http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm|statements]. I may be wrong, but this allegation should be taken off the article, unless proven otherwise. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 11:59, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Also, this sentence at the end of the top summary should be fixed:

 "His victory has placed moved him unto the top tier of Republican primary canidates[3][4]."

--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 12:04, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

== Religion ==

hey im supprised that there isn`t more info on his religious views, even fox are suggesting that all the religious talk means he doesn`t have to talk about real politics. Personally I quite like the guy he seems like a genuine caring person but I think if he does win the republican nomination the democrats will win the election. He is too conservative to pull in any democrat votes. This is what fox are saying and I think it might be true, if he wins the nomination the republicans dont stand a chance of winning the presidency. I know this might be a little hard to swallow for some but i think its true, just as the democrats dont stand a chance if the nominate a far left nut, the same (not that im calling any1 a nut) could be said for the GOP. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:13, 19 December 2007 (EST)

By the way in not American im british but i find American politics fasinating, British politics are dull and theres no difference in the parties, all of them, even our most conservative mainstream party is centre, maybe centre left! If you do want to vote for a conservative party the only option is the BNP (British National Party) but them are racists so no-one likes them and they get like 3% of the vote. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:20, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Mike Huckabee is actually a reliable candidate? ==

[http://www.anncoulter.com/],
<blockquote>Huckabee's statement that he agreed with the court's sodomy ruling was made one week after the decision.</blockquote>
Another source: [http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=2786 Mike Huckabee by James Buchanan] .
[http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=2585 Mike Huckabee disgraceful records]

I think that Mike Huckabee is a liberal hoax, who is temporarily supporting conservative ideas to be promoted in the GOP. I think that [[Ron Paul]] is the right conservative candidate. [[User:Thiudareiks|Thiudareiks]] 09:42, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:Talk pages on CP are actually meant to discuss the ''article'', not a general discussion forum about the ''subject'' of the article. What '''you''' ''think'' about eg Mike Huckabee is irrelevant. Make a referenced contribution to the article or drink a nice cup of "shsssssh" :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:50, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== Gossip removed ==

I took out a section that was just put back in, with the editor saying it was only fair to put in controversy about both sides. This is "controversy" about his son! This deserves no place in an article about him. If you have controversies actually about the candidate, feel free to add them. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:50, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Actually there is reason to mention this particular incident. Mike Huckabee is now facing questions as to how large of a role he played in preventing a state investigation into the incident. The then Chief of State Police has testified that people close to Huckabee (his attorney and Chief of Staff) personally called the local prosecuting attorney to reduce the chances of an investigation. It is currently unclear how large a role Huckabee took in stopping the investigation into his son's actions, but it is certainly relevant as it is a possible example of corruption. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 16:24, 4 January 2008

: This is [[liberal]] claptrap, the kind of [[gossip]] that has ruined [[Wikipedia]] and poisons debate of the issues. It's pathetic, really. Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty"? Not only is proof lacking, but there are not even any charges. It has no place here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:29, 4 January 2008 (EST)

The lack of charges, and innocent until proven guilty is not the issue here. The issue is that there is the possibility that Huckabee abused his position of power to protect his son. The candidate's political stance is irrelevant here, it is a question as to whether his past actions show his willingness to protect those close to him from the law. All crimes, no matter who committed them, should be investigated to the full extent of the law. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 17:22, 4 January 2008

: Some people who don't like Huckabee have raised unsubstantiated charges that are not particularly serious anyway. Not here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Unsubstantiated? The chief of state police testified that he was pressured by two people very close to Huckabee to cease any investigation. That seems pretty substantial. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 17:28, 4 January 2008

Talk:Mike Huckabee

2008-01-04T22:22:26Z

Kiss20: /* Gossip removed */

Talk:Mike Huckabee

2008-01-04T22:22:09Z

Kiss20: /* Gossip removed */

This sentence,

("He has criticized President George W. Bush's tax cuts as being too oriented towards the wealthy, although the Congressional Budget Office released a report in 2004, that claimed the opposite." )

does not have a source, and as far as i have seen is not supported by his statements [http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm|statements]. I may be wrong, but this allegation should be taken off the article, unless proven otherwise. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 11:59, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Also, this sentence at the end of the top summary should be fixed:

 "His victory has placed moved him unto the top tier of Republican primary canidates[3][4]."

--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 12:04, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

== Religion ==

hey im supprised that there isn`t more info on his religious views, even fox are suggesting that all the religious talk means he doesn`t have to talk about real politics. Personally I quite like the guy he seems like a genuine caring person but I think if he does win the republican nomination the democrats will win the election. He is too conservative to pull in any democrat votes. This is what fox are saying and I think it might be true, if he wins the nomination the republicans dont stand a chance of winning the presidency. I know this might be a little hard to swallow for some but i think its true, just as the democrats dont stand a chance if the nominate a far left nut, the same (not that im calling any1 a nut) could be said for the GOP. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:13, 19 December 2007 (EST)

By the way in not American im british but i find American politics fasinating, British politics are dull and theres no difference in the parties, all of them, even our most conservative mainstream party is centre, maybe centre left! If you do want to vote for a conservative party the only option is the BNP (British National Party) but them are racists so no-one likes them and they get like 3% of the vote. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:20, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Mike Huckabee is actually a reliable candidate? ==

[http://www.anncoulter.com/],
<blockquote>Huckabee's statement that he agreed with the court's sodomy ruling was made one week after the decision.</blockquote>
Another source: [http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=2786 Mike Huckabee by James Buchanan] .
[http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=2585 Mike Huckabee disgraceful records]

I think that Mike Huckabee is a liberal hoax, who is temporarily supporting conservative ideas to be promoted in the GOP. I think that [[Ron Paul]] is the right conservative candidate. [[User:Thiudareiks|Thiudareiks]] 09:42, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:Talk pages on CP are actually meant to discuss the ''article'', not a general discussion forum about the ''subject'' of the article. What '''you''' ''think'' about eg Mike Huckabee is irrelevant. Make a referenced contribution to the article or drink a nice cup of "shsssssh" :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:50, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== Gossip removed ==

I took out a section that was just put back in, with the editor saying it was only fair to put in controversy about both sides. This is "controversy" about his son! This deserves no place in an article about him. If you have controversies actually about the candidate, feel free to add them. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:50, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Actually there is reason to mention this particular incident. Mike Huckabee is now facing questions as to how large of a role he played in preventing a state investigation into the incident. The then Chief of State Police has testified that people close to Huckabee (his attorney and Chief of Staff) personally called the local prosecuting attorney to reduce the chances of an investigation. It is currently unclear how large a role Huckabee took in stopping the investigation into his son's actions, but it is certainly relevant as it is a possible example of corruption. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 16:24, 4 January 2008

: This is [[liberal]] claptrap, the kind of [[gossip]] that has ruined [[Wikipedia]] and poisons debate of the issues. It's pathetic, really. Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty"? Not only is proof lacking, but there are not even any charges. It has no place here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:29, 4 January 2008 (EST)

The lack of charges, and innocent until proven guilty is not the issue here. The issue is that their is the possibility that Huckabee abused his position of power to protect his son. The candidate's political stance is irrelevant here, it is a question as to whether his past actions show his willingness to protect those close to him from the law. All crimes, no matter who committed them, should be investigated to the full extent of the law. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 17:22, 4 January 2008

Talk:Mike Huckabee

2008-01-04T22:21:47Z

Kiss20: /* Gossip removed */

This sentence,

("He has criticized President George W. Bush's tax cuts as being too oriented towards the wealthy, although the Congressional Budget Office released a report in 2004, that claimed the opposite." )

does not have a source, and as far as i have seen is not supported by his statements [http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm|statements]. I may be wrong, but this allegation should be taken off the article, unless proven otherwise. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 11:59, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Also, this sentence at the end of the top summary should be fixed:

 "His victory has placed moved him unto the top tier of Republican primary canidates[3][4]."

--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 12:04, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

== Religion ==

hey im supprised that there isn`t more info on his religious views, even fox are suggesting that all the religious talk means he doesn`t have to talk about real politics. Personally I quite like the guy he seems like a genuine caring person but I think if he does win the republican nomination the democrats will win the election. He is too conservative to pull in any democrat votes. This is what fox are saying and I think it might be true, if he wins the nomination the republicans dont stand a chance of winning the presidency. I know this might be a little hard to swallow for some but i think its true, just as the democrats dont stand a chance if the nominate a far left nut, the same (not that im calling any1 a nut) could be said for the GOP. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:13, 19 December 2007 (EST)

By the way in not American im british but i find American politics fasinating, British politics are dull and theres no difference in the parties, all of them, even our most conservative mainstream party is centre, maybe centre left! If you do want to vote for a conservative party the only option is the BNP (British National Party) but them are racists so no-one likes them and they get like 3% of the vote. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:20, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Mike Huckabee is actually a reliable candidate? ==

[http://www.anncoulter.com/],
<blockquote>Huckabee's statement that he agreed with the court's sodomy ruling was made one week after the decision.</blockquote>
Another source: [http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=2786 Mike Huckabee by James Buchanan] .
[http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=2585 Mike Huckabee disgraceful records]

I think that Mike Huckabee is a liberal hoax, who is temporarily supporting conservative ideas to be promoted in the GOP. I think that [[Ron Paul]] is the right conservative candidate. [[User:Thiudareiks|Thiudareiks]] 09:42, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:Talk pages on CP are actually meant to discuss the ''article'', not a general discussion forum about the ''subject'' of the article. What '''you''' ''think'' about eg Mike Huckabee is irrelevant. Make a referenced contribution to the article or drink a nice cup of "shsssssh" :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:50, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== Gossip removed ==

I took out a section that was just put back in, with the editor saying it was only fair to put in controversy about both sides. This is "controversy" about his son! This deserves no place in an article about him. If you have controversies actually about the candidate, feel free to add them. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:50, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Actually there is reason to mention this particular incident. Mike Huckabee is now facing questions as to how large of a role he played in preventing a state investigation into the incident. The then Chief of State Police has testified that people close to Huckabee (his attorney and Chief of Staff) personally called the local prosecuting attorney to reduce the chances of an investigation. It is currently unclear how large a role Huckabee took in stopping the investigation into his son's actions, but it is certainly relevant as it is a possible example of corruption. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 16:24, 4 January 2008

: This is [[liberal]] claptrap, the kind of [[gossip]] that has ruined [[Wikipedia]] and poisons debate of the issues. It's pathetic, really. Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty"? Not only is proof lacking, but there are not even any charges. It has no place here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:29, 4 January 2008 (EST)

The lack of charges, and innocent until proven guilty is not the issue here. The issue is that their is the possibility that Huckabee abused his position of power to protect his son. The candidate's political stance is irrelevant here, it is a question as to whether his past actions show his willingness to protect those close to him from the law. All crimes, no matter who committed them, should be investigated to the full extent of the law.

Talk:Mike Huckabee

2008-01-04T21:24:47Z

Kiss20: /* Gossip removed */

Talk:Mike Huckabee

2008-01-04T21:24:13Z

Kiss20: /* Gossip removed */

Mike Huckabee

2008-01-04T03:47:52Z

Kiss20: It is only fair to show controversy for both republican and democratic candidates.

[[Image:Hdyute7.jpg|right|thumb|'''Mike Huckabee''']]
'''Mike Huckabee''' (born August 24, 1955) is a [[Baptist]] minister and is a [[conservative]] candidate for the 2008 [[Republican]] presidential nomination. He is known to be [[conservative]] on the issues of [[abortion]], [[gun control]], [[homosexuality]] and [[evolution]], but less [[conservative]] on [[economic]] issues like funding [[public schools]]. He was the governor of [[Arkansas]] from 1996 to 2007.

Throughout the presidential primary, Huckabee has been viewed favorably by conservatives and [[Christian]] organizations such as the [[Homeschool Legal Defense Association]]. Former Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]] predicted that Huckabee will catch on with [[Republican]] primary voters, calling him "the most interesting dark horse". <ref>http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=6899608</ref>

[[Poll]] numbers show that Huckabee's strong debate performances, communication skills and likability have him steadily moving up in key primary states of [[New Hampshire]], and [[South Carolina]] and contributed to his win in the [[Iowa Caucuses]].
<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/21/s.c.straw.poll/index.html</ref> He was the winner of the straw poll after the Sept. 17th "values debate."<ref>http://www.earnedmedia.org/kg0918.htm</ref> With far less money than his competitors, Huckabee finished second in the high-profile [[Iowa Straw Poll]] with 18% of the vote, in front of [[Sam Brownback]] (15%) and in back of [[Mitt Romney]] (32%). His victory has placed him in the top tier of Republican primary candidates<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/12/ftn/main3159786.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22081</ref>
<ref>http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/</ref>.

In October 2007, Huckabee overwhelmingly won the high-profile Family Research Counsel's Value Voter Summit straw poll. Out of those attending, Huckabee received more votes then all other candidates combined. <ref>http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/romney_camp_stacking_the_value.html</ref>
== Record as Governor ==

As [[Governor]] of [[Arkansas]], Mike Huckabee cut and raised taxes. For example, during his ten years in office, the Arkansas [[legislature]] enacted increases in tobacco, sales, and [[fuel]]s taxes; however he also signed into legislation tax cuts over 90 times during that period. During his tenure as Governor welfare rolls declined by nearly half, and last year the state's economy grew 4.4%, beating the national average of 4.2%.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref>

In 1997 he introduced ARKids First, a health care plan which cut the number of Arkansas uninsured children in half.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref>

Throughout his tenure he also supported and helped pass pro-life bills through the Democrat controlled legislature.

In 2005 [[Time Magazine]] declared him one of "America's 5 Best Governors". <ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref>

== Political Beliefs ==

'''Taxes''':
As governor, he signed the first broad-based tax-cut in state history and cut taxes over ninety times. Huckabee believes that the United States should enact a tax system known as the [[Fair Tax]], this system replaces the income tax with a voluntary consumption tax. Recently he signed the Presidential Taxpayer Protection Pledge to Americans for Tax Reform which promises to not raise taxes if elected president.<ref>http://www.atr.org/content/html/2007/march/030207pr-huckabeesignspledge.html</ref>

'''Spending''':
During his tenure, state spending rose 65.3% between 1996 and 2004, which was 3 times the rate of inflation. This has led to strong criticism from conservative groups like the [[Club for Growth]]. However, when he left office there was a surplus of over $800 million. <ref>http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/01/a_report_on_mike_huckabees_fis.php</ref>. Huckabee has called on Bush to veto more spending bills by the democrat controlled congress.<ref>http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/09/08/huckabee_0909.html</ref> In August 2007, Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, stated "Gov. Huckabee recognizes that the challenge is to rein in spending and reduce taxes."<ref>http://www.atr.org/content/html/2007/march/030207pr-huckabeesignspledge.html</ref>

'''[[Abortion]]''':
According to ''[[National Review]]'', as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee signed a bill requiring parental consent for [[abortion]], and mandating notification by abortion providers to prospective parents that the unborn baby may feel pain, he also helped pass a bill through the Democratic-controlled legislature which stated that life began at conception.<ref>http://www.explorehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_ID=11</ref><ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmNjMmI1ODhjNGVlZWFmNTlmMGNiZTVjYTg1NTUzMTk=</ref> He also signed the Fetal Protection Act. He is known to be strongly pro-life.

'''Marriage''':
Huckabee is opposed to same sex marriage and civil unions. He also is a strong advocate for fathers' participation in child-raising.<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm</ref> He would favor a nation-wide [[Roe v. Wade]] being overturned and the federal governments recognition that life begins at conception.

'''Second Amendment Rights''':
As governor, he signed bills blocking frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and removing restrictions on concealed handgun permit holders. He became the first governor in the nation to have a concealed handgun license.<ref>http://www.explorehuckabee.com</ref>

'''[[Immigration]]''':
Huckabee opposed the McCain-Kennedy bill because he stated it had problems with "credibility; secrecy; and spending".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee</ref> He believes the United States should seal the border first and deportation of illegal immigrates that have committed crimes.<ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=4</ref>

==Vertical Politics==
While campaigning, Huckabee has referred to what he calls Vertical Politics - politics aimed at making America stronger rather than festering partisanship. Huckabee said, "Everywhere I go on the campaign trail, I meet voters with a real thirst for a healthy discussion of the issues. Ultimately, people don’t care whether an issue comes from the left or the right. What they want to talk about are ideas that lift America up and make us better. It’s what I call ‘Vertical Politics." <ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=verticalday.home</ref>

== Personal ==
[[Image:HuckabeeBand.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Huckabee playing with his band, ''Capital Offense'', during the 2007 [[Iowa Straw Poll]]]]
Huckabee was born in Hope, [[Arkansas]], the same town where former president [[Bill Clinton]] was born. This coincidence led to one of Huckabee's campaign slogans, "give [Hope] one more chance."
Huckabee lost 110 pounds while governor of Arkansas and documented his weight loss and set out a 12-step plan for weight loss in his book ''Quit Digging Your Grave With a Knife and Fork.'' <ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7752179/site/newsweek/</ref> He has also made childhood obesity a major platform issue. He became the first person in his family to attend college when he attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Fort Worth, [[Texas]], before becoming a [[Baptist]] pastor for twelve years in [[Arkansas]]. Because of his income situation, Huckabee graduated in only two and a half years.

The 52-year-old former governor and his wife live in [[Little Rock]] and have three grown children. Huckabee enjoys playing in his rock-n-roll band, Capitol Offense, which has played at the House of Blues in [[New Orleans]], the Red Rocks Amphitheater in [[Denver]], [[Colorado]] and for two presidential inauguration balls.

==Controversy==
Michael Huckabee has faced pressure recently regarding his handling of an incident with his son in 1998 at a Boy Scout Camp in Hatfield, Arkansas. Huckabee's son, David, was supposedly involved with the hanging of a dog while acting as a camp counselor. When animal-rights groups petitioned the local prosecutor, the prosecutor contact state police for assistance in an investigation. The then chief of state police states that both Huckabee's personal attorney and chief of staff pressured him to block an investigation. No investigation was ever conducted, nor were charges ever filed.<ref>http://www.newsweek.com/id/78241</ref><ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268762,00.html</ref>

==Campaign==
Governor Huckabee's campaign took off after the Ames Straw Poll, where he came in 2nd place (with 18% of the vote) to Mitt Romney, despite far less name recognition and far less spending - he spent about $35 per vote, whereas Romney spent more than $500 per vote.

His second surge began after the Republican [[YouTube]] debate, where he was seen as calm and positive next to the other candidates, many of whom attacked each other.

He has also gained a lot of press for his humorous ad featuring Chuck Norris.

==Quotes==
* "We've had a [[congress]] that's spent money like [[John Edwards]] at a beauty shop."<ref>''GOP presidential debate'' May 2006 [http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=456 The Loft] Accessed 3 January 2008.</ref>
* "…my [[faith]] is my life. It defines me. I see no separation between my faith from my personal and professional lives."<ref>''Faith and Politics'' [http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=9 mikehuckabee.com] Accessed 3 January 2008.</ref>
* "When it comes to the red tape in government, I don't think I can part the Red Sea but I believe I can part the red tape."<ref>''GOP presidential debate'' Iowa, 12 December 2007.</ref>

==Endorsements==
====Organizations====
For the first time in the organizations history, the [[Homeschool Legal Defense Association]] Political Action Committee endorsed a political candidate. The organization, which consists of 90,000 members, stated that they decided to endorse Huckabee because of he was, "[[conservative]], a friend of [[homeschooling]], a man of character, and a man with a mature faith in [[Jesus Christ]]".<ref>http://huckabee08.blogspot.com/2007/06/huckabee-on-roll-endorsements-and-polls.html</ref>

===South Carolina===
Huckabee has received some key endorsement during the course of his primary race. One such endorsement came from former [[South Carolina]] Governor, [[David Beasley]], who had before planned on staying on the sidelines throughout the [[Republican]] primary<ref>http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/27/news_pf/Opinion/Huckabee_s__a_maratho.shtml</ref>

Huckabee received another South Carolina endorsement from Iris Campbell, the former South Carolina First Lady and wife of former governor, the late [[Mike Campbell]]<ref>http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/02/endorsement_wat.html</ref>. During Mike Campbell's time in office, from 1987 to 1994, his endorsement of [[Ronald Reagan]] boosted the underdog's presidential primary race.

===Virginia===
In August 2007, Huckabee received a key endorsement from [[Virginia]]'s House of Delegates Speaker [[William J. Howell]]. Howell has been a member of the Board of Directors of the [[American Legislative Exchange Council ]](ALEC), the nation’s largest bipartisan, individual membership association of state legislators <ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressRelease&ID=216</ref>.

===New Hampshire===

Huckabee has picked up some key endorsements in the very significant primary in [[New Hampshire]]. In August 2007, New Hampshire's former Senator, Russell Prescott, and former Executive Councilor David Wheeler endorsed Huckabee<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/08/huckabee_endors.html</ref>. Both figures remain very popular with social conservatives in the state<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/08/huckabee_endors.html</ref>.

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Huckabee, Mike}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:United States Governors]]

== External Links ==
* [http://www.mikehuckabee.com/ Mike Huckabee (official)]
*[http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Home Huckabee Campaign Blog]
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/ Grassroots Website]
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDA2NzhkZGI2ZjA4NWI2NmMyYzNkNjY1Y2QzMzlmYzA=Governors Win, The case for Mike Huckabee.], [[National Review]], S. T. Karnick, August 2007
*[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24068 There’s a Huckabee Born Every Minute], [[Ann Coulter]], [[Human Events]], 12/19/2007

==External Videos==
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php Huckabee online video collection]
===Supporter Videos===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILPcnn9Sf94&eurl=http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Home Huckabee - Cinderella Man]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwfzk5RSQy4&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=we_like_mike_huckabee We Like Mike - Huckabee]
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=i_heart_huckabee_colbert_stewart I heart Huckabee]
===Personal Story===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3YR3grKJ3Q&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=story_of_mike_huckabee Part 1]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8aBVYKpZNQ&feature=related Part 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VZufUe0HGs&feature=related Part 3]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tXZKfUg97o&feature=related Part 4]
===Ads===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjYv2YW6azE&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=chuck_norris_huckabee_facts "HuckChuckFacts"]

===Speeches===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysdguwpgNZ0&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=huckabee_family_research-01 FRC's Value Voter Summit Speech Part 1]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af5qyUzRT68&feature=related Value Voter Summit Speech Part 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5v_qB0VDNI&feature=related FRC's Value Voter Summit Speech Part 3]

{{2008_presidential_candidates}}

Mike Huckabee

2008-01-04T03:10:05Z

Kiss20: /* Scandal */

[[Image:Hdyute7.jpg|right|thumb|'''Mike Huckabee''']]
'''Mike Huckabee''' (born August 24, 1955) is a [[Baptist]] minister and is a [[conservative]] candidate for the 2008 [[Republican]] presidential nomination. He is known to be [[conservative]] on the issues of [[abortion]], [[gun control]], [[homosexuality]] and [[evolution]], but less [[conservative]] on [[economic]] issues like funding [[public schools]]. He was the governor of [[Arkansas]] from 1996 to 2007.

Throughout the presidential primary, Huckabee has been viewed favorably by conservatives and [[Christian]] organizations such as the [[Homeschool Legal Defense Association]]. Former Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]] predicted that Huckabee will catch on with [[Republican]] primary voters, calling him "the most interesting dark horse". <ref>http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=6899608</ref>

[[Poll]] numbers show that Huckabee's strong debate performances, communication skills and likability have him steadily moving up in key primary states of [[Iowa]], [[New Hampshire]], and [[South Carolina]].
<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/21/s.c.straw.poll/index.html</ref> He was the winner of the straw poll after the Sept. 17th "values debate."<ref>http://www.earnedmedia.org/kg0918.htm</ref> With far less money than his competitors, Huckabee finished second in the high-profile [[Iowa Straw Poll]] with 18% of the vote, in front of [[Sam Brownback]] (15%) and in back of [[Mitt Romney]] (32%). His victory has placed him in the top tier of Republican primary candidates<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/12/ftn/main3159786.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22081</ref>
<ref>http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/</ref>.

In October 2007, Huckabee overwhelmingly won the high-profile Family Research Counsel's Value Voter Summit straw poll. Out of those attending, Huckabee received more votes then all other candidates combined. <ref>http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/romney_camp_stacking_the_value.html</ref>
== Record as Governor ==

As [[Governor]] of [[Arkansas]], Mike Huckabee cut and raised taxes. For example, during his ten years in office, the Arkansas [[legislature]] enacted increases in tobacco, sales, and [[fuel]]s taxes; however he also signed into legislation tax cuts over 90 times during that period. During his tenure as Governor welfare rolls declined by nearly half, and last year the state's economy grew 4.4%, beating the national average of 4.2%.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref>

In 1997 he introduced ARKids First, a health care plan which cut the number of Arkansas uninsured children in half.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref>

Throughout his tenure he also supported and helped pass pro-life bills through the Democrat controlled legislature.

In 2005 [[Time Magazine]] declared him one of "America's 5 Best Governors". <ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref>

== Political Beliefs ==

'''Taxes''':
As governor, he signed the first broad-based tax-cut in state history and cut taxes over ninety times. Huckabee believes that the United States should enact a tax system known as the [[Fair Tax]], this system replaces the income tax with a voluntary consumption tax. Recently he signed the Presidential Taxpayer Protection Pledge to Americans for Tax Reform which promises to not raise taxes if elected president.<ref>http://www.atr.org/content/html/2007/march/030207pr-huckabeesignspledge.html</ref>

'''Spending''':
During his tenure, state spending rose 65.3% between 1996 and 2004, which was 3 times the rate of inflation. This has led to strong criticism from conservative groups like the [[Club for Growth]]. However, when he left office there was a surplus of over $800 million. <ref>http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/01/a_report_on_mike_huckabees_fis.php</ref>. Huckabee has called on Bush to veto more spending bills by the democrat controlled congress.<ref>http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/09/08/huckabee_0909.html</ref> In August 2007, Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, stated "Gov. Huckabee recognizes that the challenge is to rein in spending and reduce taxes."<ref>http://www.atr.org/content/html/2007/march/030207pr-huckabeesignspledge.html</ref>

'''[[Abortion]]''':
According to ''[[National Review]]'', as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee signed a bill requiring parental consent for [[abortion]], and mandating notification by abortion providers to prospective parents that the unborn baby may feel pain, he also helped pass a bill through the Democratic-controlled legislature which stated that life began at conception.<ref>http://www.explorehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_ID=11</ref><ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmNjMmI1ODhjNGVlZWFmNTlmMGNiZTVjYTg1NTUzMTk=</ref> He also signed the Fetal Protection Act. He is known to be strongly pro-life.

'''Marriage''':
Huckabee is opposed to same sex marriage and civil unions. He also is a strong advocate for fathers' participation in child-raising.<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm</ref> He would favor a nation-wide [[Roe v. Wade]] being overturned and the federal governments recognition that life begins at conception.

'''Second Amendment Rights''':
As governor, he signed bills blocking frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and removing restrictions on concealed handgun permit holders. He became the first governor in the nation to have a concealed handgun license.<ref>http://www.explorehuckabee.com</ref>

'''[[Immigration]]''':
Huckabee opposed the McCain-Kennedy bill because he stated it had problems with "credibility; secrecy; and spending".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee</ref> He believes the United States should seal the border first and deportation of illegal immigrates that have committed crimes.<ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=4</ref>

==Vertical Politics==
While campaigning, Huckabee has referred to what he calls Vertical Politics - politics aimed at making America stronger rather than festering partisanship. Huckabee said, "Everywhere I go on the campaign trail, I meet voters with a real thirst for a healthy discussion of the issues. Ultimately, people don’t care whether an issue comes from the left or the right. What they want to talk about are ideas that lift America up and make us better. It’s what I call ‘Vertical Politics." <ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=verticalday.home</ref>

== Personal ==
[[Image:HuckabeeBand.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Huckabee playing with his band, ''Capital Offense'', during the 2007 [[Iowa Straw Poll]]]]
Huckabee was born in Hope, [[Arkansas]], the same town where former president [[Bill Clinton]] was born. This coincidence led to one of Huckabee's campaign slogans, "give [Hope] one more chance."
Huckabee lost 110 pounds while governor of Arkansas and documented his weight loss and set out a 12-step plan for weight loss in his book ''Quit Digging Your Grave With a Knife and Fork.'' <ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7752179/site/newsweek/</ref> He has also made childhood obesity a major platform issue. He became the first person in his family to attend college when he attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Fort Worth, [[Texas]], before becoming a [[Baptist]] pastor for twelve years in [[Arkansas]]. Because of his income situation, Huckabee graduated in only two and a half years.

The 52-year-old former governor and his wife live in [[Little Rock]] and have three grown children. Huckabee enjoys playing in his rock-n-roll band, Capitol Offense, which has played at the House of Blues in [[New Orleans]], the Red Rocks Amphitheater in [[Denver]], [[Colorado]] and for two presidential inauguration balls.

==Scandal==

Michael Huckabee has faced pressure recently regarding his handling of an incident with his son in 1998 at a Boy Scout Camp in Hatfield, Arkansas. Huckabee's son, David, was supposedly involved with the hanging of a dog while acting as a camp counselor. When animal-rights groups petitioned the local prosecutor, the prosecutor contacted state police for assistance in an investigation. The then chief of state police states that both Huckabee's personal attorney and chief of staff pressured him to block an investigation. No investigation was ever conducted, nor were charges ever filed.<ref>http://www.newsweek.com/id/78241</ref><ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268762,00.html</ref>

==Campaign==
Governor Huckabee's campaign took off after the Ames Straw Poll, where he came in 2nd place (with 18% of the vote) to Mitt Romney, despite far less name recognition and far less spending - he spent about $35 per vote, whereas Romney spent more than $500 per vote.

His second surge began after the Republican [[YouTube]] debate, where he was seen as calm and positive next to the other candidates, many of whom attacked each other.

He has also gained a lot of press for his humorous ad featuring Chuck Norris.

==Quotes==
* "We've had a [[congress]] that's spent money like [[John Edwards]] at a beauty shop."<ref>''GOP presidential debate'' May 2006 [http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=456 The Loft] Accessed 3 January 2008.</ref>
* "…my [[faith]] is my life. It defines me. I see no separation between my faith from my personal and professional lives."<ref>''Faith and Politics'' [http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=9 mikehuckabee.com] Accessed 3 January 2008.</ref>
* "When it comes to the red tape in government, I don't think I can part the Red Sea but I believe I can part the red tape."<ref>''GOP presidential debate'' Iowa, 12 December 2007.</ref>

==Endorsements==
====Organizations====
For the first time in the organizations history, the [[Homeschool Legal Defense Association]] Political Action Committee endorsed a political candidate. The organization, which consists of 90,000 members, stated that they decided to endorse Huckabee because of he was, "[[conservative]], a friend of [[homeschooling]], a man of character, and a man with a mature faith in [[Jesus Christ]]".<ref>http://huckabee08.blogspot.com/2007/06/huckabee-on-roll-endorsements-and-polls.html</ref>

===South Carolina===
Huckabee has received some key endorsement during the course of his primary race. One such endorsement came from former [[South Carolina]] Governor, [[David Beasley]], who had before planned on staying on the sidelines throughout the [[Republican]] primary<ref>http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/27/news_pf/Opinion/Huckabee_s__a_maratho.shtml</ref>

Huckabee received another South Carolina endorsement from Iris Campbell, the former South Carolina First Lady and wife of former governor, the late [[Mike Campbell]]<ref>http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/02/endorsement_wat.html</ref>. During Mike Campbell's time in office, from 1987 to 1994, his endorsement of [[Ronald Reagan]] boosted the underdog's presidential primary race.

===Virginia===
In August 2007, Huckabee received a key endorsement from [[Virginia]]'s House of Delegates Speaker [[William J. Howell]]. Howell has been a member of the Board of Directors of the [[American Legislative Exchange Council ]](ALEC), the nation’s largest bipartisan, individual membership association of state legislators <ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressRelease&ID=216</ref>.

===New Hampshire===

Huckabee has picked up some key endorsements in the very significant primary in [[New Hampshire]]. In August 2007, New Hampshire's former Senator, Russell Prescott, and former Executive Councilor David Wheeler endorsed Huckabee<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/08/huckabee_endors.html</ref>. Both figures remain very popular with social conservatives in the state<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/08/huckabee_endors.html</ref>.

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Huckabee, Mike}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:United States Governors]]

== External Links ==
* [http://www.mikehuckabee.com/ Mike Huckabee (official)]
*[http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Home Huckabee Campaign Blog]
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/ Grassroots Website]
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDA2NzhkZGI2ZjA4NWI2NmMyYzNkNjY1Y2QzMzlmYzA=Governors Win, The case for Mike Huckabee.], [[National Review]], S. T. Karnick, August 2007
*[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24068 There’s a Huckabee Born Every Minute], [[Ann Coulter]], [[Human Events]], 12/19/2007

==External Videos==
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php Huckabee online video collection]
===Supporter Videos===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILPcnn9Sf94&eurl=http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Home Huckabee - Cinderella Man]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwfzk5RSQy4&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=we_like_mike_huckabee We Like Mike - Huckabee]
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=i_heart_huckabee_colbert_stewart I heart Huckabee]
===Personal Story===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3YR3grKJ3Q&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=story_of_mike_huckabee Part 1]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8aBVYKpZNQ&feature=related Part 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VZufUe0HGs&feature=related Part 3]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tXZKfUg97o&feature=related Part 4]
===Ads===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjYv2YW6azE&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=chuck_norris_huckabee_facts "HuckChuckFacts"]

===Speeches===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysdguwpgNZ0&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=huckabee_family_research-01 FRC's Value Voter Summit Speech Part 1]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af5qyUzRT68&feature=related Value Voter Summit Speech Part 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5v_qB0VDNI&feature=related FRC's Value Voter Summit Speech Part 3]

{{2008_presidential_candidates}}

Hate crime

2008-01-04T01:21:13Z

Kiss20: Statement removed is an opinion. It is hardly unbiased to include an opinion in a non-debate page.

A '''"hate crime"''' is an action held to involve the illicit expression of hatred to the detriment of another person. Such a wide definition combines religious, ethnic or lifestyle persecution.
==Free speech and the Homosexual Agenda==

Opponents charge that hate crime and hate speech rules amount to an erosion of [[First Amendment]] guarantees of freedom of religion, [[free speech]], and freedom of press. In particular, they object to rules or laws which equate condemnation of sin with prejudice.

Hate crime legislation imposes additional punishment for crimes held to be motivated by such "prejudice".

Liberals promote hate crime legislation to legitimize certain lifestyles by declaring them to be protected by law, and to chill [[free speech]] that criticizes those lifestyles. Hate crime legislation is a stepping stone for a lifestyle to become protected under anti-discrimination laws.

As part of the [[homosexual agenda]], the [[gay rights]] movement has attempted to equate racism and [[anti-Semitism]] with the condemnation of homosexual sin. To do this, they must of course gloss over the fact that race is 100% inherited and immutable. And that religious and ethnic persecution against Jews involved a 6 million person [[Holocaust]] (see [[genocide]] and [[ethnic cleansing]]).

Nonetheless, the strategy of anti-goodness crusaders is to insist that condemnation of sin is a type of "prejudice" equivalent to a civil rights violation. They want people of conscience, who already condemn antisemitism and racism, to regard any critique of homosexuality as an expression of "hate".

This is a perverse misinterpretation of a sermon by Jesus, who told people not to "hate" their enemies. What hate crimes legislation ignores is that Jesus never hesitated to condemn sin and frequently criticized wrongdoers. So there can be nothing wrong with pointing out evils and telling people to stop committing sin. This is not "hate" but an expression of love.

A ladder to legislate social acceptance and promotion of a lifestyle would be as follows:

* '''Bottom Rung:''' hate crime legislation to recognize and accept the lifestyle.
* '''Middle Rung:''' anti-discrimination legislation to favor and promote the lifestyle.
* '''Top Rung:''' [[affirmative action]] to fully promote the lifestyle.

The new [[Speaker of the House]] for the 2007-2008 [[Congress]], [[Nancy Pelosi]], sought to pass hate crime legislation proposed in the prior session of [[Congress]] in H.R.3132. [[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]] was then introduced by [[Democrats]] in the new session [[110th Congress]] that began in 2007.

In July 2007, [[Ted Kennedy]] bypassed a committee vote and attached hate crimes legislation to a massive defense appropriation bill requested by the President, in an effort to compel him to sign the hate crimes legislation.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702 Kennedy cramming hate crimes into defense bill] 'Shameless attempt to push [[homosexual agenda]] ... by exploiting soldiers', Bob Unruh, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', July 17, 2007.</ref>

== Claims of Hate Crimes ==

It is claimed that about 1100 hate crimes against homosexuals or their property occurred in 2004.<ref>Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html Crime in the United States 2004]</ref> <ref>FBI, Crime in the United States 2004, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/hctable4.htm Table 4 Offense Type by Bias Motivation] </ref> But most of those offenses occurred against property rather than individuals, often the result of drugs or alcohol. Only a tiny percentage even involved aggravated assault or worse, and those classifications are not based on any proof at trial.<ref>''Id.''</ref> 74% of hate crimes are either crimes against property (e.g., theft, vandalism or graffiti) or a vague "intimidation".<ref>FBI, Crime in the United States 2004 [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html#table2_33 Table 2.33 Incidents, Offenses, Victims, and Known Offenders by Offense Type]</ref>

In regards to [[Homosexuality and Homicide|homosexuality and homicide]], ''The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers'' by Michael Newton reports the following regarding the issue of homosexuality and homocides:
{{cquote|Homosexual slayers clearly have no monopoly on violence, but it is true that their crimes often display extremes of "overkill" and mutilation... On balance, it seems fair to say that while homosexuals sometimes fall prey to "gay bashing" violence by bigoted "straights," they are far more likely to be murdered by another homosexual than in a random hate crime.<ref>The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers by Michael Newton, page 103</ref>}}

The world-renowned pathologist Dr. [[William Eckert]] wrote regarding homosexual homocides the following:
{{cquote| Equally high is the number of homicides, many probably related to transient attachments, which often lead to suspicion, jealousy, and murder. When murder does occur it is exceptionally brutal with an overkill appearance... Overkill, as it is seen in homosexual and lesbian murders, is certainly a form of sadistic crime. In these instances multiple stabbing and other brutal injuries...are common findings...<ref>Tedeschi CG, Eckert W, Tedeschi LG, eds. Forensic medicine; vol 2. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1977:962</ref>}}
[[Image:Assocchurch138 yzsodw.jpg|thumb|The [[First Baptist Church in Gravois Mills]] was vandalized and threatened by [[homosexuality|homosexual]] activists and received obscene phone calls. An [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] agent refused to list the incident as a hate crime.]]
On the other hand, national statistics regarding [[homosexuality|homosexuals]] committing hate crimes against heterosexuals may be underreported. For example, the [[First Baptist Church in Gravois Mills]] was vandalized and threatened by homosexual activists and received obscene phone calls. An [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] agent refused to list the incident as a [[hate crime]]. The incident involved an anti-homosexuality [[Bible]] verse on the churches' sign.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17075 Pastor finds FBI unresponsive to homosexual activists' threats], Bob Baysinger, ''Baptist Press'', Nov 13, 2003.</ref>

The Center for Reclaiming America cited the following account of how a [[hate crimes|hate crime]] statute was egregiously applied to an ex-homosexual:
{{cquote|In Madison, Wisconsin, a recovered homosexual who had left the “gay” lifestyle to start a family got into a heated discussion with an open homosexual about homosexuality at a gas station. The ex-“gay” man, David Ott, was holding his child in his arms during the entire incident, and neither man touched the other. The homosexual activist later told police he had felt threatened by Ott, and local prosecutors charged the man with “disorderly conduct” with a “hate crimes” enhancement.

The “hate crime” aspect, stemming from Ott’s belief that homosexuality is morally wrong, raised the potential fine from $1,000 to $10,000, and jail time went up from a possible 90 days to one year. Fearing the possibility of substantial jail time, Ott settled, and received 50 hours of community service plus a mandatory attendance at “tolerance” sessions conducted by [[lesbianism|lesbians]] at the [[University of Wisconsin at Madison]]. A ground rule for the session was the premise that homosexual behavior is not immoral.

The entire process cost Ott almost $7,000 in legal fees.<ref>http://test.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/fastfacts/HateCrimes2.pdf</ref>}}

Another example of an alleged anti-homosexual "hate crime" occurred at Columbia University in 2005, when two drunken students scrawled racist and anti-homosexual symbols on a dormitory wall. Initially charged with crimes carrying possible 4-year jail sentences, the charges were later dropped in exchange for some sensitivity training.<ref>[http://media.www.columbiaspectator.com/media/storage/paper865/news/2006/06/12/News/Ruggles.Vandalism.Case.Dismissed-2043702.shtml Ruggles Vandalism Case Dismissed], Elizabeth Kraushar and Eleazar David Meléndez, ''Columbia Spectator'', 6/12/06.</ref> "I am pretty sure [the perpetrator] thought he was playing a joke," said one dormitory resident about the incident.<ref>[http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510542 Hate Crime Rocks Columbia’s Campus], Noah S. Bloom, ''The Harvard Crimson'', December 13, 2005.</ref>

There are very few anti-homosexual murders. The most publicized incident, the murder of [[Matthew Shepard]], was the result of severe drug abuse. After the defense attorney failed to exonerate the killers with an argument of self-defense against homosexual advances, the lead killer admitted in jail that homosexuality had nothing to do with his drug-induced murder:<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=277685&page=3 New Details Emerge in Matthew Shepard Murder], ''20/20'', ABC News. Retrieved 22 July 2007.</ref>

:Asked [by ABC News] directly whether [the lead killer] targeted and attacked Shepard because he was gay, McKinney told Vargas, "No. I did not. ... I would say it wasn't a hate crime. All I wanted to do was beat him up and rob him."

:But if the attackers were just trying to rob someone to get a drug fix, why did they beat Shepard so savagely?

:[[Prosecutor]] Rerucha attributes McKinney's rage and his savage beating of Shepard to his drug abuse. "The methamphetamine just fueled to this point where there was no control. It was a horrible, horrible, horrible murder. It was a murder that was once again driven by drugs," Rerucha said.

:Dr. Rick Rawson, a professor at UCLA who has studied the link between methamphetamine and violence, tells "20/20" the drug can trigger episodes of violent behavior.

:"In the first weeks after you've stopped using it, the kinds of triggers that can set off an episode are completely unpredictable. It can be: you say a word with the wrong inflection, you touch someone on the shoulder. It's completely unpredictable as to what will set somebody off" Rawson said.

:"If Aaron McKinney had not become involved with methamphetamine, Matthew Shepard would be alive today," Rerucha said.

So what was the basis for the claim that this was a hate crime? According to ABC News, "Prosecutor Rerucha recalls that Shepard's friends ... contacted his office. Rerucha told '20/20,' "They were calling the County Attorney's office, they were calling the media and indicating Matthew Shepard is gay and we don't want the fact that he is gay to go unnoticed."<ref>''Id.''</ref>

Conversely, threats and vandalism by homosexual activists are typically not treated as hate crimes. For example, "The Federal Bureau of Investigation has refused to investigate threats made by homosexual activists against a Missouri Baptist Convention church in the Lake of the Ozarks area."<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17075 Pastor finds FBI unresponsive to homosexual activists' threats], Bob Baysinger, ''Baptist Press'', Nov 13, 2003.</ref>

==Criminalizing the Gospel==

Art Moore posted this at World Net Daily:

:"We don't want to promote hatred against anyone and are opposed to violence for whatever reason," said Bruce Clemenger, head of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada's Centre for Faith and Public Life. "Our concern, though is that ... courts have not distinguished between the identity of the person and the activity. So sexual orientation refers to both the sexual disposition as well as the activity."

:But homosexual activists contend such a distinction cannot be made with homosexuals any more than it can with matters of race or ethnic origin.

:"The argument of separating the person from the behavior is their concept," insisted Kim Vance, president of Ottawa-based EGALE, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere.

:"In reality they are the same thing," Vance said in a WND interview. "That's language that they use to justify [opposition], but it's language that we don't agree with." <ref> [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29328 The Bible as 'hate literature'?], By Art Moore, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', October 21, 2002.</ref>

What this means is the [[gay rights]] activists want the government to agree with their primary claim, i.e., that homosexuality is a matter of '''identity''' - not a behavior, and certainly not a matter of choice.

==See also==
*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9672&department=CFI&categoryid=papers 'Hate Crime' Laws Threaten Religious Freedom]
*[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0617mcnultyjun17,1,2035460.column?coll=chi-news-col&ctrack=1&cset=true 'What is a hate crime?'], Timothy J. McNulty, From the Public Editor, June 17, 2007.
[[Category:Religious persecution]]

Debate:Bias in conservapedia

2008-01-04T01:11:39Z

Kiss20: /* Examples of Bias in Conservapedia */

== Opportunity for Debate ==

This seems like a good place to begin a discussion of why some views must go unchallenged on this site. For example, if one feels that a subject like George W. Bush is complete, that is, not needing any further information, then by all means--lock it. Unfortunately, many of these instances smack of censorship of the truth. Shouldn't some of the controversy surrounding the president be addressed? Or, is Conservapedia really just a forum for unchecked, unquestioning dogma? I just think we need to talk. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 16:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Examples of Bias in Conservapedia==

The growing list of examples of bias and errors on Conservapedia. Please add to this.

1. Conservapedia condemns the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. despite B.C.E. and C.E. being the recognized standard world-wide. The change was made to not alienate other cultures around the world, since using B.C.E. (Before Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) is supposed to be an international standard, not an American standard only.

2. Conservapedia gives credit to America, Christianity (sometimes radical Christianity and Creationism), and Conservative views, many times forgetting other factors involved, other countries, other religions, and other points of view. On the main page, Conservapedia even says that "Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we give full credit to Christianity and America". However, often full credit is not due to either Christianity or America, the world does not revolve around Christian Americans.

3. Conservapedia claims it is correcting the Liberal bias found in Wikipedia, yet Wikipedia shows both sides of possible debates in the majority of their articles. Conservapedia on the other hand only includes the arguments for the conservative view, and Christian view. Conservapedia, while claiming to be less biased, includes an article called "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" which slanders Wikipedia in many ways, often giving incorrect information and irrelevant arguments against its articles.

4. Conservapedia lets anyone with a Conservative, Christian point of view to edit their pages, but any edits done from another point of view are removed, while Wikipedia lets anyone from any point of view edit their pages, and payed experts and scientists edit and make changes to keep the information extremely accurate.

5. Conservapedia claims that twice as many Americans identify themselves as Conservative compared to Liberal, while three times as many editors identify themselves as Liberal as compared to Conservative on Wikipedia. This claims compares a self-selected user categorization with a representative poll. Furthermore it compares only 2 of 131 possible categories in Wikipedia, with 2 of 3 possible answers in the poll. And it is possible to choose more than one category in Wikipedia, while in the poll respondent had to choose one possible answer. These are are fundamental difference that make any comparison between the Wikipedia numbers and the representative Harris poll a folly. There is no logic, truth, or relevance in saying that Wikipedia is 6 times more Liberal than the American public, and we also must remember than Wikipedia is meant for the entire world, not just Americans.

6. Conservapedia also condemns Wikipedia for claiming 1.5 million articles, but not all of them being useful. However, Wikipedia never claimed that their articles were educational. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia which contains information about anything and everything.

7. Conservapedia restricts editing of many pages that are considered to be controversial, but some of these pages are purely restricted because visitors with non-conservative, non-christian, or non-american views correct the biased material.

8. The majority of articles about animals include an amazingly short stub of relevant information (generally the animal's description), while the last 80% of the article or so is all about the creation of said animal. In most cases, the creation section of these articles only includes the views of Creationists, and there is little to no mention of Evolution, despite the evidence supporting it.

9. In more than one case, Evolution is also thrown aside and discarded with completely false information about the dating of fossils being incorrect, despite the method of dating fossils (carbon dating) being incredibly accurate. Evolution is generally thrown aside because the fossil evidence proving the Earth's age is at least several million years old (if not several billion), conflicts with the views of Young Earth Creationists. Evolution is also discarded because of the apparent lack of mid-evolution evidence, despite there being many examples of such.

10. References are seldomly cited, even on the most popular of pages, and when they are cited, they often include very little literature and many websites which are statistically much less accurate. The majority of the time, if there are sources, most if not all of the sources will be relating only to the Christian/Creationist, Conservative, American point of view, therefore anything written about the other side of any possible debates are being written with no sources, and the sources used for the Conservative side of the debate are almost always extremely biased.

11. On the main page, the Conservapedia claims that it includes 4,700 educational articles that are student-friendly. However, the majority of the articles are extremely short stubs with few to no references that show only a single point of view. Also, the majority of the articles are written with poor grammar and a low grade reading level, which is hardly appropriate for student use.

12. Conservapedia has since edited the following statement which was included on the main page: "Conservapedia has over 4,100 educational, clean and concise entries on historical, scientific, legal, and economic topics, including more than 350 lectures and term lists." However, to claim that Conservapedia is scientific when it often states that the Theory of Evolution is incorrect solely because "there is no evidence" or that it's "just a theory" despite fossil evidence and many animals, including humans backing up this theory, is very unscientific.

13. Conservapedia also displays is bias through the use of American spelling of words only, and in fact points out that Wikipedia uses the "foreign" spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. This is true, however the English language was derived in England - where the spelling of words most certainly is correct if they invented the language. The so called "foreign" spelling of English words on Wikipedia is in fact correct for the rest of the world, and it should not have to cater to any country which uses different spelling which is in fact an altered version of the original, correct, English language. The fact that Wikipedia redirects to the original English spelling of American words shows that they are serving the entire world, and it is in fact conveniant for everyone in this case.

14. Articles such as the one on Kangaroos, and the one on Dinosaurs have ridiculous claims which are used solely to support the Young Earth Creationist view. For example, the article states that from the Origins Theory Model that Kangaroos originated in the Middle East. However, Kangaroos would have had absolutely no way of travelling as far as they would need to during Pangea to end up in Australia, and even moreso after Pangea. Kangaroos can only live in a certain climate, and it is physically impossible for them to have originated in the Middle East. The only references are to Christian and Creationist websites, which are extremely biased and try as hard as they can to prove that their ideas are the one and only correct ones. The article on dinosaurs is similar, and has very little about dinosaurs living millions of years ago. Instead, the article focuses on how creationists believe that fossil evidence is incorrect because of dating methods (even though this is physically impossible to be incorrect, since carbon dating is extremely precise). There are no references citing where these fossil records could possibly be proven wrong in any way, and even mentions that the Young Earth Creationists believe this primarily because of biblical sources, which can hardly be used as a reference. Once again the only other references cite Creationist and Christian websites only. There is absolutely no mention of even the possibility of an ice age, a meteor, or anything else relevant, it is purely talk about Creationism, and to try and support its claims it says there is even a possibility that these dinosaurs still live on Earth without us seeing them (even with satellite technology somehow).

15. There are many more examples of these biased articles, all you have to do is look around. I encourage others who are outraged at the complete inaccuracy of these articles, and complete lack of anything even remotely non-Christian, non-Creationist, non-Conservative, and non-American, to add more examples to this list to show that Conservapedia is much more biased than Wikipedia, which it is attempting to "fix".

16. Conservapedia argues against Wikipedia on the basis that when discussing political candidates it tends to contain information that presents conservative politicians in a negative light while ignoring similar information for liberal politicians. Conservapedia has the same modus operandi but in reverse and to the extreme. If one looks at the Hillary Clinton page, most of the information there discusses scandals or failures but does not provide any examples of accomplishments. The page on Mike Huckabee is entirely positive and had no information about recent information until an informed individual added it. Conservapedia fails to present all politicians in equally positive and negative light.

17. Conservapedia allows users to write opinions and clearly subjective statements if it is in accordance with conservative beliefs. When one attempts to remove blanket statements and clear opinions without sources, conservapedia promptly returns them.

Hate crime

2008-01-04T01:04:06Z

Kiss20: Statement removed because it is not a counter-example. The statement provides no evidence that the crime was committed because the victims were heterosexual.

A '''"hate crime"''' is an action held to involve the illicit expression of hatred to the detriment of another person. Such a wide definition combines religious, ethnic or lifestyle persecution.
==Free speech and the Homosexual Agenda==

Opponents charge that hate crime and hate speech rules amount to an erosion of [[First Amendment]] guarantees of freedom of religion, [[free speech]], and freedom of press. In particular, they object to rules or laws which equate condemnation of sin with prejudice.

Hate crime legislation imposes additional punishment for crimes held to be motivated by such "prejudice," and is a stepping stone for a lifestyle to become protected under anti-discrimination laws.

As part of the [[homosexual agenda]], the [[gay rights]] movement has attempted to equate racism and [[anti-Semitism]] with the condemnation of homosexual sin. To do this, they must of course gloss over the fact that race is 100% inherited and immutable. And that religious and ethnic persecution against Jews involved a 6 million person [[Holocaust]] (see [[genocide]] and [[ethnic cleansing]]).

Nonetheless, the strategy of anti-goodness crusaders is to insist that condemnation of sin is a type of "prejudice" equivalent to a civil rights violation. They want people of conscience, who already condemn antisemitism and racism, to regard any critique of homosexuality as an expression of "hate".

This is a perverse misinterpretation of a sermon by Jesus, who told people not to "hate" their enemies. What hate crimes legislation ignores is that Jesus never hesitated to condemn sin and frequently criticized wrongdoers. So there can be nothing wrong with pointing out evils and telling people to stop committing sin. This is not "hate" but an expression of love.

A ladder to legislate social acceptance and promotion of a lifestyle would be as follows:

* '''Bottom Rung:''' hate crime legislation to recognize and accept the lifestyle.
* '''Middle Rung:''' anti-discrimination legislation to favor and promote the lifestyle.
* '''Top Rung:''' [[affirmative action]] to fully promote the lifestyle.

The new [[Speaker of the House]] for the 2007-2008 [[Congress]], [[Nancy Pelosi]], sought to pass hate crime legislation proposed in the prior session of [[Congress]] in H.R.3132. [[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]] was then introduced by [[Democrats]] in the new session [[110th Congress]] that began in 2007.

In July 2007, [[Ted Kennedy]] bypassed a committee vote and attached hate crimes legislation to a massive defense appropriation bill requested by the President, in an effort to compel him to sign the hate crimes legislation.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702 Kennedy cramming hate crimes into defense bill] 'Shameless attempt to push [[homosexual agenda]] ... by exploiting soldiers', Bob Unruh, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', July 17, 2007.</ref>

== Claims of Hate Crimes ==

It is claimed that about 1100 hate crimes against homosexuals or their property occurred in 2004.<ref>Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html Crime in the United States 2004]</ref> <ref>FBI, Crime in the United States 2004, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/hctable4.htm Table 4 Offense Type by Bias Motivation] </ref> But most of those offenses occurred against property rather than individuals, often the result of drugs or alcohol. Only a tiny percentage even involved aggravated assault or worse, and those classifications are not based on any proof at trial.<ref>''Id.''</ref> 74% of hate crimes are either crimes against property (e.g., theft, vandalism or graffiti) or a vague "intimidation".<ref>FBI, Crime in the United States 2004 [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html#table2_33 Table 2.33 Incidents, Offenses, Victims, and Known Offenders by Offense Type]</ref>

In regards to [[Homosexuality and Homicide|homosexuality and homicide]], ''The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers'' by Michael Newton reports the following regarding the issue of homosexuality and homocides:
{{cquote|Homosexual slayers clearly have no monopoly on violence, but it is true that their crimes often display extremes of "overkill" and mutilation... On balance, it seems fair to say that while homosexuals sometimes fall prey to "gay bashing" violence by bigoted "straights," they are far more likely to be murdered by another homosexual than in a random hate crime.<ref>The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers by Michael Newton, page 103</ref>}}

The world-renowned pathologist Dr. [[William Eckert]] wrote regarding homosexual homocides the following:
{{cquote| Equally high is the number of homicides, many probably related to transient attachments, which often lead to suspicion, jealousy, and murder. When murder does occur it is exceptionally brutal with an overkill appearance... Overkill, as it is seen in homosexual and lesbian murders, is certainly a form of sadistic crime. In these instances multiple stabbing and other brutal injuries...are common findings...<ref>Tedeschi CG, Eckert W, Tedeschi LG, eds. Forensic medicine; vol 2. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1977:962</ref>}}

The Center for Reclaiming America cited the following account of how a [[hate crimes|hate crime]] statute was egregiously applied to an ex-homosexual:
{{cquote|In Madison, Wisconsin, a recovered homosexual who had left the “gay” lifestyle to start a family got into a heated discussion with an open homosexual about homosexuality at a gas station. The ex-“gay” man, David Ott, was holding his child in his arms during the entire incident, and neither man touched the other. The homosexual activist later told police he had felt threatened by Ott, and local prosecutors charged the man with “disorderly conduct” with a “hate crimes” enhancement.

The “hate crime” aspect, stemming from Ott’s belief that homosexuality is morally wrong, raised the potential fine from $1,000 to $10,000, and jail time went up from a possible 90 days to one year. Fearing the possibility of substantial jail time, Ott settled, and received 50 hours of community service plus a mandatory attendance at “tolerance” sessions conducted by [[lesbianism|lesbians]] at the [[University of Wisconsin at Madison]]. A ground rule for the session was the premise that homosexual behavior is not immoral.

The entire process cost Ott almost $7,000 in legal fees.<ref>http://test.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/fastfacts/HateCrimes2.pdf</ref>}}

Another example of an alleged anti-homosexual "hate crime" occurred at Columbia University in 2005, when two drunken students scrawled racist and anti-homosexual symbols on a dormitory wall. Initially charged with crimes carrying possible 4-year jail sentences, the charges were later dropped in exchange for some sensitivity training.<ref>[http://media.www.columbiaspectator.com/media/storage/paper865/news/2006/06/12/News/Ruggles.Vandalism.Case.Dismissed-2043702.shtml Ruggles Vandalism Case Dismissed], Elizabeth Kraushar and Eleazar David Meléndez, ''Columbia Spectator'', 6/12/06.</ref> "I am pretty sure [the perpetrator] thought he was playing a joke," said one dormitory resident about the incident.<ref>[http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510542 Hate Crime Rocks Columbia’s Campus], Noah S. Bloom, ''The Harvard Crimson'', December 13, 2005.</ref>

There are very few anti-homosexual murders. The most publicized incident, the murder of [[Matthew Shepard]], was the result of severe drug abuse. After the defense attorney failed to exonerate the killers with an argument of self-defense against homosexual advances, the lead killer admitted in jail that homosexuality had nothing to do with his drug-induced murder:<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=277685&page=3 New Details Emerge in Matthew Shepard Murder], ''20/20'', ABC News. Retrieved 22 July 2007.</ref>

:Asked [by ABC News] directly whether [the lead killer] targeted and attacked Shepard because he was gay, McKinney told Vargas, "No. I did not. ... I would say it wasn't a hate crime. All I wanted to do was beat him up and rob him."

:But if the attackers were just trying to rob someone to get a drug fix, why did they beat Shepard so savagely?

:[[Prosecutor]] Rerucha attributes McKinney's rage and his savage beating of Shepard to his drug abuse. "The methamphetamine just fueled to this point where there was no control. It was a horrible, horrible, horrible murder. It was a murder that was once again driven by drugs," Rerucha said.

:Dr. Rick Rawson, a professor at UCLA who has studied the link between methamphetamine and violence, tells "20/20" the drug can trigger episodes of violent behavior.

:"In the first weeks after you've stopped using it, the kinds of triggers that can set off an episode are completely unpredictable. It can be: you say a word with the wrong inflection, you touch someone on the shoulder. It's completely unpredictable as to what will set somebody off" Rawson said.

:"If Aaron McKinney had not become involved with methamphetamine, Matthew Shepard would be alive today," Rerucha said.

So what was the basis for the claim that this was a hate crime? According to ABC News, "Prosecutor Rerucha recalls that Shepard's friends ... contacted his office. Rerucha told '20/20,' "They were calling the County Attorney's office, they were calling the media and indicating Matthew Shepard is gay and we don't want the fact that he is gay to go unnoticed."<ref>''Id.''</ref>

Conversely, threats and vandalism by homosexual activists are typically not treated as hate crimes. For example, "The Federal Bureau of Investigation has refused to investigate threats made by homosexual activists against a Missouri Baptist Convention church in the Lake of the Ozarks area."<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17075 Pastor finds FBI unresponsive to homosexual activists' threats], Bob Baysinger, ''Baptist Press'', Nov 13, 2003.</ref>

==Criminalizing the Gospel==

Art Moore posted this at World Net Daily:

:"We don't want to promote hatred against anyone and are opposed to violence for whatever reason," said Bruce Clemenger, head of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada's Centre for Faith and Public Life. "Our concern, though is that ... courts have not distinguished between the identity of the person and the activity. So sexual orientation refers to both the sexual disposition as well as the activity."

:But homosexual activists contend such a distinction cannot be made with homosexuals any more than it can with matters of race or ethnic origin.

:"The argument of separating the person from the behavior is their concept," insisted Kim Vance, president of Ottawa-based EGALE, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere.

:"In reality they are the same thing," Vance said in a WND interview. "That's language that they use to justify [opposition], but it's language that we don't agree with." <ref> [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29328 The Bible as 'hate literature'?], By Art Moore, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', October 21, 2002.</ref>

What this means is the [[gay rights]] activists want the government to agree with their primary claim, i.e., that homosexuality is a matter of '''identity''' - not a behavior, and certainly not a matter of choice.

==See also==
*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9672&department=CFI&categoryid=papers 'Hate Crime' Laws Threaten Religious Freedom]
*[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0617mcnultyjun17,1,2035460.column?coll=chi-news-col&ctrack=1&cset=true 'What is a hate crime?'], Timothy J. McNulty, From the Public Editor, June 17, 2007.
[[Category:Religious persecution]]

Hate crime

2008-01-04T01:01:01Z

Kiss20: Statement removed is an opinion not any form of fact.

A '''"hate crime"''' is an action held to involve the illicit expression of hatred to the detriment of another person. Such a wide definition combines religious, ethnic or lifestyle persecution.
==Free speech and the Homosexual Agenda==

Opponents charge that hate crime and hate speech rules amount to an erosion of [[First Amendment]] guarantees of freedom of religion, [[free speech]], and freedom of press. In particular, they object to rules or laws which equate condemnation of sin with prejudice.

Hate crime legislation imposes additional punishment for crimes held to be motivated by such "prejudice," and is a stepping stone for a lifestyle to become protected under anti-discrimination laws.

As part of the [[homosexual agenda]], the [[gay rights]] movement has attempted to equate racism and [[anti-Semitism]] with the condemnation of homosexual sin. To do this, they must of course gloss over the fact that race is 100% inherited and immutable. And that religious and ethnic persecution against Jews involved a 6 million person [[Holocaust]] (see [[genocide]] and [[ethnic cleansing]]).

Nonetheless, the strategy of anti-goodness crusaders is to insist that condemnation of sin is a type of "prejudice" equivalent to a civil rights violation. They want people of conscience, who already condemn antisemitism and racism, to regard any critique of homosexuality as an expression of "hate".

This is a perverse misinterpretation of a sermon by Jesus, who told people not to "hate" their enemies. What hate crimes legislation ignores is that Jesus never hesitated to condemn sin and frequently criticized wrongdoers. So there can be nothing wrong with pointing out evils and telling people to stop committing sin. This is not "hate" but an expression of love.

A ladder to legislate social acceptance and promotion of a lifestyle would be as follows:

* '''Bottom Rung:''' hate crime legislation to recognize and accept the lifestyle.
* '''Middle Rung:''' anti-discrimination legislation to favor and promote the lifestyle.
* '''Top Rung:''' [[affirmative action]] to fully promote the lifestyle.

The new [[Speaker of the House]] for the 2007-2008 [[Congress]], [[Nancy Pelosi]], sought to pass hate crime legislation proposed in the prior session of [[Congress]] in H.R.3132. [[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]] was then introduced by [[Democrats]] in the new session [[110th Congress]] that began in 2007.

In July 2007, [[Ted Kennedy]] bypassed a committee vote and attached hate crimes legislation to a massive defense appropriation bill requested by the President, in an effort to compel him to sign the hate crimes legislation.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702 Kennedy cramming hate crimes into defense bill] 'Shameless attempt to push [[homosexual agenda]] ... by exploiting soldiers', Bob Unruh, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', July 17, 2007.</ref>

== Claims of Hate Crimes ==

It is claimed that about 1100 hate crimes against homosexuals or their property occurred in 2004.<ref>Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html Crime in the United States 2004]</ref> <ref>FBI, Crime in the United States 2004, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/hctable4.htm Table 4 Offense Type by Bias Motivation] </ref> But most of those offenses occurred against property rather than individuals, often the result of drugs or alcohol. Only a tiny percentage even involved aggravated assault or worse, and those classifications are not based on any proof at trial.<ref>''Id.''</ref> 74% of hate crimes are either crimes against property (e.g., theft, vandalism or graffiti) or a vague "intimidation".<ref>FBI, Crime in the United States 2004 [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html#table2_33 Table 2.33 Incidents, Offenses, Victims, and Known Offenders by Offense Type]</ref>

In regards to [[Homosexuality and Homicide|homosexuality and homicide]], ''The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers'' by Michael Newton reports the following regarding the issue of homosexuality and homocides:
{{cquote|Homosexual slayers clearly have no monopoly on violence, but it is true that their crimes often display extremes of "overkill" and mutilation... On balance, it seems fair to say that while homosexuals sometimes fall prey to "gay bashing" violence by bigoted "straights," they are far more likely to be murdered by another homosexual than in a random hate crime.<ref>The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers by Michael Newton, page 103</ref>}}

The world-renowned pathologist Dr. [[William Eckert]] wrote regarding homosexual homocides the following:
{{cquote| Equally high is the number of homicides, many probably related to transient attachments, which often lead to suspicion, jealousy, and murder. When murder does occur it is exceptionally brutal with an overkill appearance... Overkill, as it is seen in homosexual and lesbian murders, is certainly a form of sadistic crime. In these instances multiple stabbing and other brutal injuries...are common findings...<ref>Tedeschi CG, Eckert W, Tedeschi LG, eds. Forensic medicine; vol 2. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1977:962</ref>}}
[[Image:Assocchurch138 yzsodw.jpg|thumb|The [[First Baptist Church in Gravois Mills]] was vandalized and threatened by [[homosexuality|homosexual]] activists and received obscene phone calls. An [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] agent refused to list the incident as a hate crime.]]
On the other hand, national statistics regarding [[homosexuality|homosexuals]] committing hate crimes against heterosexuals may be underreported. For example, the [[First Baptist Church in Gravois Mills]] was vandalized and threatened by homosexual activists and received obscene phone calls. An [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] agent refused to list the incident as a [[hate crime]]. The incident involved an anti-homosexuality [[Bible]] verse on the churches' sign.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17075 Pastor finds FBI unresponsive to homosexual activists' threats], Bob Baysinger, ''Baptist Press'', Nov 13, 2003.</ref>

The Center for Reclaiming America cited the following account of how a [[hate crimes|hate crime]] statute was egregiously applied to an ex-homosexual:
{{cquote|In Madison, Wisconsin, a recovered homosexual who had left the “gay” lifestyle to start a family got into a heated discussion with an open homosexual about homosexuality at a gas station. The ex-“gay” man, David Ott, was holding his child in his arms during the entire incident, and neither man touched the other. The homosexual activist later told police he had felt threatened by Ott, and local prosecutors charged the man with “disorderly conduct” with a “hate crimes” enhancement.

The “hate crime” aspect, stemming from Ott’s belief that homosexuality is morally wrong, raised the potential fine from $1,000 to $10,000, and jail time went up from a possible 90 days to one year. Fearing the possibility of substantial jail time, Ott settled, and received 50 hours of community service plus a mandatory attendance at “tolerance” sessions conducted by [[lesbianism|lesbians]] at the [[University of Wisconsin at Madison]]. A ground rule for the session was the premise that homosexual behavior is not immoral.

The entire process cost Ott almost $7,000 in legal fees.<ref>http://test.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/fastfacts/HateCrimes2.pdf</ref>}}

Another example of an alleged anti-homosexual "hate crime" occurred at Columbia University in 2005, when two drunken students scrawled racist and anti-homosexual symbols on a dormitory wall. Initially charged with crimes carrying possible 4-year jail sentences, the charges were later dropped in exchange for some sensitivity training.<ref>[http://media.www.columbiaspectator.com/media/storage/paper865/news/2006/06/12/News/Ruggles.Vandalism.Case.Dismissed-2043702.shtml Ruggles Vandalism Case Dismissed], Elizabeth Kraushar and Eleazar David Meléndez, ''Columbia Spectator'', 6/12/06.</ref> "I am pretty sure [the perpetrator] thought he was playing a joke," said one dormitory resident about the incident.<ref>[http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510542 Hate Crime Rocks Columbia’s Campus], Noah S. Bloom, ''The Harvard Crimson'', December 13, 2005.</ref>

There are very few anti-homosexual murders. The most publicized incident, the murder of [[Matthew Shepard]], was the result of severe drug abuse. After the defense attorney failed to exonerate the killers with an argument of self-defense against homosexual advances, the lead killer admitted in jail that homosexuality had nothing to do with his drug-induced murder:<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=277685&page=3 New Details Emerge in Matthew Shepard Murder], ''20/20'', ABC News. Retrieved 22 July 2007.</ref>

:Asked [by ABC News] directly whether [the lead killer] targeted and attacked Shepard because he was gay, McKinney told Vargas, "No. I did not. ... I would say it wasn't a hate crime. All I wanted to do was beat him up and rob him."

:But if the attackers were just trying to rob someone to get a drug fix, why did they beat Shepard so savagely?

:[[Prosecutor]] Rerucha attributes McKinney's rage and his savage beating of Shepard to his drug abuse. "The methamphetamine just fueled to this point where there was no control. It was a horrible, horrible, horrible murder. It was a murder that was once again driven by drugs," Rerucha said.

:Dr. Rick Rawson, a professor at UCLA who has studied the link between methamphetamine and violence, tells "20/20" the drug can trigger episodes of violent behavior.

:"In the first weeks after you've stopped using it, the kinds of triggers that can set off an episode are completely unpredictable. It can be: you say a word with the wrong inflection, you touch someone on the shoulder. It's completely unpredictable as to what will set somebody off" Rawson said.

:"If Aaron McKinney had not become involved with methamphetamine, Matthew Shepard would be alive today," Rerucha said.

So what was the basis for the claim that this was a hate crime? According to ABC News, "Prosecutor Rerucha recalls that Shepard's friends ... contacted his office. Rerucha told '20/20,' "They were calling the County Attorney's office, they were calling the media and indicating Matthew Shepard is gay and we don't want the fact that he is gay to go unnoticed."<ref>''Id.''</ref>

Conversely, threats and vandalism by homosexual activists are typically not treated as hate crimes. For example, "The Federal Bureau of Investigation has refused to investigate threats made by homosexual activists against a Missouri Baptist Convention church in the Lake of the Ozarks area."<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17075 Pastor finds FBI unresponsive to homosexual activists' threats], Bob Baysinger, ''Baptist Press'', Nov 13, 2003.</ref>

==Criminalizing the Gospel==

Art Moore posted this at World Net Daily:

:"We don't want to promote hatred against anyone and are opposed to violence for whatever reason," said Bruce Clemenger, head of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada's Centre for Faith and Public Life. "Our concern, though is that ... courts have not distinguished between the identity of the person and the activity. So sexual orientation refers to both the sexual disposition as well as the activity."

:But homosexual activists contend such a distinction cannot be made with homosexuals any more than it can with matters of race or ethnic origin.

:"The argument of separating the person from the behavior is their concept," insisted Kim Vance, president of Ottawa-based EGALE, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere.

:"In reality they are the same thing," Vance said in a WND interview. "That's language that they use to justify [opposition], but it's language that we don't agree with." <ref> [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29328 The Bible as 'hate literature'?], By Art Moore, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', October 21, 2002.</ref>

What this means is the [[gay rights]] activists want the government to agree with their primary claim, i.e., that homosexuality is a matter of '''identity''' - not a behavior, and certainly not a matter of choice.

==See also==
*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9672&department=CFI&categoryid=papers 'Hate Crime' Laws Threaten Religious Freedom]
*[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0617mcnultyjun17,1,2035460.column?coll=chi-news-col&ctrack=1&cset=true 'What is a hate crime?'], Timothy J. McNulty, From the Public Editor, June 17, 2007.
[[Category:Religious persecution]]

Hate crime

2008-01-04T00:59:43Z

Kiss20: Statement removed as it is a generalization with no source and makes a judgement, it does not only present fact.

A '''"hate crime"''' is an action held to involve the illicit expression of hatred to the detriment of another person. Such a wide definition combines religious, ethnic or lifestyle persecution.
==Free speech and the Homosexual Agenda==

Opponents charge that hate crime and hate speech rules amount to an erosion of [[First Amendment]] guarantees of freedom of religion, [[free speech]], and freedom of press. In particular, they object to rules or laws which equate condemnation of sin with prejudice.

Hate crime legislation imposes additional punishment for crimes held to be motivated by such "prejudice," and is a stepping stone for a lifestyle to become protected under anti-discrimination laws.

As part of the [[homosexual agenda]], the [[gay rights]] movement has attempted to equate racism and [[anti-Semitism]] with the condemnation of homosexual sin. To do this, they must of course gloss over the fact that race is 100% inherited and immutable. And that religious and ethnic persecution against Jews involved a 6 million person [[Holocaust]] (see [[genocide]] and [[ethnic cleansing]]).

Homosexuality, on the other hand is not God-given or godly in any way. It therefore does not merit any protection or honor whatsoever, and is just as wrong as other perversions (such as incest), even when performed by "consenting adults".

Nonetheless, the strategy of anti-goodness crusaders is to insist that condemnation of sin is a type of "prejudice" equivalent to a civil rights violation. They want people of conscience, who already condemn antisemitism and racism, to regard any critique of homosexuality as an expression of "hate".

This is a perverse misinterpretation of a sermon by Jesus, who told people not to "hate" their enemies. What hate crimes legislation ignores is that Jesus never hesitated to condemn sin and frequently criticized wrongdoers. So there can be nothing wrong with pointing out evils and telling people to stop committing sin. This is not "hate" but an expression of love.

A ladder to legislate social acceptance and promotion of a lifestyle would be as follows:

* '''Bottom Rung:''' hate crime legislation to recognize and accept the lifestyle.
* '''Middle Rung:''' anti-discrimination legislation to favor and promote the lifestyle.
* '''Top Rung:''' [[affirmative action]] to fully promote the lifestyle.

The new [[Speaker of the House]] for the 2007-2008 [[Congress]], [[Nancy Pelosi]], sought to pass hate crime legislation proposed in the prior session of [[Congress]] in H.R.3132. [[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]] was then introduced by [[Democrats]] in the new session [[110th Congress]] that began in 2007.

In July 2007, [[Ted Kennedy]] bypassed a committee vote and attached hate crimes legislation to a massive defense appropriation bill requested by the President, in an effort to compel him to sign the hate crimes legislation.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702 Kennedy cramming hate crimes into defense bill] 'Shameless attempt to push [[homosexual agenda]] ... by exploiting soldiers', Bob Unruh, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', July 17, 2007.</ref>

== Claims of Hate Crimes ==

It is claimed that about 1100 hate crimes against homosexuals or their property occurred in 2004.<ref>Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html Crime in the United States 2004]</ref> <ref>FBI, Crime in the United States 2004, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/hctable4.htm Table 4 Offense Type by Bias Motivation] </ref> But most of those offenses occurred against property rather than individuals, often the result of drugs or alcohol. Only a tiny percentage even involved aggravated assault or worse, and those classifications are not based on any proof at trial.<ref>''Id.''</ref> 74% of hate crimes are either crimes against property (e.g., theft, vandalism or graffiti) or a vague "intimidation".<ref>FBI, Crime in the United States 2004 [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html#table2_33 Table 2.33 Incidents, Offenses, Victims, and Known Offenders by Offense Type]</ref>

In regards to [[Homosexuality and Homicide|homosexuality and homicide]], ''The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers'' by Michael Newton reports the following regarding the issue of homosexuality and homocides:
{{cquote|Homosexual slayers clearly have no monopoly on violence, but it is true that their crimes often display extremes of "overkill" and mutilation... On balance, it seems fair to say that while homosexuals sometimes fall prey to "gay bashing" violence by bigoted "straights," they are far more likely to be murdered by another homosexual than in a random hate crime.<ref>The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers by Michael Newton, page 103</ref>}}

The world-renowned pathologist Dr. [[William Eckert]] wrote regarding homosexual homocides the following:
{{cquote| Equally high is the number of homicides, many probably related to transient attachments, which often lead to suspicion, jealousy, and murder. When murder does occur it is exceptionally brutal with an overkill appearance... Overkill, as it is seen in homosexual and lesbian murders, is certainly a form of sadistic crime. In these instances multiple stabbing and other brutal injuries...are common findings...<ref>Tedeschi CG, Eckert W, Tedeschi LG, eds. Forensic medicine; vol 2. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1977:962</ref>}}
[[Image:Assocchurch138 yzsodw.jpg|thumb|The [[First Baptist Church in Gravois Mills]] was vandalized and threatened by [[homosexuality|homosexual]] activists and received obscene phone calls. An [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] agent refused to list the incident as a hate crime.]]
On the other hand, national statistics regarding [[homosexuality|homosexuals]] committing hate crimes against heterosexuals may be underreported. For example, the [[First Baptist Church in Gravois Mills]] was vandalized and threatened by homosexual activists and received obscene phone calls. An [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] agent refused to list the incident as a [[hate crime]]. The incident involved an anti-homosexuality [[Bible]] verse on the churches' sign.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17075 Pastor finds FBI unresponsive to homosexual activists' threats], Bob Baysinger, ''Baptist Press'', Nov 13, 2003.</ref>

The Center for Reclaiming America cited the following account of how a [[hate crimes|hate crime]] statute was egregiously applied to an ex-homosexual:
{{cquote|In Madison, Wisconsin, a recovered homosexual who had left the “gay” lifestyle to start a family got into a heated discussion with an open homosexual about homosexuality at a gas station. The ex-“gay” man, David Ott, was holding his child in his arms during the entire incident, and neither man touched the other. The homosexual activist later told police he had felt threatened by Ott, and local prosecutors charged the man with “disorderly conduct” with a “hate crimes” enhancement.

The “hate crime” aspect, stemming from Ott’s belief that homosexuality is morally wrong, raised the potential fine from $1,000 to $10,000, and jail time went up from a possible 90 days to one year. Fearing the possibility of substantial jail time, Ott settled, and received 50 hours of community service plus a mandatory attendance at “tolerance” sessions conducted by [[lesbianism|lesbians]] at the [[University of Wisconsin at Madison]]. A ground rule for the session was the premise that homosexual behavior is not immoral.

The entire process cost Ott almost $7,000 in legal fees.<ref>http://test.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/fastfacts/HateCrimes2.pdf</ref>}}

Another example of an alleged anti-homosexual "hate crime" occurred at Columbia University in 2005, when two drunken students scrawled racist and anti-homosexual symbols on a dormitory wall. Initially charged with crimes carrying possible 4-year jail sentences, the charges were later dropped in exchange for some sensitivity training.<ref>[http://media.www.columbiaspectator.com/media/storage/paper865/news/2006/06/12/News/Ruggles.Vandalism.Case.Dismissed-2043702.shtml Ruggles Vandalism Case Dismissed], Elizabeth Kraushar and Eleazar David Meléndez, ''Columbia Spectator'', 6/12/06.</ref> "I am pretty sure [the perpetrator] thought he was playing a joke," said one dormitory resident about the incident.<ref>[http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510542 Hate Crime Rocks Columbia’s Campus], Noah S. Bloom, ''The Harvard Crimson'', December 13, 2005.</ref>

There are very few anti-homosexual murders. The most publicized incident, the murder of [[Matthew Shepard]], was the result of severe drug abuse. After the defense attorney failed to exonerate the killers with an argument of self-defense against homosexual advances, the lead killer admitted in jail that homosexuality had nothing to do with his drug-induced murder:<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=277685&page=3 New Details Emerge in Matthew Shepard Murder], ''20/20'', ABC News. Retrieved 22 July 2007.</ref>

:Asked [by ABC News] directly whether [the lead killer] targeted and attacked Shepard because he was gay, McKinney told Vargas, "No. I did not. ... I would say it wasn't a hate crime. All I wanted to do was beat him up and rob him."

:But if the attackers were just trying to rob someone to get a drug fix, why did they beat Shepard so savagely?

:[[Prosecutor]] Rerucha attributes McKinney's rage and his savage beating of Shepard to his drug abuse. "The methamphetamine just fueled to this point where there was no control. It was a horrible, horrible, horrible murder. It was a murder that was once again driven by drugs," Rerucha said.

:Dr. Rick Rawson, a professor at UCLA who has studied the link between methamphetamine and violence, tells "20/20" the drug can trigger episodes of violent behavior.

:"In the first weeks after you've stopped using it, the kinds of triggers that can set off an episode are completely unpredictable. It can be: you say a word with the wrong inflection, you touch someone on the shoulder. It's completely unpredictable as to what will set somebody off" Rawson said.

:"If Aaron McKinney had not become involved with methamphetamine, Matthew Shepard would be alive today," Rerucha said.

So what was the basis for the claim that this was a hate crime? According to ABC News, "Prosecutor Rerucha recalls that Shepard's friends ... contacted his office. Rerucha told '20/20,' "They were calling the County Attorney's office, they were calling the media and indicating Matthew Shepard is gay and we don't want the fact that he is gay to go unnoticed."<ref>''Id.''</ref>

Conversely, threats and vandalism by homosexual activists are typically not treated as hate crimes. For example, "The Federal Bureau of Investigation has refused to investigate threats made by homosexual activists against a Missouri Baptist Convention church in the Lake of the Ozarks area."<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17075 Pastor finds FBI unresponsive to homosexual activists' threats], Bob Baysinger, ''Baptist Press'', Nov 13, 2003.</ref>

==Criminalizing the Gospel==

Art Moore posted this at World Net Daily:

:"We don't want to promote hatred against anyone and are opposed to violence for whatever reason," said Bruce Clemenger, head of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada's Centre for Faith and Public Life. "Our concern, though is that ... courts have not distinguished between the identity of the person and the activity. So sexual orientation refers to both the sexual disposition as well as the activity."

:But homosexual activists contend such a distinction cannot be made with homosexuals any more than it can with matters of race or ethnic origin.

:"The argument of separating the person from the behavior is their concept," insisted Kim Vance, president of Ottawa-based EGALE, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere.

:"In reality they are the same thing," Vance said in a WND interview. "That's language that they use to justify [opposition], but it's language that we don't agree with." <ref> [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29328 The Bible as 'hate literature'?], By Art Moore, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', October 21, 2002.</ref>

What this means is the [[gay rights]] activists want the government to agree with their primary claim, i.e., that homosexuality is a matter of '''identity''' - not a behavior, and certainly not a matter of choice.

==See also==
*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9672&department=CFI&categoryid=papers 'Hate Crime' Laws Threaten Religious Freedom]
*[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0617mcnultyjun17,1,2035460.column?coll=chi-news-col&ctrack=1&cset=true 'What is a hate crime?'], Timothy J. McNulty, From the Public Editor, June 17, 2007.
[[Category:Religious persecution]]

Debate:Bias in conservapedia

2008-01-04T00:50:52Z

Kiss20: /* Examples of Bias in Conservapedia */

Same-sex marriage

2008-01-04T00:22:14Z

Kiss20: Statement removed is overly vague. Civil unions would only require governmental recognition, not recognition by any individual nor any religious group.

[[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".{{fact}}]]
In regards to '''homosexual marriage''', the same-sex "marriage" movement is seeks to destroy the sanctity of marriage by using political power to enforce a redefinition of the concept. The aim is to prevent any criticism, particularly religious-based criticism, of [[homosexual]] relationships. In regards to [[Homosexual Couples|homosexual couples]], 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.

Although the studies are decades behind heterosexual studies on violence between men and women, the indications are that homosexual relationships suffer from a much higher degree of physical violence than heterosexual relationships. Several studies have been made, and more are ongoing. However, it is safe to say at this juncture, that [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual domestic relationships suffer from violence two to four times higher than the well studied incidence in heterosexual relationships]].

The [[liberal]] rationale for homosexual marriage 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.

__TOC__

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. "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see [[fighting words]]).

Such laws will open up a new wave of militant homosexual violence. Just as "He insulted my wife" can be used as defense against an [[assault]] charge.{{fact}}

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. Social conservatives regard it 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 - and virtually all other established religions - define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,<ref>E.g. In 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 the fact that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that therefore 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 [[gay rights]] 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 it under the name "marriage." These marriages are not recognized by the Federal government.

== Background ==
In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that gay rights advocates would soon seek changes in some states. It was concerned about the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits gay marriage itself—must honor gay 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 established 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. The 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. Thus, even in Massachusetts, it would be close to impossible for a same-sex couple to find a Catholic priest willing to marry them in a church, or an Orthodox rabbi willing to marry them in a temple.

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>

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

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

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Same-sex marriage

2008-01-04T00:19:33Z

Kiss20: Statement referenced a source that only uses "studies" as evidence. The source provides no statistics to justify its claims.

[[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".{{fact}}]]
In regards to '''homosexual marriage''', the same-sex "marriage" movement is seeks to destroy the sanctity of marriage by using political power to enforce a redefinition of the concept. The aim is to prevent any criticism, particularly religious-based criticism, of [[homosexual]] relationships. In regards to [[Homosexual Couples|homosexual couples]], 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.

Although the studies are decades behind heterosexual studies on violence between men and women, the indications are that homosexual relationships suffer from a much higher degree of physical violence than heterosexual relationships. Several studies have been made, and more are ongoing. However, it is safe to say at this juncture, that [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual domestic relationships suffer from violence two to four times higher than the well studied incidence in heterosexual relationships]].

The [[liberal]] rationale for homosexual marriage 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.

__TOC__

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. "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see [[fighting words]]).

Such laws will open up a new wave of militant homosexual violence. Just as "He insulted my wife" can be used as defense against an [[assault]] charge.{{fact}}

Attempts to refer to [[civil union]]s as "marriage", or to require people who disagree with homosexuality to honor such unions.

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. Social conservatives regard it 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 - and virtually all other established religions - define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,<ref>E.g. In 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 the fact that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that therefore 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 [[gay rights]] 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 it under the name "marriage." These marriages are not recognized by the Federal government.

== Background ==
In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that gay rights advocates would soon seek changes in some states. It was concerned about the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits gay marriage itself—must honor gay 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 established 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. The 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. Thus, even in Massachusetts, it would be close to impossible for a same-sex couple to find a Catholic priest willing to marry them in a church, or an Orthodox rabbi willing to marry them in a temple.

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>

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

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

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence

2008-01-04T00:15:43Z

Kiss20: removed portion was opinion and is subjective

[[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".]]
In regards to '''homosexual couples and domestic violence''', studies indicate that [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity|homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.] In addition, studies report that [[Homosexual Couples|homosexual couples]] have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior which will be covered shortly. These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding [[Homosexuality and Murders|the commonness and brutality of homosexual murders]].

In regards to studies regarding homosexual couples and violence, a recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government regarding homosexual couples states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>[http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/85-570-XIE2006001.pdf 2004 General Social Survey], Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref> According the [[American College of Pediatricians]] who cite several studies violence among homosexual couples is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.<ref>http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50</ref> In addition, the [[American College of Pediatricians]] states the following: "Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years."<ref>http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50</ref>

In June of 2004, the journal ''[[Nursing Clinics of North America]]'' reported the following regarding homosexual couples:
{{cquote|Domestic abuse is under-reported in the gay community...

Male-on-male same-sex domestic violence also has been reported in couples where one or both persons are [[HIV]]-positive. Intimate partner abuse and violence include humilation, threatening to disclose HIV status, withholding HIV therapy, and harming family members or pets.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15159188 Nursing Clinics of North America North Am. 2004 Jun;39(2):403]</ref>}}

In 2000, the [[New York Times]] in an article entitled ''Silence Ending About Abuse in Gay Relationships'' cites some information which may indicate that domestic abuse may be under-reported in the homosexual community.<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F06E6DC1239F935A35752C1A9669C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/D/Domestic%20Violence New York Times, Silence Ending About Abuse in Gay Relationships by By JOHN LELAND, November 6, 2000]</ref> The New York Times article states the following:
{{cquote|But the issue of gay domestic abuse has been shrouded by silence until recently...

For years, gay people have tried to keep quiet about the problem, said Dave Shannon, coordinator of the violence recovery program at Fenway Community Health, a gay and lesbian clinic in Boston.

Mr. Shannon said: ''People feel, 'Why should we air our dirty laundry? People feel so negatively about us already, the last thing we should do is contribute to negative stereotypes of us.' ''<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F06E6DC1239F935A35752C1A9669C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/D/Domestic%20Violence New York Times, Silence Ending About Abuse in Gay Relationships by By JOHN LELAND, November 6, 2000]</ref>}}

The Journal of the Family Research Institute using data from the U.S. Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Center for Disease Control concluded that "married men who are not separated are at least 25 times less apt to be domestically attacked than a homosexual male in an 'on-going relationship.' Even if we include all married and separated husbands, the risk of domestic violence in a male-male homosexual relationship is still at least 18 times greater."
<ref>[http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_12.html Gay Domestic Violence Finally Measured], Journal of the Family Research Institute, Vol. 16 No. 8, Dec 2001</ref> Another study indicated that 83% of homosexuals report they have been emotionally abused by homosexual partners. <ref>[http://www.springerlink.com/content/r130ql0471892435/ A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample], The Journal of Family Violence, Publisher Springer Netherlands, Volume 15, Number 3, September, 2000, Pages 281-293. ISSN 0885-7482 </ref>

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Domestic Abuse Fact Sheet states that "11% of women in homosexual relationships and 23% of men in homosexual relationships report being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by an intimate partner".<ref>[http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain/ncdocs/fact_shts/fs_domestic_violence.html#Anchor-Fischbach-17304 National Center for PTSD Fact Sheet]</ref> A study published in The ''Journal of Family Violence'' reported among its participants that "Emotional abuse was reported by 83%" of its participants.<ref>[http://www.springerlink.com/content/r130ql0471892435/ A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample], The Journal of Family Violence, Publisher Springer Netherlands, Volume 15, Number 3, September, 2000, Pages 281-293. ISSN 0885-7482</ref>

A [[study that compared domestic violence between lesbian couples and married women]] is even more pronounced in respect to the above statistics that suggest that homosexual couples are more violent than heterosexual couples.

==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexual Marriage]]
*[[Homosexuality Statistics]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]

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

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Domestic Violence]]