Why are Conservapedia users so obsessed with homosexuality?

[Revtim]

The most viewed pages (from http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics)

1. Main Page‎ [1,946,001]
   2. Homosexuality‎ [1,705,533]
   3. Homosexuality and Hepatitis‎ [518,338]
   4. Homosexuality and Parasites‎ [452,947]
   5. Homosexuality and Promiscuity‎ [422,514]
   6. Gay Bowel Syndrome‎ [404,043]
   7. Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence‎ [374,378]
   8. Homosexuality and Gonorrhea‎ [332,231]
   9. Homosexuality and Anal Cancer‎ [294,754]
2. Homosexuality and Mental Health‎ [294,149]

Are they looking for “ammo” in anti-gay debates? Are they closeted and looking for reasons to stay in the closet or come out? Some combination of these and/or other reasons?

[Maastricht]

Aren’t all those views from non-Conservapedia fans, who are checking in to read what outrageous things Conservapedia says about their pet topic of damnation?

Are the views similarly high for topics like evolution/creationism, which are just as controversial on C., but less sexually juicy?

[hawksgirl]

@Maastricht

Are the views similarly high for topics like evolution/creationism, which are just as controversial on C., but less sexually juicy?

No, because those are the 10 with the most views, so no other topics have as many views as those do.

[Boyo_Jim]

My WAG is that evangelical parents and preachers are looking for terrorizing “facts” for their children and/or flocks.

Also, closeted gay republicans are looking up the penalties for getting caught.

[jackelope]

It’s almost certainly due to click-bots trying to skew their stats. See the comments on this BoingBoing entry, as well as this dude’s blog entry. Excerpt:

While the “Homosexuality” page itself might be highly ranked, the “Homosexuality and Hepatitis” page is short and has been in existence only since October 17. There’s no way something like that would a legitimate third-most popular page, even for raving homophobes.

[Q.E.D]

All those conservatives are secretly gay, anyway.

[Gary_T]

@hawksgirl

No, because those are the 10 with the most views, so no other topics have as many views as those do.

But views could still be similarly high for other topics. For all we know #11 could be another subject with only one less view than #10.

[Revtim]

@jackelope

It’s almost certainly due to click-bots trying to skew their stats. See the comments on this BoingBoing entry, as well as this dude’s blog entry. Excerpt:

Nice find! Thanks.

[matt_mcl]

In general, though, homosexuality seems to do something miiiiiiiighty special to these folks. As I said in a Pit thread many moons ago:

I see this all over the place: we’re the big exception. We make Liberals turn conservative; we make otherwise sane people consider the Notwithstanding Clause; we appall moviegoers who can deal with brutal decapitations; we make schools cancel all their extracurricular programs to keep gay kids from having theirs; we make minorities forget about minority rights, the Anglicans drop their teacups and go into hysterics, and orthodox Muslims and orthodox Jews finally agree about something in Jerusalem. We’re the Apple of Discord. It’s all about us.

[Mangetout]

Once those ten topics made it into the statistics page, that might be a reason for significant additional clicks - people viewing the statistics page, then following the links to try to find out why those ten topics are the most popular (or just to have their existing biases stroked).

But it’s easy to see why topics such as those are more popular than more mundane articles at conservapedia, because the information on most other topics is… well… shit.
For example - if you wanted to know about walnuts, the conservapedia article more or less amounts to “It’s not in the Bible, so it’s not important”.
If you were researching shoes, conservapedia is able to tell you all you ever need to know (i.e. ‘they go on your feet’)

So the kind of information that people seek from conservapedia is already quite specific - and I think this bias has just spiralled in on itself.

[Paul_in_Qatar]

I wandered over to the for the Conservapedia first time a few days ago. All in all, it seems very open to people who are making fun of conservatives. The Barak Obama page had that photo of him without his hand over his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Perhaps all the hits on these pages are from liberal who want to see how whack the conservatives are. Then they might add a plausible edit to make the page even more whack.

Or not. I am guessing.

[panache45]

@matt_mcl

In general, though, homosexuality seems to do something miiiiiiiighty special to these folks. As I said in a Pit thread many moons ago:

Isn’t it amazing, how much power we have over so many people.

[Mangetout]

@Paul in Saudi

I wandered over to the for the Conservapedia first time a few days ago. All in all, it seems very open to people who are making fun of conservatives. The Barak Obama page had that photo of him without his hand over his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Perhaps all the hits on these pages are from liberal who want to see how whack the conservatives are. Then they might add a plausible edit to make the page even more whack.

Or not. I am guessing.

It’s an interesting idea, but I think anyone trying that would be tumbled pretty quickly. The site was originally open for editing by anyone, but it started turning into Wikipedia, so the proprietors locked it down and now you have to sign up to edit.

I suppose it could still be the case that some anti-conservative folks signed up and are deliberately editing it so as to make it appear more extreme and ridiculous, but I just doubt it - I think the site’s owner and buddies are quite capable of doing that all by themselves.