Citation Needed

"Homosexuality advocates claim that desire for same-sex fornication is innate. Furthermore, two prominent scientists (both homosexual men, so unlikely to be biased against the cause) both cite factors other than genetics in the development of homosexual desires.[Citation Needed]"

Yeah, damn right citation is needed. Welcome to the ‘Homosexual rights advocacy’ page on Conservapedia. Already that name – a mixture of “encyclopaedia” and “conservative” – rings alarm bells to most. The conservatives in America are far from friendly to QUILTBAGs. 

It gets even better; the site is a conservative, white, rich, fundamentalist-Christian man’s answer to the apparently too liberal Wikipedia. If you’re wondering what basis politics has on facts, don’t panic! Conservapedia has a helpful page to tell you all about it. 

 

“Conservapedia strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, and true to the facts, which often back up conservative ideas more than liberal ones.” They also “do not allow liberal bias to deceive and distort here.”

Ok, ignoring the fact that they apparently believe that evolution is an Islamic belief, and that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery (anyone that believes that, I have a very poor view of), their page on LGBT rights is almost a literary pile of slightly steaming vomit.

Despite the fact that they try to stay “true to the facts”, Conservapedia falls short of Wikipedia on general knowledge – stating, “Polls consistently show that most people are opposed to same-sex marriage. Thirty states have had a public referendum on same-sex marriage, and all thirty have voted against it.” Outside of founder Andrew Schlafly’s mind box, however, Connecticut, Columbia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont have all fully legalised marriage equality, and several other states have legalised civil partnerships. Citation needed, indeed. 

 

So, readers, how do you like Schlafly?

If anyone is interested in the founder of Conservapedia, incidentally, Schlafly's Conservapedia developed as a result of his World History home-schooling course. He and several of his top students continue to lead the project, and most of his students have contributed entries to it, according to his entry on the least factually correct Internet site since this site (that's noted Tumblr blog facts-i-just-made-up, for those readers that don't like to click on links).

 

The site has odd views on nearly every subject - Don't Ask, Don't Tell apparently "allows homosexuals to serve in the US military", and its repeal "will likely decrease our military effectiveness". Somehow. Don't question them, they're Conservative and therefore know all the facts.

 

It gets even better. The article on LGBT rights states that "a poll reveals that a majority of US citizens disapprove of homosexuality", and that these citizens "believe that accepting homosexuality would require the loss of rights to free speech, freedom of religion, and traditional marriage." Of course, not accepting homosexuality means that gays lose the right to free speech (here's to you, Don't Ask, Don't Tell), freedom of religion (not many religious institutions are brave or rational enough to come out in favour of gay rights), or the right to marriage. But, then again, why should the Conservatives care? As long as it's only the gays' rights that are being taken away, why does it matter to them, right?

As a final note, their pages on various pieces of hearsay and idiocy, such as this one, have such gems as "Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years." This is, funnily enough, caused by the fact that walking out of a relationship with a partner that someone have no legal connection to is significantly easier than divorcing someone. The quickest way to make sure gay relationships last longer? Legalise gay marriage. Sorted, conservatives.