Can anyone verify this Wikipedia assertion about the American Family Association

[jinxmchue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association

From the second paragraph:

Chief among its efforts were ... the criminalization of homosexuality

The first source given for this statement is blocked by my web filter:

http://www.sovo.com/2005/6-3/news/national/anti-gay.cfm

And the second source is a pay site:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-56771191.html

[Chris_]

from http://www.sovo.com/2005/6-3/news/national/anti-gay.cfm ...

Melissa Fryear, gender issues analyst for Focus on the Family, said it was unfair to label the organization as anti-gay.

The organization supports anti-gay policies, she added, in keeping with its core belief system. Fryear is also a former employee of Exodus International, a program for ex-gays that is also labeled anti-gay in the Intelligence Report.

This is the closest thing to a statement from FF I could find.  No specific legislation other than the Lawrence v. Texas ruling is mentioned.

[jinxmchue]

So nothing about criminalizing homosexual behavior.  Why am I not surprised?

[Chris_]

Nothing at all.

Doesn't WP have rules against using non-pulic articles as sources?  I coudn't get into that second one.

[jinxmchue]

Gee, what a surprise.  After I changed the Wikipedia article, someone was quick to revert it.

I found a quote from the second article on CNet, which is about criminalizing public displays of homosexuality, so I left that reference and modified the description.  We'll see how long that edit lasts.

[jinxmchue]

Wow.  Again, no surprise, but the edits I've made have been reverted by...



...wait for it...



...gay members of Wikipedia.  Who'd have thunk it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Orpheus - Atheist, evolutionist and queer, just like his user boxes say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Allstarecho - Pic of him and his gay lover, pic of some shirtless guy and admits love of gay porn.

[MrsSmith]

Why tell the truth when a lie is helpful to your cause??   

[The Night Owl]

So nothing about criminalizing homosexual behavior.  Why am I not surprised?

High court could be poised to overturn sodomy law

Posted on Mar 27, 2003 | by Tom Strode
WASHINGTON (BP)--The U.S. Supreme Court was told by lawyers seeking to overturn a Texas law barring homosexual acts that it violates privacy rights and is discriminatory, and supporters of such prohibitions fear the justices may agree after March 26 arguments before the court.

The high court heard oral arguments in an appeal of a Texas court opinion sustaining a state law banning sexual relations between members of the same sex. The lawyer for two Houston homosexual men asked the court to overturn a 17-year-old ruling in which the justices upheld a Georgia law barring same-sex acts. The justices could stop short of revisiting their 1986 decision and still strike down the Texas law.

...

Supporters of the law filing briefs included the American Center for Law and Justice, American Family Association, Center for Marriage Law, Concerned Women for America and Liberty Counsel, as well as the states of Alabama, South Carolina and Utah.

...

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=15583

So, there you have it.

[The Night Owl]

Wow.  Again, no surprise, but the edits I've made have been reverted by...

...wait for it...

...gay members of Wikipedia.  Who'd have thunk it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Orpheus - Atheist, evolutionist and queer, just like his user boxes say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Allstarecho - Pic of him and his gay lover, pic of some shirtless guy and admits love of gay porn.

The gay Wikipedians who are cleaning up your vandalism of the Wiki entry on the AFA have no more of an agenda than you, zealot.

[TheSarge]

The gay Wikipedians who are cleaning up your vandalism of the Wiki entry on the AFA have no more of an agenda than you, zealot.

FOAD...really...seriously...I mean that with all sincerity.

[RedTail]

Wow.  Again, no surprise, but the edits I've made have been reverted by...

...wait for it...

...gay members of Wikipedia.  Who'd have thunk it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Orpheus - Atheist, evolutionist and queer, just like his user boxes say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Allstarecho - Pic of him and his gay lover, pic of some shirtless guy and admits love of gay porn.

The gay Wikipedians who are cleaning up your vandalism of the Wiki entry on the AFA have no more of an agenda than you, zealot.

Are you saying both sides have an agenda, or just Jinx , since you decided to end your post with "zealot", which is a pejorative in this case?

Are you going to call them zealots, since it can be argued that AFA was arguing for upholding the law as it stood  and not creating new law, as implied? I would think so, since they are obscuring this fact and going for the extreme language.

Clarification, please.

*Red*

[TheSarge]

Are you saying both sides have an agenda, or just Jinx , since you decided to end your post with "zealot", which is a pejorative in this case?

Are you going to call them zealots, since it can be argued that AFA was arguing for upholding the law as it stood  and not creating new law, as implied? I would think so, since they are obscuring this fact and going for the extreme language.

Clarification, please.

*Red*

Well of course his side NEVER has an agenda.

Only republicans or people of faith are narrow minded unbending "zealots" in TNO Liberal Looney Land.

[MrsSmith]

So nothing about criminalizing homosexual behavior.  Why am I not surprised?

High court could be poised to overturn sodomy law

Posted on Mar 27, 2003 | by Tom Strode
WASHINGTON (BP)--The U.S. Supreme Court was told by lawyers seeking to overturn a Texas law barring homosexual acts that it violates privacy rights and is discriminatory, and supporters of such prohibitions fear the justices may agree after March 26 arguments before the court.

The high court heard oral arguments in an appeal of a Texas court opinion sustaining a state law banning sexual relations between members of the same sex. The lawyer for two Houston homosexual men asked the court to overturn a 17-year-old ruling in which the justices upheld a Georgia law barring same-sex acts. The justices could stop short of revisiting their 1986 decision and still strike down the Texas law.

...

Supporters of the law filing briefs included the American Center for Law and Justice, American Family Association, Center for Marriage Law, Concerned Women for America and Liberty Counsel, as well as the states of Alabama, South Carolina and Utah.

...

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=15583

So, there you have it.

Posted on Mar 27, 2003

If you have no current news, please feel free to use something ancient.   

[RedTail]

Are you saying both sides have an agenda, or just Jinx , since you decided to end your post with "zealot", which is a pejorative in this case?

Are you going to call them zealots, since it can be argued that AFA was arguing for upholding the law as it stood  and not creating new law, as implied? I would think so, since they are obscuring this fact and going for the extreme language.

Clarification, please.

*Red*

Well of course his side NEVER has an agenda.

Only republicans or people of faith are narrow minded unbending "zealots" in TNO Liberal Looney Land.

You could be right, but I do want to see what he has to say.

*Red*

[The Night Owl]

Are you saying both sides have an agenda, or just Jinx , since you decided to end your post with "zealot", which is a pejorative in this case?

Both sides.

Are you going to call them zealots, since it can be argued that AFA was arguing for upholding the law as it stood  and not creating new law, as implied? I would think so, since they are obscuring this fact and going for the extreme language.

Clarification, please.

*Red*

The Wiki entry does not contain the claim that the AFA has argued for new laws against homosexual behavior.

[The Night Owl]

If you have no current news, please feel free to use something ancient.   

The Wiki entry Jinx objected to pertains to past actions undertaken by the AFA. Because the AFA's involvement in the Lawrence v. Texas case is an example of action the AFA has taken in the past, any information about that involvement is relevent here.

[The Night Owl]

FOAD...really...seriously...I mean that with all sincerity.

I would be disappointed if you were less than sincere when telling me to FOAD.

[RedTail]

Thanks for the answer.

I'm satisfied with it. Everyone else may not be.

*Red*

[jinxmchue]

Hmm, yes.  I'm a "zealot" with "an agenda" because I want Wikipedia articles to accurately reflect what is given in the references used.  Typical.

Ignoring your sorry ass now, fool.

[The Night Owl]

Hmm, yes.  I'm a "zealot" with "an agenda" because I want Wikipedia articles to accurately reflect what is given in the references used.  Typical.

According to what you wrote in this thread, you edited the Wiki entry even though you weren't sure that it was wrong. In your zeal, you assumed that the information in the Wiki entry was wrong even though you had made an only half-baked attempt to verify it. And then you acted surprised that your "corrections" were reversed.