Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 13

History section
Someone is reverting my edits about the history of SSM. They were well sourced, historically accurate, and apolitical. Either/or: include all non-marriage unions, or only include actual marriages. There is no sense in including only non-pederastic unions while omitting pederastic unions, which were the more common type.Ragazz (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My personal opinion is that while your history section was correct, I want to say it's a bit too detailed for this article. Yes, while in many ancient civilizations pederasty (which just so we're all clear is not the same as pedophilia) was common, an actual male-male relationship was oddly enough stigmatized; you didn't mention that. You also failed to mention that in Ancient Greece, the warriors boasted of how homosexuality and love among the soldiers made them fight harder; oddly enough the complete opposite of how many people view homosexuality today. Basically, what I'm trying to say, is just try to be more neutral. It's hard for anyone but we have to do it. But this doesnt even matter, it's unrelated to "same-sex marriage" again, this is an article about same-sex marriage, not the history of homosexuality. K?  (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The ambiguity of the language left it open for the reader to assume that all of the unions discussed were like marriages. I will remove the links to Greece and Japan, so as not to mislead the public then. The unions there were pederastic.Ragazz (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I mentioned that above; what's your point? That's the history of homosexuality, nothing to do with SSM in modern times- don't confuse the two!  (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ragazz would you say the idea of a woman owning a black man in the 1800's be equivalent to a heterosexual and 'traditional' marriage? Because that's exactly what pederasty was -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) The original paragraph was much different. It inderectly and implicitly used examples of pederasty as marriage-like unions. Although out of context my edit my seem like a chance to inster propaganda, it was nothing of the sort. Please assume good faith. It seems like I can't do anything here without people assuming I'm an anti-gay nutcase trying to insert propoganda.
 * 2) Historyguy1965, I don't know what your point is. My point is this: It's an article about marriage. In a section called History, if we say "same-sex unions have been around since the begining of time and they were highly ritualized and celebrated" without further description, that can obviously misleads readers to think that these were like marriages, because in the modern context, same-sex unions are like marriages. Instead, (and I am not well versed in this history I'm just going off the sources provided) most of the appearences in the historical record of unions (not just relationships) were of the apprentice-pederastic type, as in Shudo and Sparta.Ragazz (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am assuming good faith. Generally pederasty is illegal and thus has a negative connotation associated with it. I wouldn't say it's appropriate to compare a pederastic relationship to modern marriage-equality movement (even in a historical perspective) because pederasty is not the history of SSM. Often pederastic relationships were not exclusive.. as far as I know.. the older man was often married, to a woman if I'm not mistaken.   (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And this is not an article on marriage; it's an article on same-sex marriage. Marriage has a long history and same-sex marriage is relatively modern.  (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one who put the ancient stuff in there. I was just attempting to edit it for neutrality.Ragazz (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I say we either stick to just historical SSM, of we give a balanced account of historical SSUs. It is not balanced to include SSUs without pederasty, because the practice was so widespread.Ragazz (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ragazz. I would also like to point out that what we would today label as 'pedophilia' by straights was also very common in early human history. So there's no real bias here. It's just a fact of life that humanity has socially progressed- I am better off than my grandparents, they compared to theirs, and so on. The Squicks (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it should not be used in a pejorative way and that was never my intention although I can see how you guys would be a little paranoid lol.Ragazz (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with paranoia, it's just historically inaccurate. If we do include it then I'm also including the slavery comparison with it, so for the time being I've reverted, if it's reverted back I hope to see no contention in the following edits I'll make -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I still don't see what is historically inacurate about it, please explain. Anyway, here is my last revision. What's the problem? Anyway, here's the version I propose:

Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. While in most cases these unions were temporary pederastic relationships,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18] there are a few historical documented instances of same-sex marriage.[19]

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[20] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[21] A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) issued in 342 AD prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome, but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist.[22] It has been suggested that same-sex marriages between men in ancient Rome were not granted the same social and/or legal standing as heterosexual marriages.[23] Ragazz (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And if you're going to draw a comparison between pederasty and marriage, which seems biased and unneccessary, then you need a source to explicitly say that or else its WP:SYNTH.Ragazz (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait, if comparing pederasty and marriage is biased and unnecessary, then why do you continually try to include it in this same-sex MARRIAGE article? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It gives historical context. "There were different types SSUs in history. Of these, most werent marriages, but some were." What is so controversial here? You're reading into it way to much.Ragazz (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As a historian I have a tendency to do this, I need to read into it. Tell me Ragazz, what classified a 'union' as marriages in the past? Remember we're dealing with various cultures and dialects. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ragazz, you have a point but I'm just troubled of why this belongs in the same-sex marriage article..... why not history of homosexuality. I'm just not getting the connection between historical pederasty (?5000BC - 0* [depending on where]) and modern day marriage, 2,000+ years later. (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The decision to include ancient history was not mine, it was already in the article before I got here. That being said, the article is SSM, not "modern ssm", and therefore a brief synopsis of historical ssm should be included, imo. And again, I'm not the one who included the examples of pederasty, I only identified them as such. Someone else had included ssu in ancient greece and japan as "examples of ssu", not me.Ragazz (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ragazz you didn't answer my question. And what is "modern SSM" LOL? A neologism? Weren't you the one who said that comparing pederesty and marriage was biased and innaccurate, and now you're talking about SSM and modern SSM? Both of which ARE marriages. And you mention SSU, what? Where do you get the idea of varying terms in the past form of unions? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether they were marriages, I suppose, would depend on the sources denoting them as such. The article is on Same sex marriage. There is a section on history. Why should we exclude everything but modern history? If there is a history, we should include it. It apparently did exist in some form or another. After all, the article is not The controversy about modern same-sex marriage.Ragazz (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep ignoring my original question? I'm asking you how you determined what unions were marriages and what unions weren't, what dialects are we referring to? How were they different? Who determined which was and wasn't? You made the claim, just explain -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't ignore it. As I said, whether they were marriages, would depend on the sources denoting them as such. It's up to the author of the source to qualify historical same-sex unions as marriages. As far as I can tell, one delineation is whether they were temporary, and whether there was an apprentice-like aspect to the relationship. If so, they were some type of pederasty. But again, I was not making the determination. I was summarising the information that appeared in the paragraph below based on the sources provided.Ragazz (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We have to be careful using the word "marriage" for ancient relationships, because the term does not necessarily have an excact equivalent in all the cultures discussed. Any use of the word "marriage" should be limited to sentences like "Unlike modern marriages, pederastic relationships in the Classical world were temporary." (This sentence is only an example, not a suggestion for the article.)Ragazz (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems rather self-evident that there's no equivalent parallel in history for gay marriage. It's all a matter of degree and of shades of gray. I don't think that there's anything wrong with the article including text like=


 * Scholars X and Y in Z-country have written that long-term pederastic relationships in Z during the A-years somewhat parallels a type of 'marriage'.


 * The crux of the issue is how to present the views in a NPOV way. The Squicks (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree Squicks. I think that because the article is entitled "Same-sex marriage" it should have something about relevant history before modern times, even if it's just something like:


 * While there is no clear parallel to modern same-sex marriage in history, scholars have described various historical same-sex unions. Unions of type X occured in cultures A and B, unions of type Y happened in cultures C and D.
 * It shouldn't be too in depth, but something should be included.Ragazz (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd include it if it made any sense, answer my question after Page Break 4, I've simplified to one question per your request -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

page break

 * Ragazz I'll keep it to one question: How do you (or the authors you mention) determine whether or not something was a union or something was a marriage? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Call me evasive if you wish>> I am an editor, not a researcher. It doesn't really matter how I define marriage here. However, for the sake of this article, I feel that anything described as a marriage should be:
 * a) A permanent arrangement; not a temporary one as in pederasty of the apprentice type or the type of pederasty where the man also has a wife publicly but an affair with a youth on the side.
 * b) The union should be recognized by the respective society as being the equivalent of heterosexual marriage; not for example adelphopoiesis, which John Boswell himself, if I understand correctly, did not consider to be literally "gay marriage," even if his conclusions about a sexual nature were true.Ragazz (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finally answering the question, and to respond:
 * a) The problem here is this isn't exactly a verifiable statement, it's just an opinion. I believe lots of things, as do you, but why should either of us edit the article in the favor of what we think? The problem with this article thus far is people thinking a particular group "owns" the term marriage, which simply isn't true. To me, all of these 'unions' were 'marriages', it's just a different word for the same thing. But this constant argument about 'unions not being marriages' is simply gibberish, there is nothing to back them up, it's just opinionated and last time I checked, even several dictionaries (ie: Webster's, which was created by a strongly religious Christian man) has included same-sex marriages...despite the stigma of excluding it during it's inception.


 * b) But several societies have enacted gay marriages, the problem here (and I still can't get an answer to) is: Where is the logic that you draw the line in terms of calling something a marriage? - the word 'Marriage' is translated from various cultures and communities, it's only existed in the English language since the 12th-13th century, the idea that these previous unions were all linked exclusively to heterosexual relationships and purposely called homosexual marriages 'something else' is completely fabricated, I'd love to see a source stating otherwise. Not to mention, I wonder how many reversions we'd receive if we said The traditional marriage movement is set out to protect the varying definitions of heterosexual unions of the past, including those between 10 year old girls and 60 year old men - would you for instance be against the above? Something tells me yes, but like I've said before, it's a complete double standard

-- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're saying temporary pederastic relationships and adelphopoiesis should be refferred to in this article as "same-sex marriages?" I'm not so sure that you will get a consensus on that. I don't think that most scholars are in agreement on that either. Please see and  Thanks.Ragazz (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

HistoryGuy changed the word "union" to marriage in the following sentence. As far as I can tell, this is not exactly supported by sources. I would have reverted it, but didn't want to violate WP:3RR, as I already reverted his edit warring in the intro. I am putting the clarification tag back in, because it is not clear what is meant by "marriages." The source given is for Webster's Dictionary.

"Various types of same-sex marriages[12] have existed[13], ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions."

I don't even understand how something can be a "marriage" if it is an "informal, unsanctioned union." We were trying to reach a consensus here, but evidently that is out the window again. :/ Ragazz (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You may have a point, but it's a complicated one (after all, "homosexuals" didn't exist back then, either). We have so many issues going on at once, that I wish we could shelve some like this to sort out once we get the basics out of the way (which was my reason for trying to compile the for/against/fringe? list). -- >David  Shankbone  18:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I added a source, so please read them before falsely accusing me of having no sources. Next, informal means not following a particular custom...but wait wait, hold on, you'll probably accuse me of making things up so I'll show you the Webster definition verbatim: "marked by the absence of formality or ceremony" - in other words, not all marriages of the past required a ceremony, heck even common-law -marriages- are like that today. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with David, there's just too much going on right now to deal with this. As per David's post, I'm changing it back for now. HistoryGuy, please respect this and wait until consensus is reached before doing something that controversial. They were indisputedly "unions," so there should be no conflict with leaving that until we figure this out. HistoryGuy, please don't edit war; leave this alone until we reach a consensus.Ragazz (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you even read what he wrote? He even said "I'm not familiar with why Ragazz is doing that" How about before reverting you wait for a consensus to be reached on the definitions of marriages in the past, then we'll change it, until then it's 100% accurate and supported by two sources -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're the one who's edit warring, as in you made the change to begin with. You should have consulted the talk page.Ragazz (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That memorandum was made for the lede, the change was not made there. If every change to the article had to go through the talk page then wikipedia would have been created like such. I do not think it's fair that each time something is changed in the article you demand a new consensus, why not just prove the changes wrong and make appropriate changes? I understand it's difficult to prove historically accurate information as wrong -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * READ THIS! Ragazz (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I still object to your changing this section without reaching a consensus of the talk page, documented in this edit on 9/16. I'm sure we could argue it for some time here, and that's the point. The previous version was 1) neutral and 2) here when I got here, so don't try to say it's "my version.". This is just one of many examples of your ignoring the consensus process here. I'm asking you to change it back for now. The discussion should happen before the change is made.Ragazz (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes by DS
The recent changes I made look like a lot, but they really are not. I mostly reorganized by moving information around and added some history - nothing controversial for which more cites can be found. The layout was confusing me, and I think a stumbling block to creating a better intro. -- >David  Shankbone  17:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Current Status
Doesn't it seem to anyone else to be undue weight to give the U.S. its own section while SSM laws in the rest of the world are lumped into another section? The Squicks (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a weight issue, only because other sections haven't been developed. It's looking like the "controversy" section will be whittled down to a tenth of its current size, so expansion on international areas is encouraged.  Nothing is set in stone. -- >David  Shankbone  20:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I know what you're saying Squicks, wikipedia in general is really US-specific, even though it shouldn't be. David why do you say the controversy section will be whittled down? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From how I'm reading this discussion. -- >David  Shankbone  23:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree or disagree depending on what ya'll mean by the term "whittled down". There's some information that merely re-iterates previous points and can be seen as infocreep, sure. But I don't think that we should take it down to just a few paragraphs and skip over things.
 * From my own experience talking to conservatives, it seems like the personal liberty concerns are A#1 in their minds (e.g. students supended/expelled from schools for "homophobic state speech", employees fired for voicing their opinions to colleagues in the workplace, churches forced out of adoption services, etc.) and that they would more or less accept gay marriage if they were promised to be left alone. This is something brought up in the RS already here and must be kept. The Squicks (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Squicks, forgive me because I'm speaking from a position of ignorance--the other editors have yet to respond--but I believe that the suggestion we drastically whittle down the "Controversy" section is because there are sub articles that address the controversies--e.g. Religious arguments about same-sex marriage, Marriage privatization or even Same-sex marriage in the United States. What I got from Mish and the follow-up comments is that we're reinventing the wheel here, when it's perfected--or should be perfected--better elsewhere.  In otherwords, remember the "Intro" discussions?  Basically, each section would be an "Intro" section--sourced, stand-alone--to topics better covered in subsidiary articles.  With that reasoning, it argues we've been preoccupied talking about the political debate, on an article with many branch subsidiary articles, that is meant to be an international, broad overview of the topic; not specific.  So, we should be writing/structuring it to direct people to where the real meat of each section is written about on the focused subsidiary articles.  Anything less would mean the international article for "Gay marriage" would be an unwieldy, lengthy mess.  In reality, it should function as a glorified table of contents (goes that reasoning).  What's your thought? -- >David  Shankbone  00:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for/against same-sex marriage
See my comment below (this list may be edited, is not complete, and sources are welcome):

Arguments against gay marriage
Tradition Parenting Morality Religious Societal
 * Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman.
 * Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage because they are less stable.
 * Other institutions, such as civil unions and domestic partnerships, are more appropriate than marriage.
 * Same-sex couples are problematic in raising children.
 * Changes the focus of marriage from raising kids to personal rights.
 * Gay relationships are immoral and violate the sacred institution of marriage.
 * Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and others.
 * Churches would be forced to marry gay people against their will.
 * Churches will loose tax-exempt status
 * Religious colleges would be forced to accept same-sex couples.
 * Present a conflict for religious people in professional field.
 * If gay marriage is legalized, homosexuality would be promoted in the public schools.
 * Same-sex marriage would be a health risk
 * Those opposing same-sex marriage will be treated as bigots
 * It would hurt small business owners who have to pay additional benefits.
 * Enforcing anti-descrimination against same-sex marriage could infringe upon the rights of others (eg. landlords, employers, the Boy Scouts, etc.) and result in costly lawsuits


 * Do you have any sources for anything you just said or is it just fear mongering? Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman...according to whom? Who owns this term? How would SSM threaten current marriages? Who has said that SSM are problematic in raising children, what is this due too, how does this apply to single-parent and racially demographic households? Who said churches would be forced to perform these marriages, and how is homosexuality being promoted in schools any more worse than heterosexuality? Most idiotic arguments I've ever heard -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Historyguy, the tone of your comments is lending little to this discussion. First, I'm gay.  Second, I'm pro-marriage equality and I'm very good friends with Evan Wolfson, the modern founder of the entire movement.  I think we are all getting tired of your assumptions of bad faith on the part of editors, and when you raise these arguments against me, it hurts your ability to influence the argument because they are wild accusations.  I agree with you, personally, that these arguments are "idiotic" but my own personal bias is what I'm trying to check at the door and actually write the arguments that are presented.  Most, if not all, of these are already found in this article and others, and sourced.  I'm just trying to hammer out a list.  Please tone it down. -- >David  Shankbone  16:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh you're gay, definitely! Kind of how Ragazz messaged me and told me he was a liberal and for equal rights :) . Anyways, on a more serious note, if we include the arguments is it not fair to include the truth attached with them? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your questioning my own statements is not only against WP:AGF, but also make you sound ridiculous (or, I guess a homophobe would concentrate on taking pictures of drag queens, would accompany Jim McGreevey on his former prisoner ministry, interview Evan Wolfson twice, write his and Larry Kramer's biographies, etc.) I'm going to ask you again: please tone down your comments, and please stop the edit-warring on the article, and assumptions of bad faith on the parts of editors.  And if you haven't noticed, there's an entire section I also wrote below, and none of this is complete.  It's a start. -- >David  Shankbone  17:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * David I do assume good faith, right up until I see bad intentions, that's all. So my question again is whether or not it's fair to include the truth next to the bullet-point assertions? Also I'm not edit warring, I just happened to remove the clarification tags, now as a supposed gay man yourself, what do you think of clarification tags being inserted next to 'same-sex marriage' in an article titled, Same-Sex marriage? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'm trying to sort out the meat-and-potatoes of each side. For instance, under the "arguments against" you'll see tradition.  Under the "arguments for" below, you'll see the same.  I'd prefer to keep them separate for ease of reading.  Ideally, we'll come up with a complete list, with sources, and then see how the article's "controversy" section compares.  Then we can meld them all together in the article, with point-counterpoint style.  I'm not familiar with why Ragazz is doing that, so I can't answer that question until I focus on it.  Right now, though, the discussion is all over the board and we're trying to write a lead intro to an article that itself may be lacking, so I want to try to get the arguments nailed down. -- >David  Shankbone  17:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In all honesty David, I think the list should probably be left in a paragraph-type form and purposely left vague. Having a list makes sense, it's smart and makes it easier for the readers to understand but unfortunately here we have authorities and non-authorities alike who will inevitably butcher it to fit their POV. Let's say some Random decides to include a ridiculous nonsensical argument, writing something like "allowing gay marriage will threaten my life" - who's to accuse him of being wrong? After all an argument is an argument and I'm sure there's a couple sources out there that have, in one way or another insinuated Random's sentiments. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The list isn't being proposed for the article, but to be able to clarify the central issues here on the talk page. The "allowing gay marriage will threaten my life" would not work as it would fail major policies like no original research and verifiability.  Otherwise, this list is just for this talk page, so that we can see how the article compares and to come up with general categories of the main arguments for the lead. -- >David  Shankbone  18:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So, motivators like homophobia and having gay friends should not be included here either. Just arguments. Nice idea adding the list David. When you have a chance, could you please check out my "list of proposed changes" above? I'll check out these reasons later.Ragazz (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Added to list: infringement on rights of others with source. Added polygamy slippery-slope source. Hope you don't mind David. Revove it if you prefer.Ragazz (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If homophobia and having gay friends aren't in the list, then where does being a bigot and not wanting gay people to get married or simply being gay and wanting to get married go - but without some coherent intellectual reason?


 * I'm starting to question the list based on authenticity, are there any other articles that pose similar arguments that have no merit? It just seems to me that it's adding argument with no legitimacy, ie: "Same-sex marriage would be a health risk" - which makes no sense considering it's no different than a SSU, only name change...which somehow implies a name change will pose health risks. Or "Gay relationships are immoral" - according to whom? Now we're being specific to religion, not so encyclopedia-like. Things like that -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact is that opponents to same-sex marriage are making these arguments, repeatedly and loudly. Whether or not they have merit is irrelevant: it is not the job of the Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) to debunk bunk. These arguments are notable and editors must strive for a neutral point of view, so I'm afraid they have to stay (provided, of course, that everything is properly documented and referenced.) TechBear (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, this is all off-topic. The article is about same-sex marriage, not whether people are for or against it.  That would be 'Views on validity of same-sex marriage'.  This should be about the subject, not a WP:SOAPbox for people's views on the article subject.  For example, despite the amount of radical feminist and other critiques of the institution of Marriage, that article has one line on criticism.  The same for many articles, for example, Christianity has no criticism section at all. Mish (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we aren't explaining the debate surrounding Same-sex marriage, then this should be no more than a Wiktionary entry, if I understand you correctly. -- >David  Shankbone  20:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. It would document the history of Same-sex marriage, where it happens, which churches conduct these marriages (MCC etc.), legal recognition, the forms it takes, the ceremonies involved, religious vs. secular same-sex marriages, pagan hand-fasting, stuff like that.  At the moment, it seems we are more concerned with whether it should happen, not that it has been going on for over three decades, and went on in history (which bizarrely some editors shouldn't even be in the article).  Whether campaigns for SSM are included or not depends on whether the other article is about arguments for/against SSM, or opposition to SSM. Otherwise the topic gets lost in deviation about people's views on SSM, which is off-topic.  I guess we need to face the fact we've been duped, and sidetracked into editing about irrelevances such as polygamy and reasons for and against SSM. Mish (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See Mish made a point that simply asserts what I was saying, how is it that the Christianity article has no arguments for and against it but an article like SSM does? Sure, there's controversy around SSM but is anyone here going to honestly tell me there's no controversy around Christianity? It just seems like a double standard -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what I have been saying here all along. There is way too much weight on arguments both for and against, and not enough neutral information in the "history" section. It's a slippery slope to NPOV, lol. That being said, I feel the arguments explained have to be balanced by weight of frequency of appearance, if I understand the NPOV policy correctly. As it stands, with the "traditon" section deleted, secular arguments against SSM seem to be vastly underrepresented, but again that might be my POV.
 * Mish, to clarify, it has been around for less than that. Registered partnership in Denmark has been around for 20 years, not 30. And that is not "marriage," at least by name. If it were, gay activists would be fighting for civl unions etc., not "marriage" (quotes not meant to be disrespectful). This distinction may be biased POV, because I am for civil unions and undecided on gay marriage. But nonetheless it is a significant distinction.Ragazz (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Troy Perry conducted the first same-sex wedding in California in the late 1960's. Today I watched a review of the documentary where he was interviewed at the time, with footage of such a ceremony and interview with Perry at the time, on Alan Whicker's retrosepctive of "Whicker's World", which was broadcast in April this year.  Weddings are part-and-parcel of Christian marriage, and marriage is not confined to civil and common-law marriages, but includes religious forms of marriage (whether recognised by the state or not). Mish (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm staying on-topic.Ragazz (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's one thing I've never understood about the whole 'terminology' argument, if people say that 'SSM causes A1' how do they correlate that with 'SSU do not cause A1'? Know what I mean? In other words, how do people claim that same-sex marriage is, say, 'immoral' or 'would lead to bestiality' but not claim the same for same-sex unions (which is marriage under a different name). My point is many of these arguments are against same-sex relationships period and I feel anything that could correlate to such should be stated. Unless, of course, someone could provide the editors with evidence showing how calling an 'A' a 'B' could have all these ramifications. What's my suggestion if the editors plan on including this? Split it into "Arguments against Gay Marriage" and "Arguments against Gay Relationships" -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thing is, here we have civil partnerships, and this has become an issue because some registrars feel they shouldn't have to participate in these ceremonies as they conflict with their religious beliefs, and if they have to it conflicts with their religious freedom, (even though it's not marriage). The discussion about civil unions is the same as SSM.  One of the bizarre twists was that they argued CPs were discriminatory because they were not open to heterosexuals (although why one would want a civil partnership rather than civil marriage gave rise to bizarre examples).  So, my answer is that those who are opposed to SSM tend to trot out the same guff for SSU, arguing along the lines that it's marriage in drag.  Heads they win, tails you lose.  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it probably is a duck...  But I've yet to hear of anybody trying to register a CP with a duck - or try their luck at a threesome for that matter (and nobody has so far tried to register a death and double up a quickie CP with the corpse while they are at it). Mish (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Break: restructuring article

 * Actually, this is all off-topic. The article is about same-sex marriage, not whether people are for or against it.  That would be 'Views on validity of same-sex marriage'.  This should be about the subject, not a WP:SOAPbox for people's views on the article subject.  For example, despite the amount of radical feminist and other critiques of the institution of Marriage, that article has one line on criticism.  The same for many articles, for example, Christianity has no criticism section at all. Mish (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we aren't explaining the debate surrounding Same-sex marriage, then this should be no more than a Wiktionary entry, if I understand you correctly. -- >David  Shankbone  20:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. It would document the history of Same-sex marriage, where it happens, which churches conduct these marriages (MCC etc.), legal recognition, the forms it takes, the ceremonies involved, religious vs. secular same-sex marriages, pagan hand-fasting, stuff like that.  At the moment, it seems we are more concerned with whether it should happen, not that it has been going on for over three decades, and went on in history (which bizarrely some editors shouldn't even be in the article).  Whether campaigns for SSM are included or not depends on whether the other article is about arguments for/against SSM, or opposition to SSM. Otherwise the topic gets lost in deviation about people's views on SSM, which is off-topic.  I guess we need to face the fact we've been duped, and sidetracked into editing about irrelevances such as polygamy and reasons for and against SSM. Mish (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See Mish made a point that simply asserts what I was saying, how is it that the Christianity article has no arguments for and against it but an article like SSM does? Sure, there's controversy around SSM but is anyone here going to honestly tell me there's no controversy around Christianity? It just seems like a double standard -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what I have been saying here all along. There is way too much weight on arguments both for and against, and not enough neutral information in the "history" section. It's a slippery slope to NPOV, lol. That being said, I feel the arguments explained have to be balanced by weight of frequency of appearance, if I understand the NPOV policy correctly. As it stands, with the "traditon" section deleted, secular arguments against SSM seem to be vastly underrepresented, but again that might be my POV.
 * Mish, to clarify, it has been around for less than that. Registered partnership in Denmark has been around for 20 years, not 30. And that is not "marriage," at least by name. If it were, gay activists would be fighting for civl unions etc., not "marriage" (quotes not meant to be disrespectful). This distinction may be biased POV, because I am for civil unions and undecided on gay marriage. But nonetheless it is a significant distinction.Ragazz (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I repeated the conversation above to get a sense about what's being proposed. There are an enormous amount of subsidiary articles to this broad topic.  If I understand Mish et al. correctly, this page should really be a broad summary of the sub articles--but sourced and written as a stand-alone article--not taking on the task that the sub articles address.  Is that the general reasoning?  Hence, much of the "Controversy section" would be whittled down to several paragraphs alluding to the general topics, with links to the sub articles that further explore the generalities presented here? -- >David  Shankbone  14:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that. The 'controversy' should be mentioned, but not in detail, and as you say, links provided to those articles where it is treated in depth already.  As you say elsewhere, no point re-inventing the wheel here. Mish (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel that would make for a better article. If there is any good sourced NPOV material that needs to go, care should be taken to insert it into the corresponding articles. Maybe we should start with a new outline for the proposed revamped article, with notes as to how much material should go in each section.Ragazz (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Arguments for gay marriage
Tradition
 * Marriage as an institution has changed fundamentally throughout its history:
 * The choice by a couple of whether to marry or divorce was a legal and cultural battle that took decades, arguably centuries.
 * Ending government interference in personal choices, such as whether or not to engage in sex with a married partner and whether to use contraception (the Supreme Court's Griswold decision)
 * Ending race restrictions on who could marry whom; that only came to an American conclusion, legally speaking, forty years ago. (US specific?)
 * Ending the legal subordination of women in marriage, including exempting spouses from charges of rape (North Carolina was the last state to remove that exemption--in 1993).
 * Sources:
 * 'Traditional' marriage has changed a lot, Seattle Post-Intelligencer
 * Webster Makes It Official: Definition of Marriage Has Changed, American Bar Association Journal
 * Marriage, a history, Psychology Today

Universal human rights Equality under the law Parenting
 * Gay partners are not granted legal rights in difficult situations like medical crises. (at least partially covered by civil unions/domestic parterships)
 * People who marry tend to be better off financially, emotionally, psychologically, and even medically. (at least partially covered by civil unions/domestic parterships?)
 * Feminism argument?
 * Marriage affords legal privileges that are denied same-sex couples. (at least partially covered by civil unions/domestic parterships)
 * Children in stable, married households can be better off than those who aren’t because both parents can handle decision-making. (at least partially covered by civil unions/domestic parterships?)
 * Sources:
 * Why Marriage Matters, Evan Wolfson, Chapter Five - What about the children?
 * Same sex marriage good for kids?, Washington Post

'Normalizing LGBT relationships Religious Financial
 * Allowing gays to marry will help better integrate them and their relationships into society. (at least partially covered by civil unions/domestic parterships?)
 * Gay and Lesbian Christians would like to get married to their partners, because it is normal for Christians to marry their partners.
 * There are financial advantages in formal marriage, as this affects inheritance rights and tax exemption, pension rights, tax status, welfare benefits, etc.

Fringe?

 * Gay marriage "heterosexualizes" the LGBT community.
 * Fighting for marriage takes away from other LGBT issues.
 * Marriage should be privatized.
 * Marriage doesn't work for straight people--high divorce rates--so why introduce it to gays?

Comments on list
It will enlighten the discussion above, but I also think it's important to the health of the article to flesh out the main arguments both for and against gay marriage and see how well they are represented in the body. From that list, we should be able to come up with general themes (such as feminist arguments falling under "equality under the law") that should be used in the lead. Below I started a list that can be edited. I also included a section called "Fringe?" (I essentially cut-and-pasted some arguments from some websites; they aren't mine). -- >David  Shankbone  14:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the financial aspects need to be drawn out more. These can include medical and life insurance cover, taxation, inheritance rights, inheritance taxes, pension rights, all of which have traditionally tended to favour married couples over cohabiting couples.  This may extend to things like adoption and custody as well, where a legally recognised union can be of benefit. Mish (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I didn't spend as much time on the arguments for gay marriage, and grouping them thematically, but I invite anyone to edit the list.  I posted it haphazardly to give some modeling clay to play with.  -- >David  Shankbone  15:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a religious section under for-SSM also. LGBT Christians, for example, would like to be able to get married because that is what Christians do as part of a life-long committed relationship (this is an important issue amongst LGBT Anglicans, where clergy find themselves in a difficult situation in not being able to marry their partner, as this is seen as being 'outside marriage', and thus a form of sexual immorality which can put their position within the church at risk.  At a more basic level, clergy and laity would simply like to have such a relationship formally recognised by the church in the same way that heterosexuals do).  At the moment it comes across (on the list) that the only religious argument is against SSM, which is unbalanced. Mish (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Homophobia needs to be one item in against-SSM, and knowing somebody who is gay or lesbian in for-SSM. Mish (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - anyone can edit the list without consensus - it's meant to be a catch-all, as long as the argument can be sourced (the ones in the lead, for instance). -- >David  Shankbone  22:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I misunderstood, would you like us to propose changes directly into your post or make suggestions and then go from there? I'm not sure if your original post was meant to serve as a template for others, it may be easier to allow us to edit directly onto it. Let me know, thanks -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Added notes about civil unions to pro-side; over-lapping arguments.Ragazz (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Edvard Westermarck
Could someone perhaps point out why the edits are continually reverted? I'm just quoting the man himself from the very first page of the very first chapter, presumably being the thesis for his books. Yet others are quoting him from some random page in his 3-volume series. Imagine if, for instance, someone took the word 'God' from the dictionary and only used the definition closely resembling the Islamic deity, when in reality the first definition would probably be the broadest and most applicable. Personally, I have no problem leaving it the way it is, I'd just rather get an explanation -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What you were writing was difficult to understand. Also, the definition that is there currently, is from the first paragraph of Chapter 1 (after you get past pages and pages of notes and introductions to various editions).  In fact, the definition I inserted is the second line, and is clear.  The reason for including this definition was as a starting point for historical context.  Several of the dictionary sources specifically referred to dictionary definitions in court cases as to why gays can't be "married" - that was a tremendous shift, when every major dictionary, particularly the OED, changed that (quickly).  The definition is proper, but it also highlights that the definition, like it or not, has changed as far as the major publishers go.  -- >David  Shankbone  20:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was the guy who revereted Historyguy's latest insertion. It read
 * Edward Westermarck had said (in the latest edition of The History of Human Marriage): "Definition of marriage as a social institution, p. 26 sq. - The institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit, p. 27 sq. - The relations between the sexes and parental care among the Invertebrata"

I cannot for the life of me understand what was quoted, with all the "p. 26 sq." stuff. Were you quoting a table of contents? There is sort of a sentence in the middle of that quote, but the rest, not so much. There are little things I could clean up (like replacing "had said" with "said") or question for specificity (the latest edition? Which is that?), but the heart of this was babble and I could not clean it up enough to be useful or meaningful, so I yanked it. I suspected you'd just made a cut'n'paste error, and would revive it with a proper quote. - Nat Gertler (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This was my original edit that was removed:
 * "Edvard Westermarck had said "The institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit. The relations between the sexes and parental care among the Invertbrata" including both monogamous and polygamous unions."
 * I only included the p. 26 stuff because that was quoted verbatim in Westermarck's book, I thought the editor who originally removed it was looking for it. Now what David had said when he removed it was "this doesn't actually define the historical concept of marriage, but rather its development" - which, at least in my studies is a contravention, because the development is the definition as no embodying party 'owned' the term. There is no set precedent that immediately 'defines' a term, it's only established as (or during) it's development, not just with 'marriage' but with everything in historical context. Westermarck knew this as well because he prefaced my addition with "Definition of marriage as a social institution, p. 26 sq. - " and I only added what came after the hyphen. Hope this clears up the confusion -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I'm convinced that this fits the section you're trying to put it in; it seems much more about the history of marriage and less about the history of "marriage" - the etymological and terminological considerations that the section header suggests. It looks to me (from your quoting) that he's using "definition" not in its word sense but in its delineation sense (as in "a well-defined line separates true craziness from mere frivolity") - Nat Gertler (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now gone and looked up the source. That line you quoted? It's from the listing of contents (note it says Contents at the top of the page.) It may not be formatted as a typical modern Table of Contents, but that's what it is; the only relationship between the phrase with "Definition" and the phrase that followed it in your quote is that they point to adjacent pages. The item that DS quotes is the actual material that the Contents page points to. - Nat Gertler (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To respond to your first post, the idea that it's an etymological section in itself means that individual sources (that is, by sociologists, anthropologists, etc) are not necessarily valid because that's not what etymology is, it's simply based off the words themselves. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To respond to your second post, the contents are a summarization to those adjacent pages you're talking about, it's just Westermarck included all the necessary definitions. Go back to the contents page I linked to, notice all the references to the various definitions in it's inclusion, that was my point, we're taking only one of his definitions. Nonetheless would it be okay to include the next sentence that Edvard wrote after that definition on page 26, the "These rights and duties vary among different peoples, and cannot therefore all be included in a general definition..."? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear what the goal of adding that second sentence in this section would be. The first sentence conveys the idea that marriage had always required both sexes, even when not limited to two people, and that matches with the following material that indicates that the definition of marriage has been being updated since. Discussion of the responsibilities of marriage would seem to fall outside this section. - Nat Gertler (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The goal is to put it in context. "the following material that indicates that the definition of marriage has been being updated since" - updated since? Since what? Westermarck created a hypothesis, no one knows the origins of marriage -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I miss how whatever additional context provided by the next sentence serves this section of the text. As for "since what", since Edvard put forward his studied definition in 1922. - Nat Gertler (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The context it provides is that no single and set definition exists, as leaving it out would imply, we as editors have to look at it from the perspective of the reader. It's like saying "the colors of the rainbow include red, orange, and yellow - blue, indigo, and violet" - technically everything before the hyphen is true but you're also leaving out important information with what proceeds it. The whole "since what" argument I'm making is you can't take a theory from an anthropologist and add to it presuming it true. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it does not say that no definition exists, just that different cultures bring different rights and duties to it. That different soups use different ingredients does not mean that there is no definition for soup. In this case, the variation shows no particular relevancy to the topic at hand. And if you feel the Edvard does not qualify as a reliable source on the definition of the word, that is an argument for removing his quote altogether, not for including more from him. - Nat Gertler (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Westermarck is an excellent source, and he tried to derive a general definition from the cultures he studied; he had no political agenda. Now, if the argument is, "But other unions were around historically" then that's a different idea about what "marriage" was considered by humanity.  Things change in history, and the definition of "marriage" has been a recent change.  It's a paragraph that serves the interests of neither the pro- or anti-same-sex marriage groups.  It just is. -- >David  Shankbone  11:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification Tags
Why does the editor (Ragazz) continually insert the clarification tags under SSM with no explanation? What needs clarifying? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Often in a source, the author will define terms where it is possible to have ambiguity. For instance, in an earlier chapter, the author may say "I am using the word 'marriage' for any arrangement where two sexual partners live together." In that example, there might be partners who are not state-recognized but would still be called "marriage" by the author. Care should be taken in the Wikipedia article to use the word "marriage" for historical same-sex marriages, as it leads to confusion. At the least, the history section should say what it means by the word, and not have a link to a dictionary definition of modern marriage. Next time you want to remove any tags, please go to the talk page first. Thank you Ragazz (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just an FYI, those lines you removed were not inserted by me, but from (I believe) David. I highly suggest you tell us under what basis you're adding these tags and what your definition of marriage lies under, even Webster's defines SSM as a union of two of the same gender, that's exactly what such marriages were. I don't see what constantly needs clarification, would you like me to link you to several dictionary definitions of same-sex marriages? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Slippery Slope Arguments
This is a proposal for a new section, as polygamy seems to be much more infalmatory than I thought it would be, and doesn't include the other slippery-slope arguments.

Main source proposed (the author supports same-sex marriage, btw):

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND SLIPPERY SLOPES

Other more mainstream sources will be used to show usage of these arguments and counterarguments.

Here's the idea:

Sippery Slope arguments

Brief explanation of what these arguments are.

Brief explanation of the cause for concern: the degredation of marriage over the last fifty years

Brief explanation of the opposition to use of slippery slope arguments

Polygamy

Attitue altering argument

Equality argument

Counter-argument

Restrictions on Anti-Homosexual Decisions

Concerning religious institutions

Other situations

Counter-argument

Again, this will be very brief and concise, three short paragraphs. Any suggestions? Feedback?Ragazz (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I believe this to be a way of forcing the polygamy issue into the article. Of course, any person can dress up an article and claim it to be a viable source in order to enforce logical fallacies. For instance, one of the contributors to the article is Maggie Gallagher who's said (amongst other things) like: "To imply that religious believers have no right to engage moral questions in the public square or at the ballot is simply to establish a Reichian secularism as our state faith. " and "Overall, in most places that have gay marriage, it looks like the demand for it is pretty small." -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to go into this here. Check your talk page.Ragazz (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd much rather this continue here because you're under the impression that I'm always "attacking" you, I'm not, just chill and understand my POV. What I'm doing is what I'd expect of you to do whenever ANY article is presented, I'd like you to critique it as much as possible. From every angle, from every point, to every source. There is a lot more bad information than good information and it's our job as editors to find it. I'm giving you my opinion of the article, I've checked the sources and they're not legitimate, the contributes are known demagogues. But let's stop this bickering and fighting and let others see for themselves -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's in a peer-reviewed academic journal.Ragazz (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Any claim of the "degradation" of marriage over the past 50 years would be horribly POV. (In the US, fifty years ago in many areas interracial marriage was still outlawed, and in many areas a marriage license was still a legal permit to rape your spouse. So understandably, many of us think that marriage is in a much better state here than it was then.) In the scope of this article, I'm not sure that the "slippery slope" argument needs much more presence than to acknowledge its existence... particularly since much of the particulars being invoked are US-specific. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please scan through the article Nat. This is only a presentation of existing arguments. There will be counter-arguments presented as well. This all follows guidlelines for NPOV. As for it being US-specific, you may have a point there. However, the polygamy argument is definitely not US-specific. Are you suggesting that polygamy has its own section then?Ragazz (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have scanned through the article, Ragazz, and I do not find where it presents fifty years of degradation of marriage. I do find where it paints having slipped down (or up, as one might view it) a slope in terms of sexual autonomy (page 4 of the file, numbered 104) over the past fifty years; that does not speak to marriage. And no, I don't think "polygamy" should have its own section in this article, because this article is not about polygamy, and that would be getting too far away from the topic of this article. A mention that there is an argument that legalization of SSM will lead to legalized polygamy (and bestiality, and necrophiliac marriage, and whatever else they offer up) should suffice. There might be room for more specific details of that argument in some more specifically directed article, like opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to go now, but everything here was explicitly described at length in the article.Ragazz (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that you remember it as such, but I've scanned through the article, and also done searches for "50" and "fifty" on it, and am not finding it, and am finding the discussion of fifty years on sexual autonomy right about where we would expect to find it based on your outline. Please recheck your beliefs against the data if you intend to move forward with this section (which, again, I suggest that you not, although this article might make for some interesting inclusions in the slippery slope article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to also mention that the article also makes unwarranted claims, ie: "Moreover, the gay rights movement had natural allies on the American Left, which generally supported sexual autonomy." and "parents who want to teach their children that homosexuality is improper find that the groups that can help in child-rearing (such as the Boy Scouts or private schools) are being forced to place homosexuals in role model positions" - boy scouts in themselves have had problems with all groups, like the stigmatization of Atheists, which again all these arguments have nothing to do with SSM nor Polygamy, they're simply against homosexuality period. Which brings me to another argument, if you could use the slippery slope argument in regards to SSM, why not in regards to interracial marriages? I could just as easily say "allowing the mixing of races will inevitably allow the mixing of species!" which of course is a ridiculous assertion in itself, but it's the same sort of argument -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that starting a deep discussion of the slippery slope argument here will lead us down a slippery slope to discussing that the slippery slope to polygamy clearly starts with legalizing marriage at all. - Nat Gertler (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I implore you all to please stop debating the merits and truth of the arguments and sources being discussed and focus on our job here: editting an encyclopedia.Ragazz (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nat Gertler I 100% agree. Ragazz I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for, what is it that we're doing wrong? You posted an article, asked for opinions, and that's what exactly you're getting. The problem with your last statement is you said "please stop debating the merits and truth of the arguments and sources being discussed" - I'm sorry but that's assuming there's truths to begin with. Why shouldn't we discuss the sources, I don't understand? Every article suggested, including the ones I post should be look at as false and then proven as truthful, not the other way around. You also say the focus of our job here is editing an encyclopedia and you're absolutely correct, but I'd rather leave an article untouched rather than edit it with bad information. In some cases, less is more, and that's definitely true with articles supporting logical fallacies. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Determining the "merits and truth of ... sources" is very much part of the editing of an encyclopedia, Ragazz. We do not accept all sources, and we need not accept everything stated in a "reliable source" -- in fact, we cannot, because reliable sources are often in conflict and can be flat-out wrong. - Nat Gertler (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not doing original thesis research here, where we would leave out sources based on supporting our conclusions. We are simply reporting sources that exist with neutrality. To purposefully exclude sources based on their POV goes against the concept of NPOV.Ragazz (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There, you see, you're talking about the merit of the source. In this case, your source is largely engaging in conjecture, and spends much of its time setting up hypotheticals that it ultimately shoots down. I'm having trouble seeing what great value and import this particular source has that we're supposed to devote a full three paragraphs to it. We certainly don't need to include a misdescription of the material. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the basis of the type of source it is, I'm arguing for its inclusion. I don't belive we are supposed to be arguing against the substance of the source, unless it is fringe (correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, it is a great description of the arguments and counter arguments. I haven't intended to misrepresent it at all. If you feel like I'm misrepresenting the source, on the other hand, I'm happy to talk about that, but after I'm done contributing/discussing to David's section above.Ragazz (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a "great description of the arguments", because I've seen little sign that the actual anti-marriage folks are making statements anywhere nearly so detailed; he's extrapolating how an argument might be constructed to support their shallow statement, and then knocking down the argument he has built. And while you may not have intended to misrepresent it at all, by the inclusion of the statement about 50 years of degrading marriage, you appear to be misrepresenting it nonetheless. - Nat Gertler (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nat, that was an accident, please assume good faith. I was reading several articles at the same time. Regarding your above statement, I think the majority of the arguments on both sides of this issue are dumbed-down and over-emotional. Should we refrain from including anything intelligent here altogether?Ragazz (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The position of arguments in this article is to document what is occurring in the public discussion, not to craft possible position papers. As far as I can tell, the depth of argument for the "slippery slope" being presented here does not reflect any actual discussion coming from the Slippery Slope folks; it is a straw man erected to be knocked down. It's hard to see how that has any significant place in the actual situation on the ground, and thus why it should have a place in this article. - Nat Gertler (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So, your saying this article shouldn't be included because it's too in depth, or because the author himself is in favor of gay marriage? You're really reaching now. The source is either reliable or not. It's reliable. Whether or not the material is relevant is a different question.Ragazz (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that "here are some arguments that other people could make, and here's why they would be false" is horribly irrelevant. If the author of the article is not making these arguments (and he's specifically arguing against them) and we don't find anyone else making this arguments (not a generally "slippery slope" argument but these specific "slippery slope" arguments), then what's the point? - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of this discussion will end up being irrelevant--or, more relevant to other articles--once we whittle the controversy section to its core and allow the nuances in the arguments to be played out in greater detail on other articles (what I believe is current consensus). The only reason the controversy section is still existing in its present state is that none of us have taken on the gargantuan, bold move of getting it to an NPOV, manageable size with links to other articles.  A lot of what I read above is really centered around the American debate, which is dominating this international article too much.  -- >David  Shankbone  15:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK Nat, I see your point, but I disagree with your assertion that these arguments are only made in this article. They're made all over the place, only perhaps more extensively here. If you read the article carefully, the author says that the arguments have rational merits, but that these merits are simply outweighed by other points, in his assessment. Anyway, David's above comment is welcomed by me. I don't think any of these pro- or anti- arguments should take up much space in the article. However, I can't see what the problem is with using this source. To omit sources like this runs close to characterizing the opposition as far-right religious zealots.Ragazz (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I'm going to heed David's advice and work together on the lists he has compiled above.Ragazz (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If they're arguments made by actual opponents of SSM, then the source should be used that actually reflects that connection. The author takes the very claim of a slippery slope and creates his own logic that he might suggest supports it, and then tears that down. For support on his supportive logic, he turns mainly to Volokh, another SSM supporter. As such, it's hard to see how this is a source on the arguments against SSM, particularly since the author even when he's termporarily arguing for the legitimacy of the slippery-slope isn't using it as an argument against SSM, as he doesn't argue that what the slippery slope leads us to is bad. If the opposition cannot avoid being seen as looking like zealots without someone else inventing conveniently more logically constructed arguments for them to supposedly have, then that's the cost of their not having logically constructed arguments. To trot out those invented arguments on their behalf is to misrepresent the discussion at hand. The pilpul here may be appropriate for the slippery slope article itself, but not for something trying to represent the actual conflict over SSM. - Nat Gertler (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like David's 18.1 Arguments against. They're not over the top and they're reasonable/realistic.  (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with David and those above. The Squicks (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wedgwood book
Someone just removed the cite of a supposed book by Ralph Wedgewood, because they could not find source for it. A quick search suggests that they meant the 1999 edition of Homosexuality: Opposing Viewpoints, edited by Mary E. Williams and part of the Opposing Viewpoints series. It had an article by Ralph Wedgwood (note spelling), "What are we fighting for?" reprinted from the Harvard Gay and Lesbian watchamijiggy, Fall 1997.

No idea if the piece is any good or not, just didn't want something disappeared simply due to a misformatted cite tag (and I don't know that tag well enough to save it this morning.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex_marriage
What do people think of the list-style format of this section as a possible format for others? -- >David  Shankbone  14:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's confusing as is. We already have the LGBT in Africa link at the top of the section. I think it would be clearer to have a bulleted list of countries, with a short sentence on status in each one, and a link to that country's separate SSM page. Something like


 * In West Afristan, women are permitted to marry women, but male-to-male marriage is only legal if they both wear hats with bunny ears.
 * The only problem then being is that it's not clear at first look that the link goes to an article of more detail, rather than just the general entry on West Afristan. - Nat Gertler (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the introduction of the word "Topics" over it?-- >David  Shankbone  18:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section re-write
"While few societies have recognized same-sex unions as marriages, the historical and anthropological record reveals a large range of attitudes towards same-sex unions ranging from praise, to sympathetic toleration, to indifference, to prohibition. Organizations opposed to same-sex marriages have argued that same-sex marriages are not marriages, that legalization of same-sex marriages will open the door for the legalization of polygamy, that recognition of same-sex marriages would erode religious freedoms, and that same-sex marriages deprive children of either a mother or a father. Other opponents of gay marriages hold that same-sex marriages are unnatural."

"Some supporters of same-sex marriages take the view that the government should have no role in regulating personal relationships, while others argue that same-sex marriages would provide social benefits to same-sex couples. A 2004 Statement by the American Anthropological Association states that there is no evidence that society needs to maintain 'marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution', and, further, that same-sex unions can 'contribute to stable and humane societies.' The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers state: 'There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage.... Empirical research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents do not differ from heterosexuals in their parenting skills, and their children do not show any deficits compared to children raised by heterosexual parents.... [I]f their parents are allowed to marry, the children of same-sex couples will benefit not only from the legal stability and other familial benefits that marriage provides, but also from elimination of state-sponsored stigmatization of their families.'"

"The debate regarding same-sex marriages includes debate based upon social viewpoints as well as debate based on majority rules, religious convictions, economic arguments, health-related concerns, and a variety of other issues."

Reflist
This is the introduction to the "controversy" section. Based upon this discussion above, it would seem that this paragraph is all that is needed, albeit with a re-write that directs readers to where the controversies are more fully explored, either thematically or nationally. Thoughts? -- >David  Shankbone  16:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph seems a bit wrong to me since its mostly just a block quote of a statement. I would prefer to rewrite that so that the points are paraphrased rather than in a solid block like that- which may be distracting to the reader. The Squicks (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, this quote is itself a summary/synthesis of the views of all major social, psychological and psychiatric professional associations in the USA. Rewriting this passage would be next to impossible without either plagiarising the source or altering the meaning.  This statement has been finely honed by lawyers to precisely represent the views of these organisations, and I doubt we could do better than these leading professionals and the lawyers.  And we don't have to, because they have done that job for us, and we can do no better than quote them.  This game has been played out elsewhere in similar circumstances - it starts with the quote being too long, then it gets rephrased and that is pulled up as being plagiaristic as being too close to the source, and then it gets rephrased again, and that gets pulled as it does not state what the source says, so a direct quote gets put in, and round and round we go.  Better not to waste time by going down that road, and let the quote from eminent WP:RS stand as is. Mish (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On a separate issue, doesn't "See discussion of prenuptial and postmarital agreements at Findlaw" constitute a violation of WP:SYN? We are showing readers a bulk of commentary and then telling them= 'here, see if you can sort this out for yourselves'. It would make far more sense to pick a relevant case and then link more about it in detail. The Squicks (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On another issue, it seems that the opponents statement recognition of same-sex marriages would erode religious freedoms is just left hanging there without a rebuttal. Perhaps we could include something about how several prominent LGBT rights activists such as Johnathan Rauch and Andrew Sullivan favor a policy with legal gay marriage that include 1st amendment protection guarantees. (Of course, there are a spectrum of ideas out there- but I'm just starting off with an example). The Squicks (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Or simply that there is no precedent whatsoever for a religious organization being forced to perform a wedding to which they object. Or to put it the other way around, there is legal precedent for religious organizations being allowed to set their own, more restrictive rules on who can and cannot get married by their clergy. The Catholic church, for instance, can refuse to marry a divorcee, a quadriplegic, or even anyone who insists on an outdoor wedding, despite all of these being permitted in a civil marriage. --Icarus (Hi!) 21:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that you're completely misunderstanding the issue.


 * What religious people are worried about is that, say, a Catholic student group will have all of its students expelled/suspended if they choose not to let in an LGBT person and a Catholic student newspaper will be shut down if it prints an editorial that takes an anti-gay position and a Catholic bookstore will be destroyed if it refuses to hire an LGBT worker and a Catholic church will have its adoption facilities shut down for discrimination against LGBT couples and a Catholic student will be expelled/suspended for not wanting to share the same apartment with an LGBT person etc...


 * As one LGBT rights activist put it, "Religious people have freedoms. They have the freedom to go out of business." The Squicks (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The exact quote was "You have religious liberty; you have the religious liberty to go out of business." The Squicks (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Raising the concern that churches would be forced to marry same-sex couples is not "missing the issue"; those very concerns have been expressed and repeatedly. That others want to be free to discriminate in other dealings may also be an issue, but the (frivolous) concern about churches being forced to marry couples is very much in play in the conversation. - Nat Gertler (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here the issue was about bed-and-breakfasts. Christians were worried that if they offered goods and services, they would not have the right to refuse them to queers, and be put out of business.  The problem was that it would conflict with their religious principles if they had to have men having sex together in their own homes.  Then there was the stuff about churches not being able to continue to exclude queers from services they offered the public, like hiring out church halls for public functions.  Or not being able to continue excluding queers from church-related employment positions.  The issue of gay marriages did not come up, but marriage of transsexual people who had a GRC was a problem, because by re-registering their gender they became eligible to marry people of the 'other' sex.  This did seem to get ironed out, and is still ongoing through the consolidation in the Single Equalities Bill - which effectively ensures that religious bodies, organisations, and individuals can continue discriminating on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.  So, churches can hire out church halls to celebrate a civil partnership if they can get away with it, but they won't have to - people don't have to have people engaging in same-sex sexual activity in their spare room if they don't want to, registered transsexual Anglicans can marry in church (provided they marry somebody of the correct sex) as long as the vicar can get away with it, but Roman Catholics don't have to.  So yes, the paranoia is real, and documented in WP:RS, but the reality is that it these fears were unfounded, which is also documented.  Although this relates to civil partnerships, the same holds true for the goods and services examples (and I believe employment too - for specific types of religious jobs), but the case of transsexual marriage demonstrates that churches can get round problems about marrying people they don't want to as well - just as many have  with divorced people for decades.  So, they are paranoid about this, that is well documented, but they don't really need to worry, as their right to discriminate does not appear to have been significantly undermined. Mish (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * the reality is that it these fears were unfounded... they don't really need to worry Those statements make no sense at all. There's an honest disagreement of opinion within pro-LGBT rights activists around the world. Some of them basically think "F--k the Christians" and support taking their liberties away (see the Ake Green case as an example). Some of them (I suppose Andrew Sullivan is the most prominent advocate of this libertarian view) say that those liberties are very important- important enough to even include a right to discriminate.


 * It's a debate. There are both sides to it. You may object that most LGBT Americans would feel disgusted at the idea of taking away someone's free speech rights (and I would agree with that), but there is a minority who does support that. That back-and-forth should be mentioned. The Squicks (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me just take you up on this point: "What religious people are worried about is that, say, a Catholic student group will have all of its students expelled/suspended if they choose not to let in an LGBT person and a Catholic student newspaper will be shut down if it prints an editorial that takes an anti-gay position"
 * Just two points on this
 * 1) That argument has less to do with gay marriage and more to do with gays in general
 * 2) What would you say if that same Catholic group decided to exclude blacks from having membership/joining the club?
 * Point being, why would someone want to join a group of bigots with people that hate them to begin with? I don't see the Jews complaining about joining anti-Semitic clubs or associations -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1)The point made by people who are anti-gay marriage is that legalized gay marriage will directly lead to this kind of anti-liberty actions.


 * 2)Yes- it happens often. People want to join groups and campaign actively to get in them even if the group does not want them. The reference to racial discrimination is a silly, specious comparison. Christian groups will welcome someone who is born gay and is sexually abstinent with open arms. The issue comes in when her or she decides to get in a relationship with a member of the same sex. A recent legal case actually highlighted this specifically= a Christian group let in a lesbian who claimed that she was celibate and then they kicked her out when it turned out that she was not telling the truth (see here).


 * You are born gay/straight. You are born white/black. But whether or not someone chooses to be in a relationship is completely a matter of his or her own free will. But, anyways, this conflict between group members and prospective attendents does happen and it happens more than one would initially think. The Squicks (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some concerns can be shown to have been unfounded, in that the supposed trigger situations came to pass, and the predictions of the concerned folks did not come to pass. (And may I note that tou are looking at a rather narrow band of Christianity when you suggest that Christian groups won't reject people based on their race, or that they will accept celibate gays, or that they will reject non-celibate gays. "Christian" groups cut a pretty wide swath.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding controversy section reduction
Sorry, I don't have time now to review all the talk above. IMO, this goes a bit far in restructuring. Is it possible that the contrversy section could be based more on the "arguments" section started by David above? I think the article is currently far too heavy on individual arguments, but they should still be presented here with counterarguments where applicable. We should pretty much at least include any arguments that aren't fringe. We still need sub-sections under "controversy" also, only with a short paragraph in each imo. Ragazz (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is a distraction. It is not about gay marriage, it is about people's views (or fears) about gay marriage again - which still dominates this article which is WP:UNDUE, as the article topic gets lost in this attention to micro-detail, which is probably the aim behind having it here - as in WP:SOAPbox. Mish (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"In an interview with the UK Independent newspaper, a South African traditional healer, Mrs. Nokuzola Mndende, lamented the difficulty of applying traditional practices to same-sex couples: “There’s the issue of lobola [a traditional dowry paid to the family of the bride]. Normally the man pays it. In this case who’s going to pay?” The prospect of same-sex households being childless and thus complicating long-standing inheritance and family practices is another concern raised by traditionalists." China is now discussing same-sex marriage, and there are bound to be a litany of Chinese norms, customs and mores that get discussed that are irrelevant to the American debate. We just can't adequately cover all the global pros/cons. This article should serve as a broad, almost glorified table of contents to other articles. All the debates above are relevant and need to be had--on other articles. This is a change from how I thought before. But the lists above are still important, as they help define the central debates that should go in a re-crafted "Controversy" section. -- >David  Shankbone  23:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue I agree with Mish on is that this article is a bad place for detailed analysis of the debate pro/con same-sex marriage. First, it's a global article and there are too many local debates, customs mores and norms that a proper fleshing-out will need to take into account.  For instance, from this United Nations website I found this argument in South Africa:


 * Interesting. I presume that cultures where arranged marriage is the norm would criticise on the basis that the parents would not choose a same-sex partner, so it contravenes this custom? Mish (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I generally support sub-articles for any sub-section that gets to more than 4 paragraphs and can be furhter expanded. We already have subarticles for support and oppostion to SSM, so i agree that this article's coverage should be trimmed, and those bulked up and proably merged (covering opposition and support separately makes for 2 skewed and less informative articles imo). I wouldn't remove any of the controversy subsections, but make each a single paragraph directly under the controversy section header.


 * Likewise, any country with enough info should be here only as a very short summary of a sub-article here. AFAIK, only the US has this so far, but as this article gets expanded to cover exactly what SSM marriage means to different culteres (ag. China, India), they should also get summaries and subarticles. Along with all the legal situation and histary sub-articles, this aricle should have many many of "main" and "see also" links throughout, making this an easily readable overview and portal to furhter details  Yob  Mod  10:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, maybe support and opposition could be merged as 'views on SSM', and that would help balance and avoid counter-POV editing there? Perhaps national info could be hived off as an article on national positions and debates on SSM, and those with enough material developed into their own article (as with USA).  Given there are articles for views, then those views certainly should not be detailed here, simply a summary that there are arguments for and again, with links to the main article beneath the section header.  This is about the phenomenon, not the ideological views about the phenomenon. Mish (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Views' might be one word, but I feel like there's a better word out there I can't grasp. We don't even need to create new articles (well, maybe a few).  For instance, the bride dowry issue, and the loss of that traditional income to two different families, is fascinating information for Same-sex marriage in South Africa.  A new article might be Same-sex marriage in Africa with a broad overview of what's happened/happening, with branches off to the sub articles of it.  Most of the debates above can be then taken to the subsidiary articles to be hashed out, coming back here to better flesh-out the general overviews found here, not in length, but in quality? -- >David  Shankbone  13:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The creation of 'Same-sex marriage in Africa' seems to me to be a great idea, and why not have similar continent summary articles like that as a way to organize the 'section'->'sub-section'->'sub-sub-section' issue? The Squicks (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, Squicks; at least, I don't see a better way right now, particularly given how international of an issue same-sex marriage is becoming. -- >David  Shankbone  15:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Religious arguemtns
I just reordered the religious arguments sections, separating the dfferent religions (Buddhism was a subsection of Judaism somehow). It is clear that Christianity, espcially American denominations, are given massive undue weight, and other major "religions (eg Islam) are ignored entirely. I will start moving overly specific information to the religious views on SSM" for now, leaving a summary here, although i also think it will unbalance the target article (which currently has sections for each Chrstian denomination but much less on other religions), so maybe a "Christian views on SSM" subarticle need creating too. Yob  Mod  12:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done the initial moving, taking anything that described only a specific denominations stance to the sub-article, but leaving the reasons for opposition and support. Ideally, the whole sectionneeds a complete rewrite to cover all religions and summerise the subarticle, but that is best done after the subarticle is improved imo. AFAICT, there were no sources about religion in general, all were christian sources, so sources discussing religious views in general would be better.  Yob  Mod  13:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that a "Christian attitudes on SSM" page already existed... The Squicks (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section revisions have begun
I imagine this section is going to get worse before it gets better as we figure out the best format. There are a wealth of currently-existing articles where these fleshed out discussions belong; some are easy enough to create. The main question will be how to write brief overviews (the greatest challenges, as all sides think the slightest nuance is of the gravest import) and pointing people to where the issues are more robustly explained. With the revisions I made, I shrunk the section and created two new articles (Same-sex marriage and the family and Same-sex marriage and Judaism), but I made the formatting look worse primarily because the and  templates at the top, for our purposes, look worse than perhaps a brief intro and double-column listing of topics? I'm not sure. -- >David  Shankbone  19:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

the same-sex marriage and procreation merger
Can we derail this merger somehow? It would've been nice if someone had told the editors working on this article that this was being argued for. It seems much more reasonable to merge it into the new Same-sex marriage and the family article... although they may consider that the equivalent of the AfD'd article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I opposed the merger at the AfD, but they are in their own world there, not actually considering the effect such merger's would have on article quality. However, a merger decision is in no way binding there. If consensus here is not to merge, then it doesn't get merged, and can just be redirect wherever consensus decides or sent back to AfD. Yob  Mod  10:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the merger is fine, but not for this article; for Same-sex marriage and the family, which covers children, divorce, etc. It's a more broad topic than just procreation.  -- >David  Shankbone  12:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just merged the article to Same-sex marriage and the family. -- >David  Shankbone  13:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of 'children' section 10/5
I reverted edits on this article because I feel like we just created Same-sex marriage and the family and that the argument is better hashed out over there since we are trying to tame the sections on the main, global article. The edits were expanding the section again with the American political argument. -- >David  Shankbone  04:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. The Squicks (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed 'family values' from my restoration. It was unwise, in retrospect, to attempt to use it to appease right-wingers. On the other hand, I contradict your assessment of the material as 'the American political argument', as if that were a valid argument for deleting it in any case. Anarchangel (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with David's removal, and think it should be removed again. This is a short summary of a sub article. Expanding it immediately after the sub article was spun out damages this article. The added material is also clearly biased towards one POV. This article shouldjust mention the reasons from both sides, and leave expansion to the sub article. Quoting only American and Western sources also makes this biased - the controversy section covers the whole world, which is why only general outlines of positions are given, without refutations. The information would be fine for the subarticle, but not a summary section. Yob  Mod  12:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice you make no attempt to refute that the material remaining in the article is all on one side of the argument. That does not make it PoV; but it does make the article unbalanced. I was scrupulous as always with my wording; have you any specific reasons that you think the material was PoV? If not, I must consider your comments no more than ad nauseum (dittoing). Anarchangel (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Anarchangel, I appreciate you wanting to keep the articles balanced, but if you review the most recent archive you'll see that's what we are doing. We had essentially every sub-article repeated on this global article, weighing it down with mostly arguments and little description.  We've been going at a slow pace to fix this article as the topic easily sets off revert wars, accusations of bad faith and arguing.  In reality, the intro paragraph of Same-sex marriage and the family would be the paragraph found on this article.  If editors concentrated on getting that article and its introduction into good shape, there would be no need for arguing here. -- >David  Shankbone  13:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I deleted the content from here as it is WP:Undue weight, for an overview article using WP:Summary style. If editors think this section needs balancing, they should be balancing the subarticle first. Adding content here instead of the subarticle makes far more work for all the other editors, and simpy makes this section too large. A good summary should not be mentioning any American organisations by name, otherwise it should also mention organisations from every country in which this debate is ongoing. This is exactly the reason that summary style exists!
 * Agreeing with a consensus, and presenting reasons, is not "dittoing", but it does emphasise that your edits need discussing before being readded, as currently they are against consensus. Yob  Mod  14:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientific resrearch and experts consensus
I am seeking a consensus on the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage&diff=317929212&oldid=317904094 edit, since it is in full compliance with Wikipedia policies, mainly NPOV. I could not imagine the section without mentioning essential facts and the claims of opponents have to be present in the context of relevant mainstream bodies on this issue. This change is in conformity with Homosexuality and LGBT Parenting articles. --Destinero (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Destinero, that entire section needs to be re-done. The problem is that you guys are arguing over a section that needs to be re-written here.  Any individual edits we spend time arguing over here will likely be changed/undone/redone or some combination thereof when the paragraph is re-written.  Please see this recent thread.  What would be better for everyone is if you took a crack at re-writing the article with a brief overview, concentrated the nuance in the arguments to Same-sex marriage and the family and worked with other editors on the talk pages to do so. -- >David  Shankbone  14:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * See my reply in above section. All of these edits should be directed at the sub article. Once that has a stable consensus, the summary here should be rewritten. Why do you refuse to work on the subarticle? It is in desperate need of expansion from NPOV editors.  Yob  Mod  14:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. The article Same-sex marriage and the family should be worked on first, then a summary of that article should be included here.Ragazz (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reversions and Consensus
I'm all for having a consensus, but must 100% of changes be brought to talk? Isn't the talk done for controversial edits? I've brought this up before, if this was necessary then Wikipedia would have made it a requisite to do so. What's happening here is obvious, one editor in particular (does this in literally every article he edits) reverts changes (with sources, and obvious historical accuracies) and says "well, uhh, bring to talk!" which is really just another, more subtle way of reverting accurate edits.

Here is my idea, when reverting these changes, instead of saying "go to talk!" why not explain the inaccuracies in the changes that were made? Even just a line or two, wouldn't that make sense? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But you didn't do that with your edits - You have to lead by example!
 * I see you removed a citation tag, with no comment. I would expect the information is in one of the sources given, but clearly someone didn't think so, so this should be made clear by reusing the citation, or moving it to a more intuitive place. Otherwise, it just looks like contentious tag removal.
 * You exchanged a "clarify" tag with a citation: If an editor indicates a sentence is unclear and needed clarifying, adding a citation doesn't change this at all, so the tag should not be removed until the issue needing clarifying is detirmined.
 * Your edit summaries did not refer to these at all! Yob  Mod  17:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is why in my edit I said "it's included in the source", meaning there was a citation tag in the middle of a sentence that was cited in the source at the end of it, in other words, the source citation included both. Also, the clarify tag was fixed in the very next edit with a source, how exactly could you "clarify" a same-sex relationship? How could you possible break it down any further? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the clarify is for the "ritualised" part. But i neither added any of the tags, nor reverted, i'm just pointing out why others might. Not having to get talk page agreement for every edit is something to aim for, but it means thinking about other editors viewpoints and trying to accomodate them before they feel they have to revert. Ideally the tagger should have come to talk first, to explain the tags, but wattchagonnado. Yob  Mod  17:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * i guess that's true :) -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop ignoring consensus.Ragazz (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * uhh, what? See my post in the ancient history discussion above -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You ignored consensus when you replaced the word "unions" (which was here before I even got here) with "marriages". It is your responsibility to argue for the inclusion of the word "marriages," not the other way around. The only reason I didn't make a bigger deal of it was because I wanted to avoid an edit war. Someone back me up please.Ragazz (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to remove the Ancient History section off the article and place it on this talk page to be re-worked than to see Ragazz/History going at it with reversions. I have no opinion on the substance of your arguments because I haven't boned up on the 'ancient history' issues.  What I am not seeing are the articlespace arguments supported with more citations, and less edit summary opinions.  Looking at the sources cited, they are so poorly formatted that they are unhelpful to readers trying to find out more information. -- >David  Shankbone  00:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate the fact that people think the debate here is a matter of opinions when it's really a matter of certain editors using non-sequitors to stall the application of the word marriage. There is absolutely no difference between a union and marriage in ancient times, absolutely none, the concept was simply the celebration/ritual of two or more people, I can not believe it's even a debate -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's so clear, citations galore should be available, yet you both are producing very few. We have four citations to say the sky is blue. -- >David  Shankbone  03:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * what did they call marriages before 1250–1300 (when the word originated in english) in different cultures? what did they call unions? i was under the impression that a 'marriage' was just translated from various words used in cultures, like 'union' or 'life-long relationship' - Linestarz (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All valid points. When humans who spoke one language came into contact with another and they started to learn each others' languages, they likely realized "ah, you say 'boda' and we say 'marriage'"  We're getting hung up on semantics, but that doesn't change the need for citations as opposed to our own notions.  These conversations would go more smoothly, and there would be less revisions, if we all just stuck to policy.  -- >David  Shankbone  05:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * yup, i just dont know how its possible to cite things like this because going by the idea of citing terms before they existed, then the idea of 'heterosexual marriages' would be debatable - Linestarz (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Current status section
The "current status" section of this article is flawed and needs to be rewritten. I started editing it to improve it a little, but that was before I had looked at it carefully enough to see how extensive its problems are. I'm not going to make further major edits to it right away because discussion is needed on those problems. I think that too much of the information there is of minor importance, and much more of it is not written in a way appropriate to Wikipedia.

To give one example (which I removed): "In Uruguay, the recognition of same-sex marriages is officially on the platforms of the political parties currently leading in the polls." See the problem there? Things change. Those political parties aren't always going to be leading in the polls, so the information would have to be changed or removed. There's no way it can be considered reliably sourced because obviously sources written in the past can't tell us what is "currently" true in Uruguay.

This issue is a problem with a lot of other things in the current status section. Another example: "The granting and honoring of same-sex marriages is also currently being considered by several countries in Europe, such as in Portugal where the recognition of same-sex marriages is officially on the platforms of the main political party, the Socialists." That too will eventually, one way or another, become false, and have to be changed. Another example: "The current governing party of Iceland has also recently hinted that it intends to reconstruct its marriage laws, thereby making them gender neutral." Exactly the same issue. Another example: "...while the Parliament of Venezuela debates a same-sex marriage bill". Same issue again.

Granted that much or most of that information is accurate for the moment, it's still not written properly. Wiki articles should not be full of statements about what is "currently" the case, instead it should be providing properly sourced information that's written in a way that won't date very quickly. BG talk 05:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All true, but also just academic. We are always updating, and humanity is always changing, and as things change Wikipedia gets updated.  We write articles about current events as they happen; none of that is new to Wikipedia.  Once information is outdated, particularly with a topic like this with many vested interests who are ready to add changes as they happen, Wikipedia changes.  Always.  The entire article is poorly written and a mess.  There's an archive bot that removes threads far too quickly, but if you check the most recent archive you'll see the discussions.  -- >David  Shankbone  05:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I find your response puzzling. You seem be claiming both that the way that the section is written doesn't really matter, and then you suggest that the entire article is badly written. I don't understand how the two statements are compatible. I strongly disagree that the kind of writing used there is not a problem, and I'll be looking up the relevant policies and guidelines, to see if they support what common sense is already telling me is wrong with it. BG talk 05:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you find puzzling. Most of your comments above are bothered by the word "current" because "things change", and I responded with, "So does Wikipedia." I also agreed that the section is poorly written, but not for the reason you gave above.  -- >David  Shankbone  05:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS states that we should "Avoid statements that will age quickly, except on pages concerning current events which are frequently brought up to date. Avoid recently, soon, and now (unless their meaning is fixed by the context)." I realize that the point of the current status section is to discuss current events. The way it is written could still be improved. BG talk 06:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to improve the prose - this is a large project and a work in progress and always needs more input. I see no problem with having news about developments that may change in the current status section - we are not talking about changes on a daily basis, and they are easily kept up to date so far. Yob  Mod  10:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Genetic implications to children of same sex marriage
Why isn't there a section in the article on genetic implications?

Obviously a very biased article.

Grant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.41.153 (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have any reliably-sourced reference on supposed genetic implications, then feel free to add -- although it may be more appropriate to the same-sex marriage and the family article than to this one. However, given the sort of things you were inserting, which were going on about "paedophiles" as though that had some direct link to same-sex marriage, I expect you have nothing. --- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your post makes little sense Grant, how could a marriage have 'genetic' implications? - Linestarz (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "How could a marriage have genetic implications to the children of that marriage?" is that what you're saying? I need not answer that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.41.153 (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do answer that, I'm having difficulty understanding what you're asking for. If you have reliable sources discussing something, please quote them so we can discuss. Dayewalker (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I also see no genetic implications. Children of SSM have no genetic differences from other children. The science of reproduction has not yet reached a point where combining to ova or sperm is viable, and if it ever became commercially availiable, it is unlikely such technology would require a marriage licence to use, so has no bearing on the issue. If there were any sources, this should go to the LGBT parenting article, or a new article. Yob  Mod  10:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That was my next question - How can a same-sex marriage produce children? As far as I know, they can't. So the question is moot. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What he's getting at, presumably, is that tendencies can be passed along. Abusers tend to breed abusers. Mentally ill tend to breed mentally ill. Intelligence levels. Tendency towards certain types of disease, or resistence to same. On and on. The catch is that same-sex couples don't produce children. So his analogy kind of breaks down at that point. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It also breaks down because most gay children have straight parents (if I understand the amorphous suggestion of Grant's). -- >David  Shankbone  00:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. As far as we know, every single solitary homosexual of any mammalian species was produced by a heterosexual union of some kind. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of naive responses to my comment, first, if you legalise gay marriage does that also legalise gays reproducing children? I'm sure some savvy lawyer would see an opportunity to argue so, with the end result children inheriting "sick" (for want of a better word) genes. Is this in the best interest of children? Have they been asked? Have teenagers been asked if they want gay fathers? or lesbian mothers? or hermaphrodite parents? and the genes they will inherit? Secondly, to say same sex couples won't have children is very naive, lesbians, with a want for kids will often ask gay friends to impregnate them, thus you have a situation of selfish gay adults satisfying their own needs and ignoring the genetic well being of the child. Thirdly, Straights do not breed gay children, those who do not carry the gay genes cannot pass them on, only "closet gay/acting straight or unknown carriers" parents pass on these genes. Remember for a genetic disease to survive the eons, it must not destroy all those infected, it must have "carriers" to pass itself on to following generations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.37.222 (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In which country is it illegal for gays to reproduce? In which countries is reproduction limited to married couples? AFAIK, no such places exist, so there is a impossibly large logical disconnect in your statements, and they have no bearing on a same-sex marriage article. Your belief in a simplistic model of homosexual heritability ignores the complexities of multi-gene interaction and allele dominance and the studies proving envirnmental influence. It also indicates that these closet gays have historically been extremely successful in breeding, even more successful than straights - this is also logically inconsistant with your (entirely refuted by the medical community) claim of "disease". Stick to morality arguments if you can't understand the science or contruct logical arguements. Actually reading some books on ethics and child-rearing first would probably help there too. Yob  Mod  12:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody asks teens if they want homophobes and bigots to be their parents, either. Ah, if only the unborn had a say in who they are born to...  -- >David  Shankbone  13:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend taking a genetics 101 course for at least a week before posting on this again. "Straights do not breed gay children", yeesh. And also, if closeted gays have been that successful in breeding gays, and if we accept that being gay is a harm to kids (note, folks: not my stance), wouldn't the appropriate answer be to remove the incentives for gays to be closeted -- such as the separate benefits for marriage -- and thus remove them from the incidental breeding stock? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Straights do not breed gay children"? Is he claiming that former VP Dick Cheney and/or his wife are closet cases? Meanwhile, I'd still like to know how he thinks that a same-sex couple can procreate. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We still don't have any sources for these exceptional statements, do we? If so, we can probably carry on the conversation further.  Otherwise, I don't see the point.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Thirdly, Straights do not breed gay children, those who do not carry the gay genes cannot pass them on, only "closet gay/acting straight or unknown carriers" parents pass on these genes." - LOL, I suggest you heed Nat Gertler's & David's advice ASAP -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * obviously the gay community is well entrenched in Wiki, like they are in the medical industry, music industry and in the media. For these reasons you cannot trust any medical reports stating homosexuality is not a disease. Look at Hollywood, this has been the home for closet gay parenting since its inception (I could give names but for legal reasons, won't), many movies subtly promoting / supporting gays / gay parenting but NO movies telling the basic genetic truth about inheritance - children inheriting gay genes from gay parents. If McCarthy’s review of Hollywood in the late 40s had access to genetic research, I'm sure the "arts community" control of Hollywood would have been exposed. To say children won't inherit gay genes from gay parents is an obvious lie. As to children saying it's ok to be gay, It's not surprising considering the biased propaganda in the media (music and all other forms) for the past 50 years or so. To say gays have been extremely successful in breeding ignores the fact of eons of religious intolerance of gays and the promotion of marriage, forcing gays to become parents. I personally don't care if gays marry or not but if children are genetically damaged because of it, then it should be the concern of everyone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.78.184 (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal age limits
The article should consider examining the legal age limits for gay marriage, especially since certain members of the gay community try to find acceptance as ephebophiles, i.e. people who are interested by adolescent youth from ages 14 to 18. It seems relevant from a legal and cultural legal point of view that this would be included. ADM (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I only read the first few pages of the article you linked, but it seemed to have no bearing on your suggestion (being about "young" gays in their mid twenties). The age of consent for SSM in every place it is legal is the same (or older?) than oppposite sex marriage. I find it very unlikely that SSM is ever going to be allowed for people younger than the age of consent for sex (what would they do, braid each others hair all night?), so unless those laws change this would seem to be a non-issue. We don't have a section in the marriage article about marriages possible use to prey on young girls, even though plenty of places allow extremely young opposite-sex marriages.
 * Maybe something could be written about the legal ages being different than for opposite-sex marriages, but are there differences anywhere? Such a difference would not be allowed in the EU, but maybe elsewhere? I could easily imaginge laws being made more palatable by keeping the age higher to "protect children", as was done in many places upon decriminalisation of homosexuality Yob  Mod  13:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Such discussion would be better addressed to the article on marriageable age. Please note that marriage laws already allow children as young as 13 to be married with parental consent; as Yobmod says, there is no reason to believe that legal same-sex marriage will change any of this. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "certain members of the gay community try to find acceptance as ephebophiles" - certain members of the heterosexual community try to find acceptance of miscegenation in relation to marriages, point being; so what? Unless it represents the majority then I don't see it's relevance. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Same-Sex Marriage and Conservative Values
Is there any theorist that views same-sex marriage as the expression of a conservative movement within the homosexual community? Mrdthree (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I have heard of that kind of thing. These articles come close. So do some arguments in favor of marriage privatization.Ragazz (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's really the expression of a conservative movement, but when someone views marriage as, I guess, a bit of a civilizing force (or to "settle down"), I think it's a fair assessment. It can be viewed as conservative, but it's a bit difficult to peg it as politically conservative.  98.168.192.162 (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of things that are "conservative", such as thriftiness and conservation, which are eschewed by the "conservative movement". →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ancient history
It is not clear what the article means by same-sex "marriage" in ancient times. In the Websters definition given, it defines marriage as a "contractual relationship recognized by law," while here they can be "informal, unsanctioned relationships." I fail to see how "informal, unsanctioned relationships" can be called "marriages." This is highly misleading. Furhermore, there is only one citation for the "various types" described, and it doesn't seem clear from the source that these were "like that of a traditional marriage." Please do not remove the citation or clarification tags until there is a consensus on these issues. Thank you.Ragazz (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how "informal, unsanctioned relationships" can be called "marriages." - I agree, and that certainly shouldn't exist without a citation to a distinguished source (such as a reputable journal). The ancient history stuff, in my opinion, needs the highest quality of published sources exactly for the terminology issues (the concept of LGBT people didn't exist), and some of it is highly theoretical for that reason: ancient humans weren't versed in the terminology and knowledge of humanity we have today.  However, tracing the history of same-sex marriage should include any forerunners to the concept.  I'd also like to include the Black's Law Dictionary definition for marriage in etymology, or make some reference to it. -- >David  Shankbone  13:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would go a step further. Sometimes even if a reputable source uses the word we should think twice. I've encountered history sources where the author used the word "marriage" for convenience. For example, the term may be used simply for any relationship that a same-sex couple lived together. The author may even explain this with a disclaimer of sorts, such as "I will refer to these relationships henceforward as 'marriages.'" There may still be substantial differences between those relationships and contemporary opposite-sex marriages: dowries, rituals, religious sanction, state sanction, child rearing, being considered equivalent by contemporary sources, or even a sexual component. Clearly, even if the author uses the word "marriage" we might still reconsider repeating the term here. At the least an explanation of usage of the term, or even a caveat lector should be included. The Black's Law definition seems US-specific. I would want some more discussion before including it.Ragazz (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just slightly changed the wording to reflect the ambiguity of the terminology ("Historians have called...). I also removed the Webster's dictionary citation which is totally irrelevant here. There is no major content change, so I don't see how this should be an issue.Ragazz (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how "informal, unsanctioned relationships" can be called "marriages." - how does Common law marriage fit in with that statement? -- >David  Shankbone  21:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To freely equate common-law marriages with all marriages would be misleading. This issue is clearly about semantics for both sides, so this distiction is crucial. What's your point David?Ragazz (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm asking less for the article and more out of I agreed with you at first, but earlier I remembered CLM, whose informality is formalized, and it struck me as running counter to the initial thing I agreed with you over, so I was only bouncing it off you. Why misleading? -- >David  Shankbone  22:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your statement was not at all misleading. Let me rephrase that. To most present-day readers, marriage includes aspects that are absent in CLM, and are also absent in ancient SSUs, and even ancient opposite-sex "marriages" for that matter. I think it is probably more prudent to leave the word "marriage" out of the ancient history section altogether. Strictly following reputable sources, the section can then briefly describe same-sex unions inhistory that have substantial similarities to modern marriage, and of course great care should be taken to avoid WP:SYNTH. It appears at a glance, and I am a total layperson in this, that there is no consensus among historians as to which ancient unions should be called "marriages." Therefore, for us to use the term "marriage" for certain ancient same-sex unions without restriction, with the single justification that the term has been used by one or more authors/historians in a similar context, and with disregard for scholars who use different terminology, would surely be dubious. An analogy would be a future society looking back at present-day California. By said logic, historians could look back on today's domestic partnership arrangements and call them "marriages." Historians by necessity change present-day language usage to reflect ancient practices that have no clear equivalent in the present-day. Scholars often use customized terminology within a source, and when this is done responsibly there is usually even an explanation somewhere early in the document accompanying the first appearance of the term (ie. "For the purposes of this discussion, I will refer to all such cases of same-sex couples who lived together as 'same-sex marriages.'"). This situation absolutly needs to be addressed in the section.Ragazz (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What exactly was the difference between a union and a marriage in ancient times? Does anyone have a source? As a historian I realize they're just different words for the same thing, although in today's world (for obvious religiously-motivated reasons) people want to "own" terms that have no basis for their position. So again, I ask, in bold; what was the difference between a union and a marriage in ancient times? - here's another interested tidbit, why are we playing around with the word marriage, a word that originated less than 1000 years ago? What am I getting at? The fact that the word "marriage" did not exist until recently, so it was obvious they used different words to essentially describe the same thing. So I ask, for a third time, what was the difference between a union and a marriage in ancient times? - to me, any ritual celebrating the union of people must be a marriage, that's what marriage is defined as. Whether that be two people, three people, gay people or straight people I don't see how the words unions and 'marriage' could have not been used interchangeably in ancient times. Marriages ARE unions -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Many societies even today do not have a codified system of law. To suggest that tribal marriages are not true marriages because they don't have a government stamp (having neither a government nor stamps) is twisting the meaning of the word to give a Western-centric modern view only, which is especially problematic when discussing ancient cultures that didn'thave words to differentiate such concepts. According to this definition, many old testament biblical marriages are not even marriages. Our article on marriage has no problem recognising the many different forms of marriage, including those with no state recognition or weddings.
 * So this does not seem a difficult problem to solve: A paragraph to explain different views on marriage throughout history and the lack of differentiation between unions and marriages, then call them by same-sex unions for the rest of the section. After the first paragraph this can then just be a summary of the SSU subarticle. Are there reasons to not do this fix? Yob  Mod  09:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that solution. I would say less than a paragraph of explanation though, maybe a sentence or two. Thanks.Ragazz (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Marriage article there was a very long argument regarding the distinctions. Read the opening paragraph for a list of essentials in marriage. One notable one is kinship. Unions may or may not create kinship. Also marriages have an open duration as opposed to being time limited arrangements. The word union can be extended to any relationship. In other words people that have no intention on being married, recognize the distinction between their relationship and marriage can be considered as being in a 'union'. Marriages may be unions but unions are not necessarly marriage. Mrdthree (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed "marriage" from the first sentence of the section, which was originally put in there without consensus anyway. Besides, it didn't make sense because of the phrase "informal, unsanctioned relationships" which I don't think any of us are saying should be covered by "marriage" here. As it reads, it is highly neutral. None of us are arguing that these aren't unions, as marriage is a type of union. It doesn't say "these aren't marriages." This is possibly only a temporary fix. OK? Please don't stick marriage back in there without a consensus. Thanks.Ragazz (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've reverted back to it's original wording before you played around with it. You can't just change it and then say "well, no evidence for the contrary has arised", I've already explained my position, that the distinction between the two terms has not been established, until you provide an answer as how to a word (originating in the 12th-13th century English) has somehow been derived from a particular term spanning across all cultures then I'm afraid we can't leave it as the previous ambiguous wording. Remember, you can not disprove a negative, you must provide evidence stating a difference between union and marriage, otherwise the other side can't disprove it. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How do you excuse your original disregard fo consensus by including marriage in the opening? "Sorry, I've reverted back to it's original wording before you played around with it." It originally said unions before you changed it, not the other way around. This is obvious, because of the phrase: "informal, unsanctioned relationships" which no longer makes sense. This is totally unfair. I insist that someone else step in.Ragazz (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

-Answers to Mrdthree- - Just to answer your post, marriages can also have the various distinctions you've mentioned in relation to unions. For example you said "marriages have an open duration as opposed to being time limited arrangements." - that isn't necessary true, considering several marriages (Nikah Mut'a comes to mind) have a certain fixed term. Also, kinship may or may not have to be present in marriages, the whole idea of Arranged Marriages speaks about that, though despite this various SSM in the past were based on kinship AND had no time limit, so it falls under the definition of a marriage. Last thing you said was "The word union can be extended to any relationship.", well if you look at definition #3 @ websters.com for marriage it reads "an intimate or close union " which doesn't necessary speak of a particular kin. Hope this answers some questions -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is for everyone: Currently (it appears) Yobmod, Mrdthree and myself are in favor of using "unions" instead of "marriages" for the ancient history section, with an accompanying explanation of terminology. Nat made the suggestion to use the word unions for ancient heterosexual unions as well, which I have no problem with. I have consulted a better writer than myself for this. Here's my current proposal for the section lead:


 * Various types of same-sex unions have been recorded in the historical record, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. These unions had varying degrees of similarity to modern marriage, and to contemporary forms of heterosexual union within their cultures.

Any thoughts specific to content and wording? Thanks.Ragazz (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as any introduction preemts misunderstandings from readers, or changes from casual editors, who think unions should not be covered in a marriage article, i'll be happy. Peronally, i think the above suggestion does the job, but i find many editors can be pretty willfull about not understanding when they don't want to - if the rest of the section being a summary of SSUs is challenged, then this intro would need beefing up. Having regular editors arguing about semantics of translations of foreign words is simply a huge drain on editors, and slows down more important improvements. I'm fine with either word being used, as as Historyguy wrote, there is essentialy no difference in pre-modern usage, and unions just seems the one that causes less accusations of synthesis or OR, and allows a more comprehesive coverage of the topic without having to search for sources that specifically call a union "marriage".
 * Can we have a sentence that explictly notes that some modern scholars call these marriages, while others compare the two but don't go so far as to call them by the word marriage - plenty of sources exist showing writers doing this, and that should be enough for sourcing. Any sources describing such unions as being akin to marriage, or discussing the problems of meanings of translations would be great. Yob  Mod  11:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I just don't understand what the problem is with using the word "marriage" in an article titled "Same-Sex Marriage" to describe past ancient Same-Sex marriages, I really don't. Yobmod made a great point in saying that it's such a drain and waste of time worrying about semantics and mere words. Ragazz you say, for example: "These unions had varying degrees of similarity to modern marriage" - what exactly does that mean, what are "modern marriages" and what are these similarities? Also, how do such similarities imply and turn an ancient same-sex marriage into a same-sex union? What I'm trying to figure out is "What the heck is the difference?" - see this would be A LOT EASIER if the word marriage had existed in ancient times, but all we've done was use the word 'marriage' to describe unions. Like I've said before, even Webster's has this definition for marriage: "<3> an intimate or close union " - so all in all I don't necessarily see the problem with the wording as it is, it's not like the people in the marriage article are debating whether the heterosexual unions of the past were called marriages or not. The unions they called marriages and the marriages they called unions -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are already few enough editors willing to find sources and write content. Cassel's Encylopedia of Queer myth has a large section on SSMs, but under the title "unions". They call Native American SSMs "marriages", ancient Greek ones "unions", and Aztec ones "marriage-like legal contracts". Simply calling them all unions makes sourcing much easier (as many sources use unions, a more inclusive word) and makes the writing more consistant. Every time we write "marriage", it would need to sourced specifically using the word, then someone will say that it is opinion, so we would have to write "according to xxxx", then they will find a source disputing this, so we have to add "but yyyy disagrees, writing zzz". For a summary section, this simply results in bad writing, with poor flow and readability, and far too long. Calling them unions solves the whole problem, and is in no way inaccurate, per vagueness of translations and scholars using both terms. If sombody wrote a sourced section that avoided such problems and used "marriage" throughout, that would be fine, but i simply don't see it ever happening. The only argument for "marriages" seems to be that it makes it more clear that SSMs have a long history, but that is already stated in the suggested intro paragraph (which can be worked on to make even clearer). Look at how convoluted the Roman paragraph already is, in order to justify the use of marriage. That only covers one society - we simply can't fit in such paragraphs for each example. The history subarticle should be the place to go into how marriage-like specific unions are, and who has called them marriages or not. Yob  Mod  13:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strategically, I think that if we start off the ancient history by saying that the word "marriage" only goes back to the umpteenth century, and that historians have used it describe a variety of types of earlier unions, both single-sex and mixed-sex, and that there is no consensus among historians of which should be termed "marriage", then we can move forward referring to everything from before the adoption of marriage as "unions". (Of course, that brings into question the propogation of the term across cultural lines over time, but I don't think we'll be hitting that too often. I could be wrong though; I've largely stayed out of the history discussion because there's too much homework involved.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You're both making good points. To address some things, Yobomod you were mentioning arguments from both sides and one thing you said was: "Every time we write "marriage", it would need to sourced specifically using the word" - only one problem with this, the word marriage (as we use it today in the English language) did not exist back in ancient times, so it'd be impossible to link to such. Think about it like this, in lexicography (that is the act of writing/updating dictionaries) we know that we derive terms from the past and include them in current terms we use today. In almost every dictionary we get relatively the same definition for marriage, an intimate or close union by two or more people, some take it further and include ceremonies, etc. Are we really going to deny that same-sex relationships of the past did not include any of the former? Let me contrast it with another example, the word 'meme' originated in 1976 and is defined as "an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture" - now if you're in a discussion and you use the word meme to define something of the past, would you be wrong? Of course not. So to say "let's call everything a union because it's safe" makes no sense to me, in that case anything termed "marriage" before the 12th century would be "wrong" when we all know that isn't the case. Both of you already know that though -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with David. Let's delete the ancient history section until we have a new version reworked on the talk page here, and until we resolve this terminology debate. Do we have consensus to remove the section entirely (temporarily)?Ragazz (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait a second, why would we remove the entire section if we're going to work on terminology? That's like removing the entire section of the Big Bang or the origins of the cell on the basis that there's no 'agreement' from wiki editors. The section is sourced, the concepts of marriage/unions have been explained in my posts as well as the conceptualizations in lexicography. Just keep the talk going (as David, Nat, and Yobo have done) and present your side, then we will edit the article in response. Controversial topics should not be deleted AND worked on, but rather worked on AND updated, that's the beauty of how wikipedia works -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia works by editors cooperating. You didn't seek a consensus before you changed "unions" to "marriages." At least "unions" is uncontroversial. It reads like WP:SYNTH, it's poorly cited, etc. I agree with David, the section should be temporarily removed. I'll give it more time to allow others to respond.Ragazz (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I only advocated removing the section if you both were going to actually work on it and then get it back up, instead of edit-war. I don't advocate removing it for more than a day or two, but only if you guys work on the issues.  Neither one of you have made much progress in actually researching the history and providing citations to support yourselves. -- >David  Shankbone  19:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the lead that I reworked with Nat's help?Ragazz (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was good. But the section is still poorly sourced.  For such a contentious issue, our readers are better served when you guys argue with an army of citations.  Most of this discussion is revolving around your and Historyguy's opinions, to an extent that even I can't figure out who has valid points (absent my researching it myself).  You both are clearly intelligent, but what we as editors think doesn't mean anything without reliable sources behind it. -- >David  Shankbone  20:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - Ancient history
David is right, unless we present our side then there's no point of a discussion.

The word "Marriage" comes from Old French mariage, from marier (“‘to marry’”), from Latin maritare (“‘to marry", literally “give in marriage’”), from maritus (“‘lover", "nuptial’”), from mas (“‘male", "masculine", "of the male sex’”). The word marriage originated in the 13th century, Dictionary.com claims the origin to have originated in "1250–1300; (from) ME mariage"

The question now becomes, what do you call a "marriage" before the 12th-13th century? Better yet, were they called marriages?

So what do historians do? With the newer words that enter our lexicon we have to take their meanings and apply them to the practices done in history, in other words we have to ask ourselves: "Does this word fit this practice" - if we didn't operate on this logic then anything we referred to as a marriage before the 12th-13th century would be invalid, and can anyone name me a single historian (or otherwise anthropologist) that follows such a practice? So if "homosexual marriages" didn't exist in ancient history, then neither did "heterosexual marriages" on the basis that the word itself did not exist, it was only derived from ME, greek, etc.

We ask ourselves now, did ancient practices for same-sex couples follow practices for other couples, even going back to Hieroglyphs we could see couples like Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum not only intimately embracing eachother but the banquet scene (as mentioned in the original article) were the exact same as other couples of that era. Even John Boswell mentions the sanctifying of relationships in his book Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe

So the question now becomes, if these weren't marriages what were they? They were sanctified, recognized, and celebrated in the way every other marriage at that time was, so by what name did they operate if not marriage? Even civil partnerships/civil unions are relatively new terms (we refer to them as neologisms) that were coined in 1837-40

If there is proof of a distinction then I'd like to see the evidence, because it's equivalent to someone saying "celebrated unions between tall white men and short white women were not marriages" and then asking someone to provide proof explicitly stating that "tall white men and short white women are marriages" -- unless the person making the claim (that is, XY is not a relationship) provides evidence of a distinction of terms then I feel they should be attributed to all the other unions at the time. Was there even a debate on terminology between these relationships in ancient times? How about the terminology applied to Common-law marriages? Even in Rome such marriages required nothing but "consent of the parties to live together" and no "forms" or "ceremonies" were required -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ragazz, Historyguy makes good arguments. What's the counter-argument?  If 'marriage' has only been around since the 12th/13th century, what were heterosexuals doing before then?  A similar issue crops up with 'homosexuals' themselves, since they didn't 'exist' until recently.  Yet, it is often argued that the Leviticus chapter about 'man lying with man as with woman' (or similar phrasing) means homosexuality.  Even though 'homosexuals' didn't exist.  Ragazz, what is the underlying principle that would be able to fit both Historyguy's 'marriage' argument above, and the 'homosexual' argument I just raised.  If we can't say that these unions were 'marriages' then by logical reasoning, we can't argue that Leviticus had anything to do with 'homosexuals'.  This might seem academic, but it kind of goes to the heart of your issue.  Interested to hear your view. -- >David  Shankbone  02:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * HistoryGuy's arguments above have already been stated and addressed. That's why it has been suggested here that all ancient "marriages", straight and gay, be called unions. If we can't get past this issue then we won't be able to make any progress with the section. The word "marriage" is controversial, the word "unions" should not be not (as all marriages are unions, whereas all unions are not marriages). Even if some historians do call some ancient same-sex unions in some cultures "marriages," that's not all historians for all unions across all cutures. Please read the following and tell me how it is not neutral:


 * Various types of same-sex unions have been recorded in the historical record, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. These unions had varying degrees of similarity to modern marriage, and to contemporary forms of heterosexual union within their cultures.

Please notice that ancient hetero "marriages" are called "unions."Ragazz (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Please notice that ancient hetero "marriages" are called "unions."" - the problem here is this is opinionated and not sourced, most (if not all) historians have no problem referring to such heterosexual unions as marriages and there is no controversy amongst them. To avoid calling any such unions "marriages" before the 12th century would defeat the purpose of adding such words into our lexicon -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How is it opinionated? Please be specific. It reads totally neutral to me, text book neutral.Ragazz (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Historyguy, do you have a citation for that statement? -- >David  Shankbone  19:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ragazz, there is nothing wrong with the current wording and I've provided countless sources from historians calling these unions 'marriages', you just seem to have a problem with using the word 'marriage' which astounds me as you haven't provided a single source contrasting such distinctions. Dave, do you mean a citation that indicates historians have called heterosexual unions marriages in the past? AFAIK, most every book on marriage refers to unions before the 12th-13th century as marriages, I never under the impression that there was even some contention in this regard (for instance, Edvard Westermarck has referred to these relationships as marriages, even in times related to BCE).


 * I also wanted to pose this question to everyone and wanted your opinions, if someone asked "Did marriage exist before the 12th century?" - what would you guys say? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think marriage existed before the 12th century, just as I think the "big bang" happened sometime before that term was invented. However, I can't point to which set of pre-12th century unions were definitely marriage and which definitely weren't, a particular difficulty due to both changing forms of unions and to a word whose definition is arguably in flux. To put it another way -- would a sociologist look at "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" and say that from a sociological standpoint those are marriages, at least as much as those ancient same-sex unions were? And yet, we are not referring to them here as marriages, in part because we are dealing with different legal and sociological definitions, and using the word "marriage" to describe them muddies the discussion more than it clarifies it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The marriages currently described in that section are of the same ceremonies applied to heterosexual relationships of that time. Can somebody link to me a source stating the variances between these on the basis of gender and how different names were applied? Personally I can't find one. If we operate by this logic (that is, it's hard to distinguish) then marriage itself must not be referred to before the 12th century, but historians and sociologists and anthropologists still call them marriages, are they all wrong? Just because a small group of religious people find it "controversial" that doesn't take away from the fact of what is and what was, if every minority claimed (but not supported by evidence) such proposals then the Holocaust section would be "deleted" on the basis of no consensus (since there exists groups that deny it ever happened). If we delete the "ancient history" section because it references early marriages then literally 50% of the articles on wikipedia must experience the same process. I just wonder why the Marriage article hasn't experienced the same sort of debate in terms of heterosexual relationships of the past?

Let me turn this around and ask this another way, can someone find me evidence explicitly stating that 28 year old white men with mustaches marrying 25 year old females who are exactly 5'4" as marriages? What would you say if I said: "unless you provide me evidence stating such unions as marriages, then it'd be wrong to refer to such as a marriage entirely"? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "but historians and sociologists and anthropologists still call them marriages, are they all wrong?" Historians and sociologists and anthropologists are all serving different purposes than encyclopedians or whatever the hell we're called. If Brenda says that her son and his lover Mgombo are married, and Judge Hortense says they're not married, is one of them wrong? No. One of them is just saying that Mgombo is a member of the family, the other is saying that the law does not recognize that marriage. They're talking from different purposes. We can find historical reference referring to Neptune as a star, rather than a planet. Were they wrong? No, because "star" to them meant a dot of light in the sky, "star" to us means a glowing ball of plasma, so Neptune is not one of our stars, but it is one of theirs. This chapter does not have a working definition of marriage, and indeed that definition is very much at the heart of the question of what this chapter discusses. To proclaim those earlier same-sex unions to be marriages is to proclaim civil unions to be marriage, and that is not NPOV for this entry. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The argument could just as easily be turned around, on what basis were heterosexual unions "marriages", after all would proclaiming such unions to be marriages be NPOV? After all were people like Edvard Westermarck, John Boswell, etc just biased when they referenced such unions as marriages in the past? And the purpose "historians and sociologists and anthropologists" serve (at least to us) is a basis to avoid things like WP:OR. Last thing I want to do is analyze this sentence you made: "We can find historical reference referring to Neptune as a star, rather than a planet. Were they wrong? No, because "star" to them meant a dot of light in the sky, "star" to us means a glowing ball of plasma, so Neptune is not one of our stars, but it is one of theirs" - so wait a second, was this second an argument for or against the use of the word marriage?


 * - Let's look at your Neptune example and contrast it with marriage. We know that such SSU's of the past had the same sanctifying ceremonies, celebrations, etc as the heterosexual unions, so by using the same logic (even if we didn't consider it a marriage today) it would still be a marriage to them (right? we're using the exact same logic you just used). Better yet, even the second argument works in favor of calling them marriages. Even if what they called marriages weren't actually marriages (which no one has provided a single source for, and hopefully will) we could just as easily use the logic you just used and say "our applicators for what constitutes a marriage today (and here we could use any reputable dictionary in existence) and apply it to the SSU's of the past"


 * And perhaps it's just me, but is the idea of referencing distinctions between unions/marriages (something not a single source provided has done) a violation of WP:NPV 'Giving equal validity', I can not remember a single instance in my studies (or anywhere else) where historians have argued the use of neoteric terms in ancient societies (then again marriage isn't that new to begin with) -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * so by using the same logic (even if we didn't consider it a marriage today) it would still be a marriage to them -- No, they didn't have the term "marriage", remember?
 * And perhaps it's just me, but is the idea of referencing distinctions between unions/marriages (something not a single source provided has done) -then you should look to the many, many sources that will tell you that civil unions are not indeed civil marriage, that the distinction between the two is at the base of large disagreements in various of the United States. That "marriage" must involve at least one member of each sex is not a fringe view. It may be a bigoted view, a vile view, a naive view, however one might want to cast it - but it's hard to paint it as being one of a small minority, or only coming from those who don't pay particular attention to marriage, so that 'Giving equal validity' concern does not apply. This article is at heart a current events article, not a historical article, so historians should not be our primary source on the appropriateness of terminology. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "...That "marriage" must involve at least one member of each sex is not a fringe view." - There has no doubt been limitations on marriage in a variety of degrees, including bans on same-sex marriage, but a ban in one 'contingency' does not negate a permit in another, which brings me to your second point:
 * "This article is at heart a current events article, not a historical article, so historians should not be our primary source on the appropriateness of terminology." - absolutely Nat, but this is the "Ancient History" section we're debating and as such requires sources from historians and anthropologists alike. Let me just put it in this respect, have there been "civil unions" in history? Depends how you look at it, according to dictionary.com that particular term originated in "1837-40" And I'm certainly no linguistic professional but perhaps a word like γάμος (meaning marriage in Greek) was used to describe "unions/marriages" in the past. It just seems not a single source provided proves there was a distinction, and that is ultimately what I'm after. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If we're switching definitions because we've gotten to the ancient history section (which sounds like a bad idea to begin with), we're going to have to make it explicit that we are switching definitions. It seems much more reasonable to use the term "unions" across all unions in ancient history. If you're questioning the truth of "These unions had varying degrees of similarity ... to contemporary forms of heterosexual union", you won't have an argument from me one way or the other, it's outside of anything I care to research at the moment. If a word like "γάμος" covers same-sex unions, the fact that it gets commonly translated as "marriage" doesn't mean that "marriage" covers same-sex unions. Languages differ; they are not simple cyphers where each word substitutes exactly for one in another language. Two words that refer largely to similar things in two languages may have subtle differences which are unimportant in most but not all uses. - Nat Gertler (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems we keep going back to square one and begin arguing opinions (which I hate because an opinion should never ever ever override the facts). Perhaps either you or Ragazz could provide me on sources speaking of the distinctions (because as per David's request, I did my part and sourced various anthropologists). And since David posed another question, I'd like it answered as well: "What's the counter-argument? If 'marriage' has only been around since the 12th/13th century, what were heterosexuals doing before then?" So again, let's work with sources otherwise this'll go on forever -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you didn't want opinions you shouldn't have posted that you "wanted [our] opinions". In fact, I only entered this "Ancient History" section because you made that specific request. If you didn't want opinions that disagreed with yours, or you only wanted opinions that wouldn't be backed up with logic, you should have made those requests. If you merely didn't want to argue, that too was your option.
 * Can you point to non-trivial uses of "marriage" to describe contemporary same-sex unions before fairly recently in the history of that term? If not, it seems to me that historians applying the term to same-sex unions of the past may be trying their best to use modern language to describe a culture that language was not designed to describe, that this is imprecise translation. To insist on using their terminology is treating them as experts not of history, but of linguistics. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect to David's request is the reason I moved away from opinions and into sources, the "opinion" I asked for was based around a rhetorical question. Responding to the rest of your post, "Can you point to non-trivial uses of "marriage" to describe contemporary same-sex unions before fairly recently in the history of that term?" - I don't understand what you're asking here, I had posted a reply but the word 'contemporary' threw me off. Next, when describing conclusions from historians/anthropologists you said "To insist on using their terminology is treating them as experts not of history, but of linguistics." - so if these people are wrong, what is the alternative? Do you have any sources to linguistic experts explaining the difference because as far as I'm concerned, not a single source proving a distinction has been brought up. It just seems that some people think they have to "play it safe" and use unions because saying "it is a marriage" and "it is NOT a marriage" lie on two extremes, unfortunately that's a logical fallacy and I think you're an intelligent guy Nat, I'd just like to see evidence proving my original statement wrong. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Either you're misusing the term rhetorical question, or you didn't really want the answers you were asking for. I'm certainly not going to apologize for answering you, nor in answering you in a way that didn't fit some preconceived notion of how people would answer. As for the "contemporary" question, let me simplify it: in between the introduction of the word "marriage" and, say, the end of the nineteenth century, were there non-trivial instances of people referring to a same-sex union that existed in the time of the speaker, in the culture of the speaker, and calling it a "marriage" non-ironically, non-sarcastically, in the family-building sense (not in the "marriage of comfort and convenience" sense)? You have also either misunderstood or are misapplying the Argument to moderation. If five people say there was 1 cookie in the box and five say there were 100 cookies, the compromise position is to say that there were 50. It is not a compromise to say there were conflicting reports about the number of cookies, nor to simply avoid making any claim about the number of cookies there. There are real valid arguments on both sides for applying the word "marriage" to those unions in the context of this article, a genuine conflict. (At least in the cookie conflict, there was some real answer, some genuine number of cookies that were in the box. Language is much more malleable than cookies; it exists on understandings, not on truths.) I have heard no arguments, however, that the word "union" does not apply. I see no reason to apply a problematic term that muddies the article when a clear one exists and will suffice. - Nat Gertler (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, calm down, I don't care if you apologize for stating your opinion, I never asked you to apologize for anything! We're just having a good discussion and hopefully we can learn from eachother. You seem to take umbrage with the most minuscule of things and you come off as very abrasive, just relax buddy, I promise you that whatever consensus we come to will never effect the world in any way, shape, or form. If anything we'll both benefit from eachother's insights.
 * Now to respond to some of what you said:
 * "in between the introduction of the word "marriage" and, say, the end of the nineteenth century, were there non-trivial instances of people referring to a same-sex union that existed in the time of the speaker, in the culture of the speaker, and calling it a "marriage" non-ironically, non-sarcastically, in the family-building sense (not in the "marriage of comfort and convenience" sense)" - My answer, who cares? I'm not trying to sound facetious in the least, I'm just asking what these 'contemporary' unions have to do with 'ancient history'? But if I am going to bite then perhaps Judy Grahn's examples of recognized same-sex marriages in American Indian tribes will do, especially for women wanting to take the role of say, the hunter Your next argument is pretty much summarized in your conclusion in which you said "I have heard no arguments, however, that the word "union" does not apply. I see no reason to apply a problematic term that muddies the article when a clear one exists and will suffice." - Nothing "muddies the article" when/if it's clearly understood, this article is on "same-sex marriages" and the ancient history relates, obviously, to "same-sex marriages", those who have a problem with using marriage (that is you and ragazz) have provided not a single source proving a distinction between a marriage and union in ancient history. To simply cross our arms, sit back and say "well, it's just problematic so let's just stick with unions" is being lazy, it's pretending like an answer doesn't exist so we'd rather stick a random ambiguous term as opposed to what such relationships actually were.
 * If people like Westermarck, Boswell, Grahn, etc etc have no problem referring to ancient relationships as marriages, then I don't see why some editors here do. Sure they're not "linguistic experts" but they sure as heck have no agenda, they don't have a horse in the race, they just presented history as they've studied it. If there are linguistic experts (like you've mentioned) who have problems with such terms then I'd like to see a source. It just seems that whenever I provide a source it gets brushed off as something like "Oh, well, they just know history not language", well unless you provide a COMPETING source then you're just arguing opinion. Let me just simplify the argument and perhaps either of you will provide evidence for your positions; either we use the current (ie: modern-day) definitions of marriage and apply it to cultures past (in which case the argument for calling them 'marriages' immediately wins) or we use the various applicators historians, etc have used (ie: ceremonies, contracts, etc) and apply them to opposite-sex relationships and see their similarities to same-sex relationships (in which case the result is the same, they're still marriages) -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "My answer, who cares?" Obviously, I do. "But if I am going to bite then perhaps Judy Grahn's examples of recognized same-sex marriages in American Indian tribes will do" No, Grahn (born 1940) was not commenting before the end of the nineteenth century (nor can I find any source indicating she is from the American Indian culture.) "If people like Westermarck, Boswell, Grahn, etc etc have no problem referring to ancient relationships as marriages, then I don't see why some editors here do." Then perhaps you should reread the comments we have made. "they sure as heck have no agenda" I have trouble assuming that a member of the Gay Women's Liberation Group, for example, has no agenda. "either we use the current (ie: modern-day) definitions of marriage and apply it to cultures past" - note the shift there, from the plural ("definitions") to the singular ("it"). That's actually important, because while most current American English dictionaries have definitions of "marriage" that cover same-sex unions, they are generally separate definitions than those which cover mixed-sex unions. Given that, stating that "the Ancient Whosamatamians had marriage for both mixed-sex and same-sex couples" comes across like saying that both Ivan Elmanov and Vera Wang designed trains. If the point is to say that the Whosamatamians used the same form of union for both mixed-sex and same-sex couples, it's clearer than to say that than to come across as saying the they had marriage-def-1 for mixed-sex couples and marriage-def-2 for same-sex couples. You might want there to be a single universally-accepted definition that covers both (I certainly do), but it would be a mistake to write the article as if it were currently true. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * NatGertler do you by any chance have evidence that shows the contrariety between these ancient same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions? And I'm no expert on this (both of you probably know 1000 times more than I do) but isn't a "single universally-accepted definition that covers both" applicable here? I think of it like polygamy, child marriages, etc, they go by different names but all come down to being "marriages" - Linestarz (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I do not have evidence showing that contrariety, nor am I claiming that contrariety. However, there is no "single universally-accepted definition that covers both". In Merriam-Webster, for example, mixed-sex marriage would be definition 1a(1), same-sex would be 1(a)2. Or this dictionary, where mixed-sex is definition 1, and same-sex would be conditionally 4. (Polygamy is generally not a single marriage with more than two people, but multiple marriages; it only requires a definition that does not require the union be exclusive.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no "single universally-accepted definition" of God either, that wouldn't mean that the "less-popular" gods like Tabaldak (just an example) wouldn't be a god, right? Also I didn't know you guys were using modernday definitions in dictionaries in this argument, i figure itd work for the 'marriage' (opposed to union) argument would it not? - Linestarz (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nat I think it's time for you to go on the offensive in terms of providing sources because quite frankly opinions are useless at this point. It appears as if you're arguing from ignorenace and just assume that all these historians, etc are wrong (and want evidence that obviously can't exist, it's like asking for proof that the term 'sun' came before the sun existed). Apparently nothing is good enough and it's come down to my sources vs your opinions, which makes the debate futile. I mean you say things like there is no "single universally-accepted definition that covers both" - what??? At this point it's time to back up what you say, because you saying it should be unions and me (along with the sourced historians and anthropologists) saying it should be marriages changes nothing. So I await to see some proof, the burden of proof now lies in your backyard. Oh, and just some advice, remember that something being different doesn't mean it doesn't fit a particular term, ie: (an arrange marriage is different than a monogamous marriage, but ultimately are both marriages) -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you missed my citations of definitions, and pointing out that even current dictionaries define same-sex and mixed-sex marriages separately (or is it that you don't consider dictionaries reliable sources on the language?). I realize that there are excuses for calling a same-sex ancient union a "marriage" as well as doing he same for a mixed-sex union.... but there are also reasons for describing a monorail inventor and a bridal gown maker each as "a designer of trains", yet it's poor form to use that as an excuse to make it sound like they do the same thing, as one is using different definition of "train". You may not have concerns about clarity and POV. Others do. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am in awe at how someone could see the current dictionary definitions as a way to prove they were unions as opposed to "marriages" (which you still haven't shown by the way), it's like a creationist using evolutionary evidence to prove their side. If you read the definitions, for instance webster's it would say "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage", are you seriously going to tell me that the SSU's, which had the same sanctifying unions and rituals as their counterpart opposite-sex unions, were not marriages? The only reason I avoided using the dictionary was to avoid the "you're just using the current definitions" argument. "You may not have concerns about clarity and POV. Others do" - well in this case you're judging me and making assumptions, perhaps if you focused less on your assumptions and more on your sources we'd get somewhere -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am in awe at how someone could see the current dictionary definitions as a way to prove they were unions as opposed to "marriages" (which you still haven't shown by the way) And which I still haven't claimed. But you seem wound up to argue against points I haven't made. are you seriously going to tell me that the SSU's, which had the same sanctifying unions and rituals as their counterpart opposite-sex unions, were not marriages? I am seriously going to tell you -- and please pay attention to all the words here -- that by some respected dictionaries, they do not fit the same primary definition that includes the mixed-sex marriages. Saying "A was marriage, and B was marriage" actually undercuts the point that A and B were the same if you rely on different definitions of "marriage" to make that statement. Perhaps you should step back and wonder whether your arguing technique of going "who cares?" "What?",announcing you don't see why people here disagree when they've been telling you why they disagree, and bemoaning opinion when you've not only asked for opinion but offered opinion after opinion after opinion yourself, might be what's getting in the way of understanding other people and coming to an understanding with them. well in this case you're judging me and making assumptions - no,I was actually allowing for a possibility. That word "may" is actually a vital one there. - Nat Gertler (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * alright you're both being condescending and I cant see why this cant be a discussion good for the article. Nat, just because A & B are different that doesn't mean they don't fall under the same broad category (like Q & R are different, but they're both still letters). I don't think all SSU's were marriages, I don't think all opposite sex unions were marriages, they could just of been people living together, but I'm pretty sure that there mustve been SOME SSU's that were performed exactly the same way that would declare a marriage. I think it should stay marriages because that's what they were, if no one can come up showing a contrariety between a union and a marriage I don't see why it shouldn't stay marriage. Just my thoughts - Linestarz (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, they do fall under the same broad category, and that's family-forming unions. Marriage as used by dictionary sources is not as broadly-defined a category as we'd like it to be... unless we use a definition that is too broad, that fits any close union, at which point it stops saying what we want to to say. When Grahn was using the word a quarter century ago, it would seem to be beyond the way that most dictionaries of the time would recognize. I would have no problem with "In Ancient Whatsopotamia, the same rituals and statuses used to confer marriage on mixed-sex couples were also used for same-sex couples" (properly sourced), but I would have a problem with "the same rituals and statuses used to confer marriage on mixed-sex couples were also used for the marriages of same-sex couples", because then you have the two-types of "marriage" there. I would also have a problem with "the same rituals and statuses used to confer marriage on mixed-sex couples were also used for same-sex unions", because then you have an unnecessary smell of POV, that marriages and SSUs are different. We are dealing in a tricky field here, with words that have changed their recognized definitions recently with new definitions that are still controversial. (I have a feeling that a quarter century from now, this aspect of the article will be a lot simpler, as the primary definition of marriage will no longer be sex-specific. However, this article should reflection the dictionary we have, not the one we hope to have.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "In Ancient Whatsopotamia, the same rituals and statuses used to confer marriage on mixed-sex couples were also used for same-sex couples" - I like this, would you also be for adding Linestarz' suggestion below of using 'unions/marriages' (even though I personally believe it should just be marriages, at least by using the / it could be left up for interpretation). If so, we could add it right now and preface it with your line (I'll provide the sources) -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need the slash, because if we're saying it's marriage, we're inherently saying it's a union, and I believe that you have adequate source for calling those mixed-sex unions "marriages" (both in the dictionary of the time the source was written, and the dictionary of today) without much conflict. And since we're not actually applying the word "marriage" to the same-sex folks, it doesn't have that two-definition conflict. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, perhaps I misunderstood, but are you for leaving in the word 'marriage' (as it currently stands) on the basis that there wouldn't be a conflict? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the sentence as listed, yes. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a citation of Boswell, one of the most radical gay-union historians, where even he makes a distiction between gay-marriages and gay-unions during the Roman empire. In otherwords, even strongly pro-gay-marriage historians don't consider all unions to be "marriages." (I'm trying to find out where the block quote comes from, but it referenced here: [Eskridge, William N. (Oct 1993). "A History of Same-Sex Marriage". Virginia Law Review 79 (7).]) Capisci?Ragazz (talk) 07:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Who said ALL unions were marriages? There have been no doubt been couples (heterosexual and homosexual alike) that have lived together and were not married (we have that today), I want to see a source placing a distinction between a sanctifying heterosexual marriage and a sanctifying homosexual marriage. And I just reread that section again, trying to contemplate a way to word it another way when I saw this:
 * Cicero mentions the marriage (using the latin verb for "to marry", i.e. nubere) of the son of Curio the Elder in a casual manner as if it was commonplace. Cicero states that the younger Curio was "united in a stable and permanent marriage" to Antonius.
 * Could anyone provide a rebuttal to the above? If not, then I believe this debate is over, that's the best piece of evidence yet-- Historyguy1965 (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Who said ALL unions were marriages?" You did! :"to me, any ritual celebrating the union of people must be a marriage, that's what marriage is defined as.[...] Whether that be two people, three people, gay people or straight people I don't see how the words unions and 'marriage' could have not been used interchangeably in ancient times. So let's be clear, according to historians (and you're a history professor right?), not all gay unions were gay marriages.Ragazz (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, read what I said: "ritual celebrating the union of people must be a marriage" is NOT the same thing as saying "some unions were not marriages" because what this assumes is relationships that say, enacted non-contractual obligations within two (or more people) could very well be a relationship but not a marriage (the only exception to this case is a common-law marriage). A boyfriend/girlfriend could be very well described as a "union" (whether past or present) but I would never, ever ever insinuate that to be a marriage just because. A union can mean anything and everything, it could describe the relationship between a grandmother (ie: guardian) and her grandchild, or a business partnership. The reason I have a problem with using the word 'union' is because it's vague and does not correctly describe the same-sex relationships described above (which included rituals, which were sanctified, etc). Now could you respond to the bolded sentence I had above? If that wasn't a marriage then what was it? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But the introductory paragraph should make it clear that we are only discussing those unions that were similar (or even considered identical) to modern conceptions of marriages, not all relationships. I took that as being obvious from the article context, but maybe it should be clarified for casual readers. I certainly don't think this section should become a summary of the "History of homoxesuality" by including all relationships, no matter how informal.
 * Historyguy, i have a question. If we were to use "marriage" thoughout the section, would this mean you support removing any union which the ancient society itself used a different word for SSUs than the one they use for hetero marriages? Ancient Greeks had another word for lesbian unions i think - as they have a word for marriage, does that mean the lesbian unions are not marriage, and should not be covered in this article on SSM? How would you solve such situations, bearing in mind this should be a summary section? If a modern source uses the word "marriage", when we know the primary sources distinguish them, would you consider it acceptable to call them marriages, or unions, or to exclude them? Yob  Mod  19:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yobo you make a good and reasonable point. I'd assume it all depends on the context of the relationship. I think a common misconception is people tend to dichotomized these relationships (either it's "one form of marriage" otherwise it's "just a union"). For example, in Islamic socieities a Nikah mut‘ah and a Nikah Misyar may go by different names (the word Nikah means "contract in marriage") but ultimately they're both contracts and, both marriages (of course one could argue why "Nikah" should translate to 'marriage' at all). So I sort of ask, if such lesbian unions (the ones you mentioned) went by another name would that immediately cease such from being called marriages? How do we know the "non-lesbian unions" were merely just "unions" as well? See how easily it gets complicated?
 * I don't believe Ancient socieities cared about "terms" as much as we do today. All the people I linked to above, like Westermarck, Boswell, Grahn, etc didn't have a problem linking a whole slew of these relationships as marriages, yet there seems to be a contention here and one reason I've read is because calling them "marriages" is controversial. Perhaps I should've asked this a long time ago, who exactly is finding these terms controversial and under what basis? Again, I ask for sources because I've looked and couldn't find any (with the exception of religious advocacy groups) but those violate WP:RS. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * thought of something, how about this compromise by using "unions/marriages", so it'd be: "Various types of same-sex unions/marriages have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions." - this way, the reader will know it couldve been a union or a marriage depending on context, cool? - Linestarz (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)