Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 14

Same-sex marriage is a term...
The current opener is "Same-sex marriage is a term used to describe a legally or socially recognized marriage"... which makes this sound like a weak dictionary entry rather than an encyclopedia one. We don't start biography section saying "Charles M. Schulz is a name used to identify the man who created the comic strip which is identified by the term 'Peanuts'." I say let's kill the phrase "term used to describe a", leaving "Same-sex marriage is legally or socially recognized marriage..." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely agree, and based on the format of other articles it seems appropriate -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Same-Sex Marriage and Immigration
While the article talks about same sex marriages globally, how it is viewed in different religions, societies, etc., it doesn't make mention of the effects of same sex marriages on immigration in different countries (legal aspect). Care to contribute? Thanks. --Weekeejames (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see two primary subtopics for "immigration": there's couples moving from jurisdictions where they cannot get marriage recognition to where they can be married, and there's the inability for a citizen to have their non-citizen same-sex spouse given citizenship or given automatic entry to a country (the Andrew Sullivan situation; not sure how many other countries besides the US it may apply to). No sources immediately come to mind for categorical discussion (as opposed to individual examples), but I imagine they are out there. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

other terms
The second sentence is a bit of an odd duck. "Other terms used to describe this type of recognition include gay marriage or gender-neutral marriage." Gender-neutral marriage is not the same as same-sex marriage; it is rather the legal inclusion of both same-sex and mixed-sex marriage without differentiation. This would be better handled by making the opening sentence "Same-sex marriage' (also referred to as gay marriage) is..." and then either eliminating the second sentence or replacing it with "Jurisdictions that do not distinguish between same-sex and mixed-sex marriage are said to have gender-neutral marriage (also known as marriage equality)." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of objections, I've implemented this, moving gender-neutral marriage to be with marriage equality down in terminology section. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Economic effects: US heavy
The section that was on effects on the "whole economy" was only on the US and jurisdictions within the US. I've now labeled it as such. Ideally, it should be fleshed out with pieces on economic effects in other nations; barring that, we may want to reduce it, shuttling off to Same-sex marriage in the U.S. any bits that aren't already there, and just including a summary and/or a see-also link. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of genetic implications of gay marriage to children
Why has the section of genetic implications of gay marriage on children been deleted - Achieved (non visible) Obviously the gay mafia run wiki - that's very sad and points to corruption. I gave money to this site thinking wiki was for FREEDOM OF SPEECH but obviously the gay mafia is very strong and have corrupted this site as well. Just like many other institutions. Freedom of speech died today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.132.47 (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember the original discussion, I believe it was archived because no one was commenting on it any further. If you have a suggestion for a page, it's better to make that specific suggestion on the talk page so other editors can comment. If you just pop in, throw out a vague topic, then don't come back for a month or more, chances are nothing will get done. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of the amount of discussion this article generates, it has been set up to automatically archive discussion threads that have seen no action in the last 30 days. There are a very large number of articles that have this functionality enabled, across a very large number of topics. As Dayewalker pointed out, that is what happened to the discussion thread in question. If you want to keep a discussion active, you will need to contribute to it regularly. With regards to freedom of speech, might I recommend Wikipedia's article on that topic; you seem to have a misunderstanding as to what it really is. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you, liked the anonymous poster who started that thread, want to see the topic reflected in the article, what you need to do is find reliable sources that state what you're trying to say. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to be, a reflection of information from reliable sources. It's not a place for personal theories, nor for information that is not available from reliable sources because of a theorized conspiracy theory. If the suggestion had some credible basis, then the author might have even gotten help in locating those reliable sources, but the anonymous invidual(s) pushing for it argued on the basis of an obvious lack of understanding of genetics, so it wasn't getting taken seriously. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and just to correct slightly what Techbear said, due to periods of strong activity, this page is set to archive threads after 10 days of inactivity, not 30. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"obviously the gay mafia is very strong and have corrupted this site as well. Just like many other institutions" - I'm sorry, do you have any evidence for that statement or is this just another personal opinion that has no validity or basis whatsoever? The problem with some editors, like yourself, is they don't want to do their homework, and when they do do their homework they don't like what they find, so they do the next best thing and that's victimize themselves into thinking there's some violation of speech, when the only thing being violated is ignorance. Look at the "ancient history" discussion, we we're debating over a single word and look at the sources, research, time, and effort that was put into place. We didn't just cross our arms and pout when people disagreed. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC) When it comes to the protection of children NO comments should be Archived!, which my comments were very quickly. Which points to strong gay mafia bias on this site. As to source, how many sources do you need for genetic inheritance? Even a 5 year old child knows about inheritance. But any excuse to stop the truth from being told, another example of gay bias on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.65.13 (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That previous discussion was hatted and archived. The user, same one as above, provided no sources, no evidence,  nor anything to discuss except his inflammatory opinion.  Since I put a hat on the previous discussion (per WP:TALK this is not a chat room) then maybe somebody else would like to do so here?  It is only serving to distract from the real discussions. -- >David  Shankbone  19:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal section edit
I had edited the legal and judicial section by adding:

From a strictly legal standpoint the Burden of proof lies with the party laying charges or wanting a change. In the case of same-sex marriage or same-sex parenting that burden lies with the proponents.

It was removed with the comment that the same could be said about interracial marriage.

My response: So? Yes it could, but correct scientific study would not have found sufficient harm of it to legally prevent its occurrence. I do not believe your objection warrants the removal of the link. At the most, you may be justified in removing my second sentence. (MatLocke (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC))


 * No, actually, your first sentence is wrong as well. Even in court cases, the burden of proof can land on those resisting the change, that they have to prove that the state has a compelling interest for its discrimination. It was an unsourced comment of questionable relevancy and accuracy. And if we removed the second sentence, as you admit may be justified, that leaves the first sentence as a statement without visible relevancy. - Nat Gertler (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well, it appears then that all I must do is find an authoritative source on how the burden of proof in this case rests on proponents of same-sex marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatLocke (talk • contribs) 05:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What change are you speaking of anyway? Same-sex marriages have existed in history, as have opposite-sex marriage, polygamous marriages, child marriages, arranged marriages, etc etc. All of these things could, in one respect or another, be arguments against various other marriages on the basis that marriage is somehow narrowed down to only one form, which history dictates otherwise. The burden of proof lies on YOU to prove such a thing has always been in only one form and originated in one form -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As I say below- perhaps my arguments are more fitting in another article. But Same-sex marriage has not always existed in U.S. law, nor in British law from which it is largely derived. U.S. law, nor that of most countries would expect proof that something has never existed as a reason why it should not exist now. The burden of proof would (often) lay with those seeking the change from existing law- which in most places is that same-sex marriage is not legalized. (MatLocke (talk) 05:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC))


 * No, that's not "all you need do"; even with a source, there could well be questions of appropriateness and weight of the inclusion... particularly if its U.S.-oriented. That brief section is already too U.S.-specific. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Then those questions of appropriateness should be brought up. But yeh, perhaps it would better fit in the article Same-sex marriage in the U.S. (MatLocke (talk) 05:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
 * I'm still trying to wrap my head around your logic, what do you mean when you say "the other side must provide the burden of proof"? Proof for what? Just because "X" has always been in CountryA that doesn't mean including Y (that is, to make XY) somehow violates the position of "X". Marriage is not a term that originated in the United States, nor is it a term that originated in religion, so I don't understand this argument. I could easily use the same argument against voting, after all black people weren't ALWAYS allowed to vote, neither were women, and including them didn't violate the right of the white man to vote now did it? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to debate semantics on the word marriage. In almost every civil case the burden of proof belongs to those seeking a change in law. Yes, the argument could be used against black and women voting, and it was, and it was shown by common sense and most likely some study that it would not cause harm. The burden of proof in U.S. likewise rests most likely with the plaintiff/ those seeking relief aka those seeking same-sex marriage. (See below).

Proof of what? of not causing a net harm to the population of course, in mental health, physical health, the effect on the beliefs of the population as a whole if they lead to an increase in things that have been proven to be detrimental to society like increased divorce rates (which some studies have shown increase when same-sex unions or marriage are recognized by the state, while others have shown the opposite) etc, and in the development of children.

"In Keyes v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), the United States Supreme Court stated: “There are no hard-and-fast standards governing the allocation of the burden of proof in every situation. The issue, rather, ‘is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations.’” For support, the Court cited 9 John H. Wigmore, Evidence § 2486, at 275 (3d ed. 1940). In Keyes, the Supreme Court held that if “school authorities have been found to have practiced purposeful segregation in part of a school system,” the burden of persuasion shifts to the school to prove that it did not engaged in such discrimination in other segregated schools in the same system.

In Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267 (1994), the Supreme Court explained that burden of proof is ambiguous because it has historically referred to two distinct burdens: the burden of persuasion, and the burden of production.

The Supreme Court discussed how courts should allocate the burden of proof (i.e., the burden of persuasion) in Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005). The Supreme Court explained that if a statute is silent about the burden of persuasion, the court will “begin with the ordinary default rule that plaintiffs bear the risk of failing to prove their claims.” In support of this proposition, the Court cited 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 337, 412 (5th ed. 1999), which states:

The burdens of pleading and proof with regard to most facts have been and should be assigned to the plaintiff who generally seeks to change the present state of affairs and who therefore naturally should be expected to bear the risk of failure of proof or persuasion. At the same time, the Supreme Court also recognized “The ordinary default rule, of course, admits of exceptions.” “For example, the burden of persuasion as to certain elements of a plaintiff's claim may be shifted to defendants, when such elements can fairly be characterized as affirmative defenses or exemptions. See, e.g., FTC v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U.S. 37, 44-45 (1948). Under some circumstances this Court has even placed the burden of persuasion over an entire claim on the defendant. See Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004).” Nonetheless, “[a]bsent some reason to believe that Congress intended otherwise, therefore, [the Supreme Court] will conclude that the burden of persuasion lies where it usually falls, upon the party seeking relief.”  (MatLocke (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
 * All of which is US centric. Other countries legalised SSM without any legal case (and hasn't one US state also?). Details of the Us legal system do not belong on this page. Yob  Mod  12:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, we already neglect coverage of non-U.S. issues enough. MatLocke (hee) should cut n' paste this argument to Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States. -- >David  Shankbone  13:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I already agreed that that article is where this information belongs (please read full discussions before posting). However, I desired to continue the debate here for the time-being because I would likely face similar opposition on many points (from perhaps some of the same people), were I to post it there. (MatLocke (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Mat, If you are aware you are at the wrong place, the thing not to do is carry on the discussion at the wrong place. You are incorrect in assuming that the numerous same-sex marriage articles are patrolled by the same group of editors.  I don't think many editors would mind if you ripped the whole thing up and placed it where it belongs, as many people find the endlessly nuanced American argument an annoying distraction on this international article.  You can imagine, we get it a lot and people are ready to do battle to not make the US article and the International one carbon copies of each other.  Take care, -- >David  Shankbone  17:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had many equally heated arguments with both David and Nat, it just so happens that we've come to a consensus (despite the perceived hostility) based on facts and legitimate information. No one is reverting your edits based on any hidden agendas, they're reverting your edits because they're simply wrong. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually think the current crop of editors is a model of how well people with opposing viewpoints on such a contentious article can work together. Sure, sometimes we lose our patience, but I have seen much, much worse.  I actually think everyone should feel pretty proud of themselves on this Talk page. --Take care, David  Shankbone  17:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, huh? And yet, what evidence has been supplied that has not been sufficiently refuted, (or admitted in a couple cases). Irrelevant to this article (in this case)- ok, but that is different than wrong. David has convinced me to move this conversation to the other article though- should I leave what we have already discussed here or should I delete it? (MatLocke (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Wrong as in the place where you are discussing it (this article), not wrong in the information (nor correct - I'm not making a judgment). I think if you literally just cut and pasted these threads to the appropriate articles (you can see the "main" ones under the section headers on the article itself) the editors will follow if they wish to continue to discuss them.  Otherwise, you'll find new editors to debate inclusion of the topics with you.  Take care, David  Shankbone  18:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Edits on Mental and Physical Health
I have posted the following information (not thinking beforehand to discuss it here as this is my first wikipedia edit) but will edit further if new information or problems with it come up.

I realize that some of the information more directly relates to homosexuality, but as the effects of homosexual behavior is a key concern over same-sex marriage, I thought it important to include them in the article. It does have great bearing on the subject.

If you have problems with my edits I wish you would delete the parts you specifically have cause against instead of deleting all the information.

Physical Health Edit

A study done by Hogg and Strathdee in a major urban center in Canada found that the life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men is 8-20 years less than for all men, and that if the same patterns were to continue, nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Studies by the CDC have declared that the sole, or potential cause of more than seventy percent of all AIDS cases that have been reported in the United States from the first case through 2004 is male homosexual behavior. And that of the 402,722 cumulative AIDS cases reported through 2004, 55% involved the single mode of exposure of men who had sex with men. Extensive medical evidence supports greater rates of other medical disease among homosexuals as well, including 10 times the rate of anal cancer infection in homosexual males compared to heterosexual males, hemorrhoids, penile edema and others. And in Lesbians leading to higher rates of hepatitis B & C, bacterial vaginosis, heavy cigarette smoking, intravenous drug use and abuse of alcohol.

Here is my edit on the Mental Health section- it includes all the previous parts of the article.

Recently, several psychological studies have shown that an increase in exposure to negative conversations and media messages about same-sex marriage creates a harmful environment for the LGBT population that may affect their health and well-being.

One study surveyed more than 1,500 lesbian, gay and bisexual adults across the nation and found that respondents from the 25 states that have outlawed same-sex marriage had the highest reports of "minority stress" — the chronic social stress that results from minority-group stigmatization — as well as general psychological distress. According to the study, the negative campaigning that comes with a ban is directly responsible for the increased stress. Past research has shown that minority stress is linked to health risks such as risky sexual behavior and substance abuse.

Two other studies examined personal reports from LGBT adults and their families living in Memphis, Tennessee, immediately after a successful 2006 ballot campaign banned same-sex marriage. Most respondents reported feeling alienated from their communities, afraid that they would lose custody of their children and that they might become victims of violence. The studies also found that families experienced a kind of secondary minority stress, says Jennifer Arm, a counseling graduate student at the University of Memphis.

Ferguson, Horwood, and Beautrais conducted research and concluded that “Gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people were at increased risks of major depression...generalized anxiety disorder...conduct disorder...nicotine dependence...multiple disorders...suicidal ideation...suicide attempts.”

Other researchers claim that the idea that this is the result of social pressures is unlikely because the study was replicated in The Netherlands with similar, more robust results.

Researchers have concluded that lesbians have a much higher rate of substance abuse disorders during their lifetime as well as a higher prevalence of mood disorders.

There are also higher rates of sexual molestation reported in the history of homosexuals. One study found that 46% of gay men and 22% of lesbians were sexually abused as children compared to 7% of heterosexual men and 1% of heterosexual women. The study also found that 68% of the men and 38% of the women did not self-identify as gay or lesbian until after the molestation.

There are also significantly higher rates of domestic violence in homosexual relationships. Waldner-Haugrud, Gratch, and Magruder concluded from their sample of 283 participants that 47% of the lesbians and 29.7% of the gay men had been victimized by a gay partner.

Gay activist Jonathan Rauch has argued that marriage is good for all men, whether homosexual or heterosexual, because engaging in its social roles reduces men's aggression and promiscuity.

Other studies have shown that the civilizing effects of marriage that lead to lower crime rates among men, spending more time with relatives than friends, and working longer hours, as well as being less promiscuous and less likely to abuse alcohol, was not an artifact of selection and is a result of gender complementarity.

After reviewing current psychological and other social science studies on same-sex marriage in comparison to opposite-sex marriage, Gregory M. Herek claims that the data indicate that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to their ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. Herek concludes that same-sex couples and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Critics claim that many such studies claiming no difference in children raised by homosexual parents, compared to heterosexual parents, primarily compared children who were conceived in a heterosexual relationship whose mothers later divorced and self-identified as lesbians, and that these children were the ones compared to divorced, heterosexual, mother-headed families.

Other research and review has been done that also claim these studies showing no difference suffered from methodological flaws, in addition to not dealing adequately with the problem of affirming the null hypothesis, of adequate sample size, and of spurious correlation.

Yet other research has demonstrated that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two bilogical parents in a low-conflict marriage...and that there is value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents, while other research has focused on how dual gender parenting and child-rearing is crucial to healthy child development.

Studies have also been conducted on the importance of gender identification in children and found that parenting can derail biological priming. (MatLocke (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC))


 * These are not really arguments against same-sex marriages as much as they are arguments against same-sex relationships, there is a difference. Just because a man/man become husband/husband that does not by any means increase their risk, as one of your sources pointed out, of a "life expectancy of 8-20 years less". Another one of your sources is A._Dean_Byrd, who is currently the President of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, a pseudopsychological association that promotes conversion therapy, currently rejected by all the major and legitimate psychological associations. Lastly, many of your sources deal with "fatherless" households, which have less to do with same-sex marriages and more to do with the "consequences" towards lesbian-relationships. The problem here is you have too many fringe sources that have no legitimate basis other than an obvious aversion towards homosexuality -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, there is a difference. That does not mean the information is not pertinent to the topic. Perhaps I should create a new section on science based objections to Same-sex marriage?

Also, if you wish I can remove citations from A. Dean Byrd, despite the fact that there are many other social scientists and psychologists- including now the doctor who was most responsible for the APA's removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder) who have shown that such conversion therapy can work.

In regards to the sources on fatherless households- it pertains to same-sex couple childrearing. I believe I should move this to a different article. However, there is information currently in the article section on mental health that deals with the effects on children but is allowed in because of the mention of marriage bestowing substantial psychological, social, and health benefits- which is another topic entirely, and one addressed also in some of the sources I cited. (MatLocke (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC))


 * This article is not a coatrack on which you can hang every claim about homosexuality. It's specifically about same-sex marriage. In addition, much of your material is, well, bunk. For example, the "Hogg and Strathdee" study you cite not only does not generalize to the larger population (by H&S's own statement), but is also outdated. "if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

First, they are not mere claims, they are supported by scientific evidence. And as I said above- information on homosexuality is very important to the issue of same-sex marriage and it's legalization. To claim that much of my material is 'bunk' is an unjustifiable position when you certainly have not had the time to find and read the sources. Your point on the Hogg and Strathdee study being outdated is well taken- that is why we have editing- therefore it would have been more fair to have edited my edit with this newer information than for someone to delete it all. Overall- Aids, and perhaps even all of the physical health data is not as crucial to the topic. Therefore I now see no need to include it in the article on Same-sex marriage. (MatLocke (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Saying its "very important" does not make it actually relevant to this article, and no relevancy was shown. To say that I have not had time to read the sources presumes that this is the first time I would have seen reference to the sources. And while I was not the one who deleted the H&S reference, while updating it would have made it more accurate, it would not have made it more relevant. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I will attempt to spell it out (in regards to the mental health data- as I have already said I am willing to remove the physical health data) (though if you had actually read what I pointed to above with the 'very important' quote, you would have seen a little more relevancy shown). Same-sex marriage legalization is a controversial subject- yes? It is controversial because of claims on both sides pitting facts against facts and values against other values. One side claims that Same-sex marriage cannot be allowed because it creates a government incentive and promotion of homosexual relations, and because it then leads to an increase in same-sex parenting. (You may claim that sexual orientation is strictly biological and that government legalization would have no effect- but I, and many others, could argue the other way. However I personally do believe there is a genetic factor involved.) Thus the utilitarian issue of harm enters the picture. Therefore, any evidence concerning the harm of same-sex relationships, or same-sex parenting, becomes a deciding factor in the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Also, the chance that you have had opportunity to read all, or even most of the studies I have posted is astronomical. If you had indeed done so you would likely provide detailed analysis of the methodological flaws that make them 'bunk.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatLocke (talk • contribs) 05:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So I couldn't be pointing out to you, for example, that the authors of the Child Trends piece followed it up with another piece from the same background where they reject applying their work to same-sex couples? - Nat Gertler (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't say you hadn't read some of them, or that you haven't had time to read a few more. But this new information is very helpful- please continue to provide such refutations so that the article can include only those which are accurate. I am going to read that article now. But what is your response on the relevancy issue? And I suppose here is as good a place as any to mention that if you have issue with the relevancy of my data, you should also take issue with "A multi-method, multi-informant comparison of community samples of committed gay male and lesbian (30 participants each) couples with both committed (50 young engaged and 40 older married participants) and non-committed (109 exclusively dating) opposite-sex pairs was conducted in 2008.[119] Results indicated that individuals in committed same-sex relationships were generally not distinguishable from their committed opposite-sex counterparts." Which is just as connected to the issue of same-sex marriage as is my information. (MatLocke (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Just because you've posted a lot of sources that does not by any means indicate their validity. I'm still trying to figure out what AIDS has to do with a same-sex marriage article, according to the CDC the majority of HIV/AIDS infections are towards heterosexuals and blacks, yet you wouldn't use these as arguments towards opposite-sex marriages or interracial marriages would you? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

True enough, and they will be removed once shown to be invalid. I have already said on numerous occasions that I am willing to give up on the physical health data- And while some of the physical health data is just as relevant as I hope I showed above the mental health data to be, I would not use such an argument against interracial marriages etc. because they don't also have the fact on their side that gay males participate in more risky sexual behavior (such as not wearing protection for one thing). Xiridou, M. et al. (2003). The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS, 17 (7), 1029-1038 (MatLocke (talk)
 * Do you notice a pattern here? Each time you assert a claim, and someone provides evidence to the contrary, you say "true enough" or "yes, that's right", perhaps indicating that you're just adding these statements and just hoping that someone proves them as fallacious. You don't add biographical inclusions like "John Doe is a rapist" and hope that someone disproves that statement, that's not how Wikipedia works. I'm going to assume good faith, and please remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~), I've signed your previous post for you. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for signing for me- I often forget. But hold on now! Yes, when specific evidence has been brought up- it has sometimes been correct. I do not have infinite knowledge of sociological studies and therefore rely on others to help edit wikipedia. I have provided scientific sources, not made foundationless claims. I do not appreciate the comparison to one who has. A few of my sources may have flaws that I did not notice. What do you expect- that no one should post sources to scholarly articles unless they have knowledge of every possible counter to them? (MatLocke (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC))


 * You appear not to have a particular knowledge of the studies you're citing. For example, you just invoked the Xiridou study and tried to make a blanket statements about gays based on it. Have you read the study, and realized that their methodology focused largely on HIV-positive folks, excluded monogamous folks, and excluded folks over the age of 30? It looks to me like you're citing things commonly cited by anti-gay groups; if that's where you're getting your information, you may want to look a bit more closely, as they have a strong tendency to misread or abuse science. - Nat Gertler (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

To NatGertler: Your statements on the child trends research was misleading. For one thing they specifically said that children did best when raised by biological parents. The caveat on same-sex couples pertained to the other concerns of the article, such as communication and intimacy and emotional support etc. (MatLocke (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC))


 * They specifically said that children did best when raised by biological parents, but same-sex couples raising kids were not one of the things that they were comparing that to, because as they pointed out, they found that the "the research base on same-sex couples is quite thin and has numerous methodological problems." As such, applying their statements to same-sex couples is problematic at best. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Or to make that statement more clearly, let's go to a more recent Child Trends document, and see how they're saying it. "Research consistently shows that growing up with two married biological or adoptive parents who are in a low-conflict relationship is the best environment for children’s development. However, rigorous research is as yet unavailable on the proportion of nonmarital births that occur to same-sex couples or the implications of these family structures for children." (empahsis mine.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * MatLocke, in all honesty you seriously need to read the things you're posting and analyze the sources you're using. Your sources are either misleading or just flat-out fallacious, and whenever someone does your homework for you you immediately retreat and say "oh yes, that's true" -- the fact that you're telling other editors their "statements are misleading" is the ultimate pot calling the kettle black. Just because you have a source that does not mean your source is correct, I wouldn't care if you had 100 of them, unless they have some form of validity and describe what you're posting then you're just wasting our time and yours. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Historyguy and Natgertler. This article is about same sex marriage. Any sources that only discuss homosexuality and health or same sex relationships or LGBT parenting should go to those articles. For overlapping aras of interest, small subsections that direct readers to more in depth articles is preffered, not using this article as a coatrack or for synthesis. The majoriy of LGBT people or parents are not married or even allowed to marry, therefore the majority of health or social concerns for LGBT people are not appropriate in detail for this article.  Yob  Mod  09:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * At the risk of me-too-ing, I agree. This is off-topic for this article; the reliability or otherwise of the research is completely irrelevant. Pseudomonas(talk) 09:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As to validity (and I have addressed much of this before, but apparently you decided to ignore my statements and continue with your original supposition. Every time I bring up a counter you move on to another argument and then another and another until we are back at the first again- it is all very cyclical.  On the other hand I like to admit when evidence or reason goes against one of my sources or address it.  Historyguy- please stop making accusations against me and read what I have written.): who is to determine if my source is valid or not? Have you read through all my sources and decided they are all invalid? If so, unless you have evidence against such an one- as Natgertler has provided against 2 of my many sources- you have no right to suppress it based on your opinion on the matter. And as I have already said- I cannot be expected to have all knowledge on the subject- so further research and editing by others on specific studies is appreciated. Have you read through all the studies cited by the others who provided favorable evidence and decided that they all had no flaws? Your assumption that the studies are misleading or fallacious is based on a couple of ones that have been proven such, and that the evidence (apparently) goes against your previously held beliefs.

As to relevancy: Yes, I should and will create new sections or subsections for most of the information- as it is, as I now realize, where it is more appropriate. Some of my information more directly applies where it was originally put. Based on your own arguments against my evidence, why have you not deleted: A multi-method, multi-informant comparison of community samples of committed gay male and lesbian (30 participants each) couples with both committed (50 young engaged and 40 older married participants) and non-committed (109 exclusively dating) opposite-sex pairs was conducted in 2008.[119] Results indicated that individuals in committed same-sex relationships were generally not distinguishable from their committed opposite-sex counterparts.

For it is only as directly applicable to this page as is: There are also significantly higher rates of domestic violence in homosexual relationships. Waldner-Haugrud, Gratch, and Magruder concluded from their sample of 283 participants that 47% of the lesbians and 29.7% of the gay men had been victimized by a gay partner.

Or A study on marriage statistics of opposite-sex married couples by researcher Darren Spedale found that 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples marriage-like partnership status, rates of opposite-sex marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of opposite-sex divorce had gone down, contradicting the concept that same-sex marriages would have a negative effect on traditional marriages.[117] Because it is talking about civil unions and not same-sex marriages except in the opinion that the same results could be obtained when studying same-sex marriage (which was, once again, not part of the study). (MatLocke (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC))


 * MatLocke, you keep repeating your disbelief that others have read up on some of the studies you invoke. Have you read them? Because you're coming across like you're repeating them from some other, biased source. You cite Waldner-Haugrud, et al, without noting that the paper specifically casts their group as a non-representational sample. It's hard to take someone's demand to use their sources seriously when they don't know what those sources say. - Nat Gertler (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Natgertler, first of all- thank you for relying on evidence and logic and kindness to get your points across. I do appreciate it. I was not referring to you so much as historyguy on my comment on reading my sources. Though, can you honestly say you have read more than half of them? And as I have said before, I do not have all sociological knowledge, I have not noticed every flaw in my citations. I would hope you are as diligent in looking for flaws such as non-representational sample groups in the sources cited by others. But, because they are scientific sources, and I am only human, they should not be removed just based on accusation, but on evidence, as you have provided in a few cases. I am going to create a break and post reformed suggestions. Please look through the studies and point out flaws if there are any. (MatLocke (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
 * I never claimed to have read more than half of them. I have, however, read careful discussions of methodology on some that I've not read.
 * They may be scientific sources; you, it appears, are not. It is not incumbent upon us to assume that your descriptions of the sources is accurate and appropriate. Given your track record so far, in fact, it would seem unwise of us to do so. If you can point to a reliable source for your descriptions of the content, that would help your case. - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I just looked at the Waldner-Haugrud study again. The fact that it was not proportional actually goes in my favor when you look at the sampling. Mostly college educated whites... a group with normally less domestic violence problems... Response? (MatLocke (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC))


 * No, the fact that it is not proportional does not go "in your favor"; it shows that it is not a study designed to support the vast generalization you hung on it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My track record so far is this...and correct me if I am mistaken. Of my many sources you have shown that one was irrelevant where I had placed it, not inaccurate or flawed, that being the Hogg and Strathdee study (which I just looked through again). There was no such admission of not being able to apply to the general population (and I'm not sure what you are saying would not apply). The methodological limitations they say exist provide only for the possibility that they underestimated the impact of AIDS among homosexuals.

The Child Trends study- you are correct- they did not study same-sex couples. But they did say children were raised by biological parents- and I only said what the study said. You did find a more recent article that proves the study has been updated (which goes not to show that my information is not credible for the most part- but that you are intelligent and resourceful).

And the Waldner-Haugrud study was addressed above... it would appear when it comes to evidence against my sources my track record is not so bad...

And if I go find methodological reviews of the evidence already in the article- would I be required to show it as an authoritative source? If so, I would like to see your authoritative sources on future studies which will be brought into question. (MatLocke (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC))


 * No, your track record is that of the three I bothered looking specifically at, all three came up as problematic. Outdated Hogg inappropriately used (his goal was to find a means "to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups", and he specifies that "If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population"), inappropriately generalized Waldner-Haugrud, and a claim from Child Trends where the relevancy implied by placing it in this text is not supported by the material. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

1: Hogg and Stathdee. The study was published in 1997, this is not outdated. Age does not make a scientific study outdated. 2: The quote you claim came from Hogg's study was no where in there! (That is twice you have claimed a study said something that it did not). (Edit: Woops, my appologies, I have found the article where you got your information on.) 3: Ok, so the Waldner study will be alright if I can prove relevancy (I think I have but will go further later) and state that Waldner-Haugrud, Gratch, and Magruder concluded from their sample of 283 participants (primarily college educated whites)that 47% of the lesbians and 29.7% of the gay men had been victimized by a gay partner. This shows a higher rate than among heterosexual partners of the same background (if I provide a source here).

Still, the validity of the article itself remains- if you read my previous rebuttal on it.

4: As for the Child Trends study- I already admitted the relevancy was questionable (as I now realize). That does not harm my track record on validity at all.

5: And I must have missed your comments on the xiridou study. For one thing- I had not mentioned that study in the edits. I was using it to prove a separate point- that gay males participate in more risky behavior. If I was going to use it in an edit I would have put it in the context that the study was about young gays with steady and casual partners and that the incidence was higher with the steady partners. (MatLocke (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

Addition: Ok, I see your point about the data being outdated. Note that in my edit though I only said what the study had said and made no inappropriate generalizations. (MatLocke (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC))


 * lol, so you've argued mercilessly about a point that you now admit to being outdated, so once again proving my original point that you only realize things "after the fact", that is, after someone does your homework for you. And I have another question, how are you distinguishing between these "statistics" and a same-sex marriage? In other words, how do these arguments fare against same-sex relationships in general? These arguments you're making are more along the lines of being against Homosexuality and less to do with what these relationships are called. It's apples and oranges -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We all do homework for eachother- that IS what wikipedia is about- someone researches and posts scientific studies and then if there are flaws which that person did not see- others may bring them up and delete those specific citations. How many times must I state the obvious point that no one has all knowledge on these things. And once again you appear to have not read previous things I had said and to have gone cyclically back to what we have already debated. This argument can go on forever if you keep ignoring my refutations and moving back to something asked and answered. As I said before: "Same-sex marriage legalization is a controversial subject- yes? It is controversial because of claims on both sides pitting facts against facts and values against other values. One side claims that Same-sex marriage cannot be allowed because it creates a government incentive and promotion of homosexual relations, and because it then leads to an increase in same-sex parenting. (You may claim that sexual orientation is strictly biological and that government legalization would have no effect- but I, and many others, could argue the other way. However I personally do believe there is a genetic factor involved.) Thus the utilitarian issue of harm enters the picture. Therefore, any evidence concerning the harm of same-sex relationships, or same-sex parenting, becomes a deciding factor in the legalization of same-sex marriage."

And I have already said I would take out a few citations that were less relevant- but most fit with my argument made ^^ (MatLocke (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

A further note on the Xiridou study. I think I found the site you (Natgertler) got your information from on this. (I would be fine with you looking to non-authoritative sources who make claims about the methodology without enough backup- but I doubt I would be afforded the same courtesy.) The Xiridou study was indeed based on the Amsterdam Cohort Study- which has run from the mid 1980's to present. Only in certain years were the study population additions limited to those under 30, or with multiple partners, or only those with HIV. (MatLocke (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC))


 * The level of authoritativeness needed for raising something in Talk is generlly considered lower than for raising something in the article itself. But the Xiridou study did not just go and take all of the data from the Cohort Study; the data was filtered to exclude participants over 30. If you don't believe the site you likely found, then perhaps you'll believe the Xiridou study itself talking about the data it was working with: "The cohort is comprised of young (< 30 years) homosexual men living in the Amsterdam

metropolitan area." (That less-than sign should be a less-than-or-equal thing; not sure how to paste that in.) The study in both the abstract and the full paper talks about that they were working with specifically young homosexual men. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Recall that I brought up the Xiridou study in Talk and never had it in my edits to the actual article. I will not include the Xiridou study but will include the Amsterdam Cohort Study (more likely in a different article on homosexuality though.) (MatLocke (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC))


 * "It is controversial because of claims on both sides pitting facts against facts and values against other values" - No, it's not "facts against facts", nothing you posted has any relevance to the topic. I, like Nat, simply studied some of your "sources" at random and they're either fallacious or contain sampling biases. The motives behind your edits are incredibly transparent, you simply post hundreds of unsubstantiated arguments and throw in hundreds of sources, hoping that "one of them sticks", which of course explains how often you've retracted several of your postings. It's always a "oh yes, maybe we could exclude that but how about X? Oh X, is wrong too well how about Y? Oh that's right, Y does do that so what's wrong with Z" - if you simply studied what you're posting there wouldn't be so much wasted time on either side. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And once again you ignore what I have already said on many of these issues... Perhaps the only way to get you to address my rebuttal would be to use the Socratic method, but I don't have time for that now. I have already addressed relevancy numerous times- and unlike some people- like to admit when I am wrong. In a few cases I have conceded (mostly on the issues of physical health data among homosexuals) would be better posted somewhere else. You have not countered my arguments as to the relevancy of most of it though- and it appears you have not even read them.

Only a 2 of my sources have been shown to have flaws. (The Hogg study was outdated and the Xiridou study (that I never put in my edits) was not as good as the Amsterdam Cohort study from which it was derived (but the fact that the Xiridou study included only males under 30 does not make it flawed- it just means I can't claim most homosexuals have riskier behavior (but the cohort study does allow that)) The others couple I have shown to not in fact be flawed.

If you indeed studied some of sources at random I would love to see your evidence against them. However, by study, I suspect you mean that you have gone to sites like boxturtlebulletin.com instead of to the studies themselves.

My position is not so obvious. There is already scientific evidence in the article that goes to the support of gay marriage. Instead of deleting it or even as yet looking for flaws in their specific methodology I only want to add those countering scientific studies which can not easily be proven flawed- which is why the issue is being discussed here. (Though I originally put it directly into the article because I was new on editing wikipedia.) (You may be surprised to know that I actually favor civil unions and believe homosexuality has a biological component.)

I do not have time to carry on with your cyclical arguments that ignore my rebuttals and make false accusations and generalizations about what I have said.

I would much rather focus on reviewing my edits, trimming those that have less relevance (but not equal) than some of the things already in the article (that do not pertain to same-sex marriage but instead to same-sex unions and same-sex relationships), and further reviewing the studies themselves as well as looking on blogs biased in favor of same-sex marriage for possible flaws in the studies, addressing them, and then cutting out the studies that have flaws or sampling that does actual harm to the conclusion I or the researchers reached. As you have been no help whatsoever in doing such things, but have done the things I said above, I see my only hope is to talk to Natgertler who has been reasonable (except in generalizing that all my studies were bunk) and intelligent. (Though I recommend that if you have not done so already (and maybe you have in some cases) you look at the studies themselves as well as the blogs.) (MatLocke (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC))


 * First, let me note that the generalization you accuse me of is not actually what I said. Second, the "rebuttals" you seem to be standing by come across largely as a demand that we accept anything you put forth that we have not specifically disproven. Given your arguments in the legal section, you may appreciate that the standard for Wikipedia puts the WP:BURDEN on the person adding the material... and given the problematic nature of some of what you've tried to add, folks here may not want to give the benefit of the doubt on the items that have yet to be dug into. And third, let me point out that it may not be so easy to use the Amsterdam Cohort Studies for the claim you want to support, as there appears to be no general population of heterosexuals being studied there (drug users do not make for a general population.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not recall accusing you of generalization NatGertler. Everything I wrote in my last post was addressed at Historyguy1965 except for my compliments about you. But now you are making a false accusation that makes it seem you have not read my other posts. By the way you worded your sentence about my rebuttals it appears you are specifically addressing my rebuttals on accuracy of data. While true, one of my rebuttals did indicate a desire that my sources be treated as innocent until proven guilty (unless wikipedia follows the same rules for posting that the U.S. does in civil law that puts the burden of proof on me- which would not seem right as there is no way to conclusively prove that a scientific study is not flawed) My other rebuttals that you have not addressed dealt with counters to your claims that my studies were flawed. These are the things which I accused Historyguy of ignoring.

Please address this, but then also answer me this: Were you as diligent in forcing the burden of proof on those who posted other scientific studies that supported your views? Would I still have the burden of proof (which, like I said, in science can only belong to the scientist in a small degree because of the impossibility of proving a scientific study perfect) if I desired to delete such studies already on the article because of the lack of relevancy or if I found a small flaw in their studies? (MatLocke (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Edit: Apparently it would not- for it says the burden rests on those wishing to add or restore.

And on the Amsterdam Cohort Study, it would appear you got your rebuttal from a blog or did not read the study carefully- for the Homosexual population was separate from the IV drug users in the study and only Homosexuals (though it does only allow me to make my previous claim about homosexual males) were involved in studying risk behaviors.

"In 2007, 558 HM (551 participants visiting the APHS and 7 HIV-positive men followed outside the APHS) filled in the behavioural questionnaire at least once. Of the 499 HIV-negative HM, 51.7% reported unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) in the past 6 months. Of the 59 HIV-positive HM, 23.3% reported UAI in the past 6 months. Like the HIV incidence, trends in unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) amongst young (<36 years of age) HIV-negative HM participating in the ACS have remained relatively stable in recent years. (A table then follows this part of the study.) (MatLocke (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Edit It appears that this particular part of the study was done with younger Homosexual Males but that does not make it flawed or much less relevant. It does mean, once again, that I cannot make generalizations to the homosexual population as a whole- but that it was still appropriate to mention as a reason why I would not apply the physical health evidence on HIV to interracial marriages.  As it was never mentioned as an edit to the article, I suggest we drop the arguments on this specific study unless you can find other methodological flaws.

And in case this is the last post for the evening, and other people enter the discussion as they did this morning. I would just like to remind them that many of my edits are only as relevant as other edits that have not applied to same-sex marriage, but only to civil unions and homosexual relationships, while a few have been more relevant, and that some we have already agreed should be moved to a different article or section of this article. I would also like to remind them that I have provided specific evidence against claims that my sources were fallacious, in such cases as those claims were supported by evidence and not simply claimed, except in 1 (and perhaps 1/2) cases where the study should not have been put as it was in the edit. (MatLocke (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC))


 * If you do not recall accusing me of generalization, then you may want to look to your previous post ("except in generalizing that all my studies were bunk"). I have been more diligent in editing and correcting other people's postings than yours, seeing how the grand total of my editing of your edits on the article was undoing a change where you created redundant information. To say that its a question of whether the study is innocent or guilty presumes that any problem lies with the study, and not with what someone else presumes the study says or means. Despite your comment, I did indeed base my comment on your misunderstanding of the ACS on the study source documents themselves; I didn't see the need to go any further into detail than to show that it was something you should have noticed off of even a very slight description of the study. (Oh, one point I should have addressed earlier is when you said that the Waldner-Haugrud study "shows a higher rate than among heterosexual partners of the same background (if I provide a source here)." If you combine two different sources to support a statement that same-sex rates are higher than mixed-sex rates, you'd be engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS.) And that's it for me tonight. Bed beckons. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, there is where I made that accusation. Ok, you generalized that most of my studies were bunk. "In addition, much of your material is, well, bunk." (Unless of course the value you place on the word "much" does not mean greater than 50%- this is what it always means to me.)

You cannot limit your contribution to opposing my edits as pressing the undo button- you have looked specifically and diligently for opposing viewpoints and evidence to some of my studies- have you done so with the studies in the article supporting same-sex marriage?

Please address my comments on burden of proof above.

If your comments on the ACS study are again referring to the drug user comment, then perhaps you missed my response: "the Homosexual population was separate from the IV drug users in the study and only Homosexuals (though it does only allow me to make my previous claim about homosexual males) were involved in studying risk behaviors.

"In 2007, 558 HM (edit for Natgertler: this means Homosexual Males and was a separate group from the drug users as was made clear in the second paragraph) (551 participants visiting the APHS and 7 HIV-positive men followed outside the APHS) filled in the behavioural questionnaire at least once. Of the 499 HIV-negative HM, 51.7% reported unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) in the past 6 months. Of the 59 HIV-positive HM, 23.3% reported UAI in the past 6 months."

But of course if you had read the study you would have known that. Instead did you only read the first couple paragraphs?

On the Waldner study... I do not need the second source and therefore would not be synthesizing. I only thought it fair (but apparently that is not ok?) to include for the readers benefit the numbers among heterosexual couples (which is what the second source I offered adding would have done). (MatLocke (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC))


 * No, I don't feel the need to jump through every hoop you care to set up. - Nat Gertler (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "You cannot limit your contribution to opposing my edits as pressing the undo button- you have looked specifically and diligently for opposing viewpoints and evidence to some of my studies- have you done so with the studies in the article supporting same-sex marriage?" - what in the world are you talking about? He just posted several arguments and rebuttals towards several of your sources, sources to which you even conceded to being incorrect, yet you then make another accusation that none of this was done? And I'm not sure what's so difficult about understanding this but the HIV and drug arguments make absolutely no sense to include in this article, those are arguments against homosexuality. Simply crossing your arms and saying "well, SSM will increase these things" is both fallacious and malicious and disagreed upon by every major and legitimate psychological organization. Oh, and please don't presume that I think those arguments you're making are valid to begin with, I dare to question whether you'd use similar arguments against marriage/heterosexuality by statistics that indicate the majority of HIV infections are attributed towards heterosexuals. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether we think their position is justified or not, the fact of the matter is that there are some opponents of SSM that specifically cite medical concerns as a reason. We don't need to say that their reasons are valid, or that their reasons are better spplied to homosexuality in general and not specifically about SSM, but we do have to say that some people give that reason as opposition to SSM.  Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is important that their reasons are better supplied to homosexuality and not to SSM because arguments, like that of HIV, have nothing to do with SSM. Just because there exists many groups that proclaim HIV has relevance to SSM, it doesn't make it so. Why is it that vast [HIV] percentage of humans (of black decent) isn't meantioned in the article on Interracial marriages? The arguments this user is making (despite being false) would still be misleading even if it were true, for instance, if 100% of homosexuals did in fact carry HIV, how would that be an argument against SSM? Wouldn't that be an argument against homosexuality and homosexual relationships period? We have to remember that this article is on same-sex marriage, not on homosexuality, if you want to argue homosexuality then go to the homosexuality talk page and begin from there. Simply saying "X is true" thus "Y is wrong" is a logical fallacy -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not our duty as Wikipedians to decide whether we agree with what is said or not. The point is people do point to health affects as a reason not to allow same-sex marriage.  Whether you think it is a logically fallacy or homophobic or whatever is completely irrelevant.  We are to report the arguments, not disagree or agree with them.  The reason why the vast [HIV] percentage of humans (of black decent) isn't mentioned in the article on Interracial marriages is because the opponents of Interracial marriage don't talk about health concerns, whereas opponents of SSM do talk about health concerns.  If opponents of interracial marriage talked about health concerns, it would be included in the article, regardless of how much sense it makes.  One major reasoning against interracial marriage used in the past was the Curse and mark of Cain.  It makes no sense, and is dumb, but there is an article about it on Wikipedia because that was the argument that was used against interracial marriages.  Also, your analogy is flawed because being black is innate and immutable, whereas sexual orientation develops across the lifetime of a person.  SSM puts an official sanction on same-sex relationships, which does relate to a higher risk of disease, whereas interracial marriages does not change the race of the person. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're confusing arguments against Homosexuality with arguments against SSM, if we were to mention them in this article then it's only fair to either preface or append them with a scientific analysis, in other words, letting the readers know that they are indeed erroneous and dubious claims that are of no relation to SSM. And if you don't mind me asking, what proof do you have that sexual orientation develops across the lifetime of a person? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is from Concerned Women for America: "The government should not condone behavior that is unhealthy, spreads disease and can result in death."  The argument is that while people should have the choice whether to participate in same-sex relationships, those relationships should not be given official recognition because of the associated health affects.  This is an argument, whether you agree with it or not.  Can you see my suggested solution below?  I got that bit about sexual orientation developing across the lifetime of a person from the American Psychiatric Association. . Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links + sources, I don't mind including something like the above just as long as we tell them what the organization is, as in mentioning that the Concerned Women for America is a "US coalition of conservative women which promotes Biblical values and family traditions." -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. Obviously those who think SSM should be banned because of health reasons are opponents to SSM.  I just want to show that this is what those opposing SSM say.  Since that is okay with you, I will put that in until we think of something better. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To Historyguy: UHHH... wow...do you just not read anything I post or what, or do you just read the last 2 posts and nothing before... I have only conceded 1 and (1/2?) sources to be incorrect  (All my other admissions were only on the relevancy of some of the data, and 1 inappropriate generalization.)  I have provided evidence that the claims against the other sources were wrong. Perhaps you misunderstood the statement of mine that you quoted- I said he had (had) looked diligently for evidence against my statements- but questioned if he had done the same on studies already in the article- such as citation 128.

It has been made abundantly clear that I never put the xiridou study or the ACS in my edits. And I have already addressed (when I first brought the xiridou study up) why I would not apply them to other marriages. But, once again, all points other than on the validity of the ACS studies themselves seems moot- because I never included them in the edits.

To Joshua: Thank you. As I will put in my revised edits, many of these things will be put in another section of the article, some will be moved to other articles, and some will either go side by side with equally relevant material, or such other material should be deleted as well.

And since Natgerler has decided to give up on proving his point by refuting my evidence I think this is a good point for me to either give up, or work further on my revised edits... we will see what time allows. (MatLocke (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC))


 * "And since Natgerler has decided to give up on proving his point by refuting my evidence" - excuse me, it's your job to prove your statements, not anyone else's job to disprove them. The Burden of Proof rests on you, not on anyone else. You don't go into an article on John Doe and say "he's a child molestor" only to hope someone disproves that, do you? If you want a template then consider X (being the argument) and Y (being it's relevance to SSM), then post (using that as a guideline). -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How about something like this?


 * Opponents to same-sex marriage say that same-sex relationships negatively affect physical and mental health, and that governments should not sanction behavior that is unhealthy, spreads disease and can result in death.


 * We can then leave it at that. I agree that this is not a place to debate whether same-sex relationships are healthy or not.  It is a fact that is what the opponents say and we do not have to say whether they are right or not.  There seems to be plenty of evidence that this is the arguments that they are using.  Then, if the reader wants to find out more about the health affects of same-sex relationships, they can go to that page.  MatLocke, maybe you should add the information you found on same-sex relationships, or on the men who have sex with men or women who have sex with women page. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To Joshua: I am not trying to debate if they are in fact healthy or not so much as I am trying to put the information in the article because it is an objection to same-sex marriage. As I will point out in my revisions- there are already parts of the article which are equally as relevant in this article as are some of my points and sources. I am fine if these get deleted or mine get added. If we were to use the paragraph you provided I would hope that some of the studies could be used as direct references there so that people don't go to those less than scientific sources and think that the argument has a weak foundation.

To historyguy: I am doing a revised edit that I believe follows the template you suggested.

Did you read the link you provided: "The logical fallacy which she is exposing in this case is the attempt to argue that view A is to be preferred to view B because "B cannot be proven" when the burden of proof is laid on view B to an impossibly heavy level, and in particular to a level under which A could not be proven either.

Keith Lehrer suggests that "generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology [the study of ignorance] is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side …"  I am very glad you provided that link :) I have provided proof of my statements with scientific study by authoritative sources (which you have only your opinion to claim they are not- based not even on your opinion of their qualifications but of their beliefs).  When I provide these (if we are going with burden of proof based on civil law and common sense (upon which wikipedia's policy seems based) I have fulfilled my burden of proof and the burden is passed.)  If a flaw is found in my study the burden is passed back to me ( and in every case but 1 I have then provided proof that the claim of flaw was itself false or flawed in the context given). (This is not counting my couple admissions that a piece of data was less relevant where it was placed- but those are moot to the current argument on validity.)

If we are using the philosophical burden of proof that you yourself linked, then my hypothesis (or sources) should not be rejected as unjustified without argument against it.

Once again I will also remind you that with scientific study it is impossible to prove a theory or research to be perfect. Just look at physics move from Newtonian to Relativity to Quantum.

I hope that you will address my responses instead of continuing the tag team with Natgertler where you make claims and then never address my response, but instead wait for another to provide new arguments that you hope will make me forget about my previous discussion with you. - MatLocke


 * First off please do not accuse me of "tag-teaming" with anyone, me and Nat have disagreed more often than we've agreed. Here is what I'd like for you to do (if you dont mind), simply post (that is verbatim) what you wish to include, starting with the first "argument" or set of points (so, just one or two paragraphs for now) with sources and I'll take a look at all of them (the reason I'm asking for 1 or 2 at a time is to save myself time from studying several sources). Then, if viable, we'll create a section on opposition and include these arguments, who discovered these arguments, and rebuttals to these arguments (by all major organizations). Then once we have a consensus, we post it. If it is not relevant to SSM, then do not bother posting. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am ok with starting fresh. I have a couple questions first. Is it proper wiki procedure for me to indent my responses to others responses, or should the original poster stay un-indented?

Second: please let me know your specific and objective criteria for relevancy to this topic.

Third: I am trying to do further research on one of the sources I want to post in my revised edits (I will argue it's relevancy later)- for now- would you be willing to help me find the number of sexual partners for single heterosexual males in a single year (that year being anywhere from the mid 90's to 2000) from an authoritative source, so that I have a comparison to my data on homosexual males. My searching so far has only yielded results likely to be lifetime numbers- but I will keep searching. (MatLocke (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC))


 * 1 - Just indent to make it easily readable, it'd help to continue indenting into the conversation
 * 2 - Accurate, realiable information (these aren't my requirements, they're from Wikipedia)
 * 3 - WP:NOR
 * -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blankenhorn source
I just deleted a ref that used this source to claim "same-sex marriages deprive children of either a mother or a father". What Blankenhorn does say is that "Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him" -- note that's couples, not just married couples, and he doesn't claim that the marriage is what causes this denial. In fact, he says that "Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes." So it doesn't really support what it was being used for. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have tried to better summarize his arguments. Correct me if I am wrong. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * While he does at one point link the "private love relationship" view of marriage to SSM, your descriptor has the cause-and-effect backwards; he's saying that the view of marriage as a "private love relationship" is what has caused the legalization of SSM, rather than being an effect of SSM. I think this would be a tough essay to derive a really useful anti-SSM statement from, as he admits that SSM would be good for the couple and the children involved, but still seems to hold that SSM will damage the institution in some way that doesn't quite get stated (perhaps because the existence of other non-fertile-in-combination marriages would be a challenge to statements he seems likely to make.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right that he does say that the idea of a "private love relationship" did help cause the movement for SSM, but he also said that legalizing SSM will further undermine the right children have to be raised by a mom and dad. He says "changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing -- the gift, the birthright -- that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society."  How about this summary "and that same-sex marriages undermines that right of children to be raised by a mother and a father."  It of itself doesn't directly deprive children of a mom and dad, but further promotes the idea that having both a mom and dad isn't important to the kid.  The promotion of that idea will be detrimental to children because parents might be more willing to put children at risk of not being raised by both parents such as the parents being more willing to participate in extramarital or premarital sex or being more willing to contemplate divorce.  It also affects if same-sex couples will try to adopt a child that could otherwise have both a mom and a dad and how adoption agencies decide which couple is the best. The kids need a mom and dad argument is fairly common. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To state it as "the right" conveys the idea that there exists some fixed recognized right; "a right" would be more appropriate in this instance. Also note that the problem is not with same-sex marriages (the individual linkages), which he says actually do good, and rather same-sex marriage (the institution). And also that it's not any mother and father he says they need, but those that made him. So perhaps "and that same-sex marriage, while doing good for the couples that participate in them and the children they are raising, undermines a right of children to be raised by their biological mother and father." Mixed-sex adoption doesn't seem to enter into Blankenhorn. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have put up the sentence you have suggested for now. While adoption might not enter in with Blankenhorn, I do think it enters in for other opponents of SSM, but I won't enter it in without a reliable source. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Some missing stuff
I read over this article and noticed some big gaps between arguments covered in the media and on this page. For example, I know a lot of the arguments concern how same-sex marriage affects education. Some think schools will benefit from teaching more diverse concept of marriage, while others think schools should teach marriage is between a man and a woman, while others don't think it will affect the way schools teach. Also, many have expressed concern that by legalizing same-sex marriage those who oppose it will be marginalized and treated like racists or other types of bigots. Others think that those who oppose it should be treated that way. There also used to be a discussion of religious freedoms that was taken out. I put it back in the page on SSM and religious views, but I think it deserves at least a passing mention here. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of what you're listing here are specifically US concerns/claims, and small ones in the general conversation (the "education" one is more an advertising gambit to try to sway the undecideds than the bases for a strong portion of belief.) As such, it would be undue weight in this general SSM page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have evidence that it is an advertising gambit? It sounds like your personal opinion.  The purpose of Wikipedia is to report, not to take sides.  There are plenty of resources that say this is more than a small US concern.  The religious freedom section talked a lot about the situation in Europe, and I highly doubt Section 28 is a US issue.  It definitely received more attention than Dr. M. V. Lee Badgett's research.  In order to be NPOV, this information needs to be included.  Please give me a valid reason to exclude well-sources material rather than a personal opinion. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It does indeed violate WP:UNDUE, and Joshua please do not accuse others of having a "personal opinion" just becuase they disagree, after all you are the same person who's said:
 * "My biggest problem with the same-sex marriage movement is that they say that banning same-sex marriage "eliminates the rights of gay people to get married." That implies that if same-sex marriage is banned, then gay people can't get married. That just isn't true. If they turn their lives over to Christ, he can change them, and if it be his will, they can get married to someone of the opposite sex"
 * though I've never once used that against you, have I? I'd appreciate if you gave the same courtesy to others. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was disagreeing with his opinion that the vast media coverage on the debate on the effect of SSM on education is an advertising gambit and should therefore not be considered. If that opinion is sourced, it can be included in a section about the effect of SSM on education, but it still only an opinion.  I don't have a problem with him expressing his opinion on a talk page, but I wanted to point out that it was only his opinion and is not sufficient evidence in and of itself to censor information that has proven to be a very central part of the debate in several places where SSM is being considered, both inside and outside of the US.  He said that it was US based, and I had no problem finding information from other countries that discussed this issue.  You say it violates UNDUE.  What is your reasoning for that? Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

At issue are these points=
 * Will SSM change education policies?
 * Will SSM lead to denials of civil liberties that are currently held under freedom of religion-based justification?

Neither of these are a U.S. only issue. The former, in my opinion, is actually a more contentious issue outside of the United States than within. I believe that's it is already mentioned in this article already in due weight.

For the latter, I am not so sure. An argument can be made that since the U.S. is very unique (sui generis?) in the world for both the breadth, extension, and depth of its 1st amendment-based civil liberties, the latter point focuses too much on the U.S. What European governments consider to be non-controversial routine measures for promoting LGBT equality (e.g. internet censorship, books removed from libraries, slander laws, libel laws, incitement laws, standards on what clothes to wear, firing of government employees for their personal opinions, etc) would cause Americans to raise Cain. Wikipedia is a world-wide encyclopedia, so it describes the opinions that most world citizens have about SSM. The Squicks (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll respond to both of the above posts; the reason why it's undue weight is because it's too US-specific. And I have absolutely no problem mentioning the argument made by anti-SSM proponents (that it may violate freedom of religion) HOWEVER it is our job as editors to fully explain the concept. So if we mention the freedom of religion concept in terms of US law, then I also want to mention the protection Churches receive under the First Amendment and that the ability of being sued for denying to marry a gay couple is equivalent to that of denying any other couple (whether it be mixed-orientation, interracial, etc). If we mention that churches will be prohibited from speaking out against homosexuality (another common argument) then it's only fair we counter it (again) using the first-amendment AND mentioning that such prohibition is comparable to speaking out against any other minority. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But that's something that only applies in the U.S. context.
 * In continental Europe, Canada, Great Britain, and elsewhere, it is perfectly acceptable (and even expected) for the government to monitor private individual's communication. I could type right now something hateful like "God hates all you fags" and- if I lived in those countries- the government would be able to find me, track me down, and then prosecute me with jail time or a monetary fine.
 * Freedom of speech that includes hate speech is an inherently American concept. The Squicks (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The Squicks do you have proof of that? I live in Canada and am studying law and I've never heard of the government being able to monitor, track down, and prosecute someone based on something they said on the internet that would otherwise be deemed as free speech. We have freedom of speech but like America it comes with a responsibility. There's even Ku Klan Klan memberships in Canada - Linestarz (talk) 07:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "There's a narrow band of intolerant bigots out there who are jumping on to this bandwagon and are using this debate to propagate particularly hateful views. What the free speech absolutists are saying is that, once you take that core element of speech and transport it into mass media, suddenly it becomes immune. I don't understand why speech should be immune from discrimination law. The media should not enjoy more rights or immunity than anyone else." - Pearl Eliadis, Canadian Human Rights Commission.


 * Yes, freedom of speech exists in non-American countries so long as, as you point out, people 'Use their speech responsibly'. In the U.S., responsibility is not an issue. Thus, concerns about freedom of speech in this article express undue weight since only Americans consider free speech to include- as you put it- "non-responsible speech". The Squicks (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But don't take my word for it, take the word of the New York Times: "Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.". The Squicks (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The regulations in Canada are just as equivalent as the ones in the United States, and you also "must use speech responsibly" in the US (at least, to certain extents). You can not defame people or speak to incite violence, you're also limited to discretion. Fortunately for both of us we live in places where such freedom of speech is encouraged and prosecution of such is lax. - Linestarz (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, we don't. I live in a country with more freedom of speech than either Canada, Great Britain, or any other of our Western allies. Read the NYT article, it's clear. The Squicks (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindented)I don't think it is our job to explain one thing or the other. That would be original research. We report what is out there. We don't create anything ourselves. That would be original research and synthesis. The point is that people all over the globe are concerned with how same sex marriage will affect education and freedom of speech and freedom of religion. That needs to be documented. If we personally disagree with it, it doesn't matter. For example, I personally think all the stuff about economics is a bunch of sophisticated manipulation of statistics. Same-sex marriage will save couples money, because they get benefits from their employers and from the government, but at the same time it won't cost employers any more money, and actually create money from the government. Where is all this money coming from? Everyone makes money on same-sex marriage and no one loses money? That can't be. Anyway, the point is I completely disagree with it, and I personally think it is flawed, but that does not give me the right to remove it. However, if I were to find some source that says giving same-sex couples benefits would cost business owners, which I am planning on doing, I can add that to the claim, but I can't take away the original claim because I as a Wikipedia editor have been able to conclude that their reasoning is wrong. That is original research and synthesis. It is the same with the argument about freedom of speech and religion. You might think the argument doesn't make sense because of the 1st amendment or whatever argument you come up with, but unless you can find a reliable source that makes that contention, you cannot add it to Wikipedia. Even if you do find a reliable source that makes that contention, all you can do is add it to the article. You can't remove other information. We are not supposed to censor it based on our opinions on the content. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But we must be careful and not edge on WP:SYNTHESIS, just because an argument is made that doesn't mean the argument is true. Unless, of course, you're for adding an argument (such as stating it'll violate freedom of religion) but then add a secondary rebuttal (claiming that it'd violate "freedom of religion no more than interracial marriages would"). If we add the latter then I have no problem with it -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't think we should edge on synthesis.  Nor do I think we should say SSM violates freedom of religion.  All we can do is say that "Supporters say that SSM may create conflicts with freedom of religion, but opponents say that it won't any more than interracial marriages would."  We need to make sure that both arguments are actually being made.  If you can find a source saying that says that "it'd violate freedom of religion no more than interracial marriages would" then we can include it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, now that I think about it even the First Ammendment could be used as a source for the rebuttal because, as it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - which means that even if a church wanted to deny your right to marry 'just because', they could -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only is that synthesis, it is also US centric. It doesn't even make sense. A conservative Canadian organization is against same-sex marriage because of the effects on religious freedoms, but Historyguy1965 doesn't think so because of the American Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I only used the First Amendment (as an example) because that's where the majority of the sources in opposition lie, I don't agree with them nor is it my fault, that's just the way it is. And I never once implied that the American constitution would protect the religious liberties of places like Canada, that's putting words in my mouth like you're putting artificial facts in your head. And if you don't mind, could you possibly inform me as to how an interracial couple could legally violate the rights of a church any more (or less) than a same-sex couple? After all they'd have the same leg to stand on (legally) if they're both legalized. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If I understand your argument correctly, it makes sense. I think you are saying same-sex marriage won't affect religions who believe SSM is immoral any more than interracial marriages affect religions who believe interracial marriages are immoral.  I agree with that analysis, but my own issue is that you need a source to say that.  I personally think people who are against interracial marriages are racist bigots who deserve to be marginalized and have schools teach that they are wrong and be ridiculed in the public sector, whereas I think those who want to keep the focus of marriage on providing a mom and dad for kids should not be marginalized as we have seen happen with Carrie Prejean and have schools teach their kids that they are wrong as we see happened in Mass or close their adoption agencies.  But that is my personal opinion and I won't add it unless I have a good source for it.  All I am asking you is for a good source. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But you see, isn't that a double standard? There are certainly people out there that believe interracial marriages are bad for (not only the children produced) but for the couple themselves, you surely must've heard about the recent story regarding the Louisiana justice of the peace who refused to marry an interracial couple, and did this based on "27 years of experience." This man has been just as marginalized as Carrie Prejean had (except Prejean was more-or-less criticized for the leak of her semi-nude photos despite preaching "conservative values"). In the 60's over 70% of Americans disapproved of interracial marriages, the arguments made then are the same made today. Also, your adoption agency story is slightly misleading, the reason it was shut down was because it discriminated against gay couples (couples every major and legitimate psychological organization say are just as good as heterosexual households). This particular (Catholic I believe?) adoption agency was shut down because it would rather have provided a child with no parents than gay parents, in my opinion them being "shut down" was good riddance and most importantly, good for the kids who will now find homes with legitimate organizations. As for a source, I've already provided the First Amendment clause, were you looking for one for every country? Perhaps we could say something along the lines of "laws respecting equivalency in marriage" ... "both same-sex and interracial" "provides no precedent for one to discriminate against a religious organization any more than the other", we could source this with various religious clauses established in several nations. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The adoption agency was shut down because it discriminated against same-sex parents. That is because Mass had a law saying that you have to treat same-sex couples like opposite sex couples.  According to their religion, Catholics adoption agencies can't place kids in a home headed by same-sex couples.  Therefore you have a conflict between religion, which is protected by the US constitution, and Mass law.  Therefore you can't say that religion is protected by the First Amendment because there are cases where it is not.  You might think it is "okay" for their freedom of religion to not be protected, because it interfered with the rights of same-sex couples to adopt (they could still adopt, just not with that Catholic adoption agency), but that is your opinion.  This isn't a place to debate.  Find a source that specifically says same-sex marriage won't interfere with freedom of religion and you can add it in.  Simply saying that Americans have the freedom of religion does not mean that freedom  won't interfere with same-sex marriage, as we can see in the adoption agency case.  Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Catholic agency put the interest of themselves, their ego, and their religion before the interest of the children, and thereby were shut down. I've already provided my source, and am asking if you're looking for individual US sources or generic world-wide ones. And besides, I'm only doing this as a favor because the burden of proof lies on you, that is the side making the claim (that is, X will effect Y) to provide the proof. Frivolous sources, if included, are only necessary to be countered with rebuttals -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. At one point you are saying that same-sex marriage won't affect religious freedoms because of the First Amendment, and then you are saying that the Catholic Agency shouldn't have been able to put their religion before the kids.  Which is it?  Either same-sex marriage will affect freedom of religion, but that is okay because they deserved to marginalized, or it won't affect freedom of religion.  Which is it?  NPR says there is a conflict.  Maybe they are unaware of the First Amendment, or maybe you can just interpret it better than them.  Anyway, your source doesn't even mention same-sex marriage, so it doesn't apply. Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What you just said is equivalent me telling you "oh so you believe people can actually smoke (if they want) in this country? Oh then why is it that I can't walk into someone's house and smoke there? Guess I can't smoke, liar!" - see what I did? Did I just "prove you wrong" with that statement? No it means I can smoke but as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. That Catholic adoption agency put their religion and had it infringe on the rights of the children, dare I say you'd have a similar complaint if the agency was shut down due to denying an interracial couple? Call me crazy but something tells me you wouldn't be so adamant about "respecting their right to believe." Last point, you continually ask me for sources but each time I explain one, you don't like it. The problem here is you aren't looking for a source, you're looking for an excuse. Why dont you provide to me a source saying that once gays get married, it will override the constitution AND the First Amendment? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are mixing two arguments. On one hand you say that it is okay to limit the religious freedom of Catholics because it infringes on the rights of others and on the other hand you are saying that it won't limit the religious freedoms of Catholics.  Yes, your right to smoke is limited when it infringes on the rights of others.  That is the crux of the issue.  They worry that recognizing same-sex marriage as a right will limit their religious freedoms because activities that were previously protected as a religious freedom all of a sudden come under question because it conflicts with a right that wasn't recognized by the state before.  SSM isn't necessarily going to override the constitution and the first amendment, just provide a source for religious rights to come into conflict with other rights, which you seem to be okay with.  There are times I am okay with rights coming into conflict, such as the examples of interracial marriages and smoking that you suggest, but this is not one of them.  If we were writing about smoking you could talk about not having the right to smoke in people's house.  If we were writing about interracial marriages, you could write about how it conflicts with the right to be a racist bigot.  Since we are righting about same-sex marriages, you can write how it interferes with the right to believe that children are entitled to a mom and dad.  You say religious freedom is only protected insofar as it doesn't conflict with other rights.  So let's talk about how it would conflict with other rights, but to say it is protected by the 1st ammendment and then pretend it won't ever conflict with other rights is dishonest.  When I ask you for a source, I'm asking you for a newspaper article or a book or a magazine or website or something published by someone.  I'm not asking you to argue your point on the talk page. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to represent your views. Let me know if I didn't summarize it correctly. I honestly tried the best I can. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay I want you read this VERY carefully because quite frankly, I'm getting tired of saying the same thing over and over, my job here is to edit, not to educate and I say that with all due respect. Everything has an exception to the rule, understand? Churches have the right to discriminate, though that right ENDS as soon as it infringes on the rights of someone else (now stick with me here and you'll see why this is). No gay couple (or interracial couple, or heterosexual couple) has the right to FORCE a Church to marry them (under the First Amendment), it's "their home" and "their place of worship" and if a church wants to be a bigoted then that's their right. You've said, among other things "the right to be a racist bigot" - in the United States you DO have that right and it ISN'T against the law, though no one has the right to make the life of someone else miserable based on a religious belief. And you keep asking for a source but there's only two problems, one you aren't accepting what I've proposed and two, it's US-specific. This argument should be in Same-sex marriage in the United States -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously you think your way is right and that everyone else out there just doesn't see the truth like you do. You do realize there is a huge debate on this and you thinking that it is clear cut isn't accurate.  This argument doesn't just affect the US and the freedom of religion isn't just about not marrying same-sex couples in your church.  I have tried to summarize your arguments.  From what you are saying, this is what I have gathered: "the legalization of same-sex marriage will not override protections already in place for freedom of speech, but freedom of speech has always been limited when it interferes with other rights."  Is that right?  The freedom ENDS as soon as it infringes on the rights of someone else.  That sounds like what you are saying.  I am saying in this instance I don't believe that freedom should end where you think it should end. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I really couldn't care where you believe something should end or not, I'm just telling you how these things work. Like my previous example, this is a free country where you can smoke however those "right to smoke" are limited, I don't have to explain why and that's something you should learn on your own. And like I've said, this is US specific and rights/restrictions overlap. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * though that right ENDS as soon as it infringes on the rights of someone else The problem is that if I have a right not to be offended and not to be discriminated against, than that essentially negates the rights of someone else. If I have the right- as LGBT rights groups in the United States claim- not to be offended by hate speech by a public speaker on, say, a college campus park... this essentially negates that person's freedom of speech. If I have the right not to be offended (not to suffer from 'homophobic hate speech') by a university private student newspaper so that the administration will destroy the paper to protect me, this essentially negates those people's freedom of the press. If I have the right not to be discriminated against by a student group so that it will be closed by the administration to protect me, this essentially destroys their freedom of association. You are confusing positive and negative rights, which are very different concepts as Isiah Berlin has pointed out. The Squicks (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * At the same time, the 1st Amendment freedoms are a distinctively American concept that have no value outside of this country. As that story by the New York Times that I refereed to says, only here is "hate speech" considered to be free speech. It's perfectly acceptable in Britian or Canada or Sweden or elsewhere for a minister or priest to be arrested and fined/jailed merely for expressing a viewpoint that the government disagrees with. Thus, this controversy only applies the SSM article about the U.S.- not for this worldwide article. The Squicks (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You DON'T have the right to "not be offended", sorry (and no one is saying that either). And yes this argument is US-specific, as I have already mentioned -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm, what are you talking about? It's a cardinal tenet of the modern LGBT rights movements in America today to advocate policies exactly like what I just posted. The Squicks (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the best example is the California Roman Catholic student who was suspended from High School for wearing a T-Shirt that was critical of a student-wide gay pride day (the administrators and the LGBT activists responsible specifically said that other students had a right not to be offended by him). I will try to find the link. The Squicks (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * More generally, The Washington Post has noted-> "Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom... The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing."
 * Note the key phrase there= "the right to be free from discrimination". This is a positive right, which means that the government compels private individuals to take actions if I or someone else feel that they have been offended or wronged in some way. This includes churches and anyone else who discriminates between patrons. The Squicks (talk) 04:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Getting offended and discrimination are two different things. Suppose you have a T-Shirt with a naked woman on it, if I asked you whether or not you were allowed to wear it, what would you say? You'd say "of course!", however if you were to wear the very same shirt in a school, you'd be kicked out. Now would you consider this an attack on your freedom? I wouldn't, because if you're going into someone else's house (that is a school, an event, etc) then you follow their rules. If that student wanted to wear an equally idiotic shirt in his church then he, by all means, can. If he wanted to wear it in his house there wouldn't be a problem. But why should the school appease to his religious intimidation and bullying in a safe-school setting? Both you and the other user have to understand that not everything is black and white, there are exceptions. If your churches wanted to be racist, homophobic, and anti-women then they have that right, it's in YOUR church. But bring that sort of nonsense into my life, then we have a problem -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to debate same-sex marriage. Some people think it will affect freedom of religion and some people think it won't.  That is what we will put.  You can't change that by arguing here. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Almost every additon suggested in this thread should taken to a subarticle. We have subarticles for SSM and religion (for any in depth freedom of religion discussion), and SSM and children/family (for discussion of education). The sections here are already to large for summaries, and far too dependant on US sources and POVs. I have no problem with controversies, whether legitimate or propaganda, being massively expanded on - but it should not be done in this worldwide overview article! It is impossible to write fair NPOV summaries of these issues when people keep adding new info, without consideration of overall balance or summary style. Yob  Mod  13:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't throw education under Same-sex marriage and the family just because kids are involved. If it were titled Same-sex marriage and children or even Same-sex marriage and the family and children I would understand.  Besides, the issue with education also involves educators.  I wouldn't have to add more stuff if this was NPOV, but you can't only put pro-same-sex marriage on the page and then argue that everything else belongs on other pages because there isn't enough room for all your pro-same-sex marriage quotations.  Have you read the "summary" of Same-sex marriage and the family?  Horrible summary that doesn't reflect both sides.  In a summary we do not need long quotes.  Removing those is a better way to deal with the size issue then just removing all of our arguments.  I have tried to be brief as I could while still containing the main thrust of the argument.  And why is this US centric?  Everyone keeps saying that, even though I have included sources from a variety of countries. I don't get it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you're so confused about this, your sources (among other things) included:


 * '"There has been accusation that the section on freedom of speech is only a US issue. Here are some google hits:
 * * "same sex marriage" "freedom of speech" Europe - 89,100
 * * "same sex marriage" "freedom of speech" Canada - 91,000
 * * "same sex marriage" "freedom of speech" UK - 57,300
 * * "same sex marriage" "freedom of speech" Australia - 51,300
 * It really isn't hard to find discussion about freedom of speech and SSM from any country that has any significant amount of discussion on SSM. This is not only a US issue. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)"'


 * Those, like we've already mentioned, are not arguments or a basis for argument. Put "Same-sex marriage" and "Pluto" and you get similar results, should we include that controversy as well? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * By sources I meant the sources I put in the article. See below. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

US centric
There has been accusation that the section on freedom of speech is only a US issue. Here are some google hits: It really isn't hard to find discussion about freedom of speech and SSM from any country that has any significant amount of discussion on SSM. This is not only a US issue. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "same sex marriage" "freedom of speech" Europe - 89,100
 * "same sex marriage" "freedom of speech" Canada - 91,000
 * "same sex marriage" "freedom of speech" UK - 57,300
 * "same sex marriage" "freedom of speech" Australia - 51,300


 * If one Googles my name and Batman, one also gets thousands of hits. That does not mean that anyone suspects I'm Batman. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at the hits. Most of them talk about the conflict between same-sex marriage and other freedoms.  The references that I added should clear up any confusion about whether places outside of the US have this debate. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to see how the new references in the freedom fo religion section really say anything of the kind. The Canadian reference that works (one doesn't) shows that the religions are still free not to marry folks, and didn't show anyone saying otherwise. The British link is to an abstract that says nothing abut the freedom of religion. - Nat Gertler (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The purpose of these links is to show there is a controversy, not that the controversy is valid. The Canadian link says "During these hearings, Committee members have asked whether there is a potential for conflict between freedom of religion and same-sex civil marriage."  This means that the freedom of religion was discussed in the hearings, even though it was not in the US.  They had a whole section devoted to freedom of religion.  Obviously it is part of the debate in Canada.  The conclusion was to go ahead because Canada is a secular democracy, but the point is that they acknowledge that it is part of the debate.  That is all that source is trying to convey - that there is a debate.  Some people chose one side and other people chose another side, but there is a debate.  The England source talks about the controversy between same-sex marriage and the Church of England, and how that affects law.  Maybe a better source would be this which describes civil unions as a balance between rights of same-sex couples and freedom of speech. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're basing your arguments based on Google hits? Try googling the earth is flat and you make the very same argument, with 220,000,000+ supporting hits! I'm not impressed, sorry -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The purpose wasn't to prove that same-sex marriage does interfere with freedom of speech, but that is the freedom of speech is an issue that comes up when discussing same-sex marriage. Some people say it will interfere and some people say it won't, but the point is this is something that people are discussing. You don't have to rely on the number of hits. You can rely on the references I provided in the article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If we're not going to rely on the number of hits then you shouldn't have brought them up to begin with. What you're doing is equivalent to throwing 50 darts at a dart-board and hoping one of them sticks. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That a question was asked does not mean that there was a controversy; the question of what 6 times 17 is gets asked all the time, and that doesn't mean that there's anything controversial about it. No, the England source you linked to does not talk about "the controversy between same-sex marriage and the Church of England"; it mentions that there are dilemmas for the Church of England, but a dilemma is not necessarily a controversy ("where do we sit the wedding attendees when both sides are bride sides?" is a dilemma), and "freedom of religion" is not mentioned. - Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, those Google counts? They disappear if you try to actually find the articles. For example, if you go through the Australia link, you'll find it runs out not at 51,300 items, but a mere 745 before you hit "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 745 already displayed." -- in other words, largely the same content simply reached through a different URL, something that automatically happens with a lot of sites. - Nat Gertler (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindented) Forget the Google counts. Look at the references that I included in the article. I will repost them here: This is sufficient evidence to show that the conflict between freedom of speech and same-sex marriage is not limited to the US. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The UK government does not allow same-sex marriage, partially because of the issue of freedom of speech. Instead, they said that civil union would be a good balance between freedom of speech and the right to live free from prejudice and discrimination.
 * This article says that in Canada, the right for same-sex marriage comes in conflict with three rights - 1) the right of kids, 2) the freedom of religion 3) freedom of speech   Other Canadian sources also talk about the freedom of speech in connection with SSM.
 * In Australia, the Magistrates Court in DELANEY, Martine v LIBERAL PARTY OF AUSTRALIA (TASMANIAN DIVISION) have likewise debated between freedom of speech and same-sex marriage.
 * This article talks about fears in the EU that same-sex marriage supporters could limit freedom of speech be claiming that the speech offends them.


 * Decided to look into every single source:
 * * First source is not an "official statement" from the Government, it's a response from the current Prime Minister's office (which for all we know wasn't actually said to begin with, as a google search of the statement returns 1 (that's 'one') result).
 * * Your next article was written by members of the anti-gay Canadian group, "The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (IMFC)", hardly worth sourcing for anything considered legitimate. Your other Canadian source includes "Social Conservatives United", which, again, is like sourcing the Westboro Baptist Church for tenants in Christianity.
 * * Your Australian source comes from a single court case, equivalent to me | sourcing the article about the fat teenagers suing McDonalds and claiming there's a controversy amongst whether McDonalds (and other fast-food chains) are forcing us to get fat.

So all in all, your sources are illegitimate and unsubstantiated. Simply putting junk inside some ref tags doesn't make them any less junk. Read up on WP:RS -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed part of the WP:OR in the free speech section by rewriting the Tasmanian bit in accordance with what the source says. I don't really see how it is noteworthy to a reader, though. I would favour deleting it. Gabbe (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The way you rewrote it excluded the portion discussing freedom of speech, which was the whole point of why it was included. It was simply to show that the conflict between freedom of speech and same-sex marriage was not a US specific issue.  Some countries resolve it one way, other countries resolve it another way.  I don't think the specific issue was noteworthy, but that there are issues outside of the US.  We are trying to summarize here. Historyguy1965, I guess I don't understand why the current Prime Minister's office is considered "junk" that is "illegitimate and unsubstantiated". Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. In that case we would need a source explicitly saying there's a conflict between same-sex marriage and freedom of speech outside the US. Using the court case summary as a citation for saying there's a conflict would constitute a original research, which is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. Gabbe (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you actually spent time reading what I wrote the main reason why I was against that source was because there was no proof it came from the Prime Minister's office, Google search only returns 1 result for that statement. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of speech
Part of the debate over freedom of speech is that many people have complained that groups like these [www.eightmaps.com] intimidate people who sign petitions and who donate money. Common in the same-sex marriage debate are accusation of intimidation. The argument is that intimidating voters puts a limit on freedom of speech. It was removed originally with the comment "article said nothing about "Freedom of speech""  (it talked about the right to speak your mind). Then with the comment "This is not an article on voter intimidation. And names don't need protection; what are people going to do, change their spellings?" and then again with no explanation. Voter intimidation is a serious issue that needs to be explored. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, those claiming intimidation come from "sources" such as tokenconservative.com and Catholic.org. Oh, I also see the CWFA in there (I believe that's the same Concerned Women for America fringe source you used earlier)? Oh, we can't forget about your source to Lew Waters, clearly an unbiased "journalist" who once ended one of his blog posts with:


 * ''"If you wish to stop same-sex marriage from eventually becoming legal in Washington, reject R-71.


 * It's really that simple.


 * I’m voting to reject R-71. "''

This will be one of the last times I do your homework for you, either check your sources or read WP:RELIABLE if you're confused. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked WP:RELIABLE. You need to understand there is an important difference between documenting opinion and documenting fact.  Read the section on RELIABLE.  It says "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact."  Of course conservative sources shouldn't be used as fact whether or not same-sex marriage inhibits freedom of speech, but of course conservative sources can be used to tell whether or not conservative sources say that there is a conflict. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How is that opinion notable?Dosbears (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you "need to understand" that just because you source an opinion that doesn't make it notable for inclusion. No one here is against the inclusion of anti-SSM arguments, it's the sources you use and the way you extract that information that goes against the standards of Wikipedia -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We have one source from lds.org and another from catholic.org. The LDS church and the Catholic church seem to be pretty dominant voices in the same-sex marriage debate, and both are mostly non-American organizations.  The source that was removed from the article was from the associated press.  I have seen that statement covered by several other news sources, just that the associated press actually used the words "right to speak your mind". It seems to be opinions from major players in same-sex marriage opposition whose statements get covered by the mainstream newspapers.  Also, that statement connected the following sentence.  Why are opponents of same-sex marriage trying to protect (or conceal if your prefer more negative language) the names of signers and donors if it isn't because of voter intimidation?  I'm sure I can find an article explaining that. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Associated Press used the words "right to speak your mind", and did not directly connect that to same-sex marriage. You seem to be finding references that happen to contain some search terms in it, whether it actually says anything relevant or not. As for "protect" the names, it's not the names that anyone considers at risk. One conceals names, one protects people or objects. As for why they want to conceal the names, the may just want to fuel bigotted campaigns without their bigotry being recognized. The concept of masked bigots is not new. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "I'm sure I can find an article explaining that." - My point exactly, you're only interested in furthering a biased POV, anyone could google anything in quotations and try to somehow connect article A to issue B. But, of course, many of your sources seem to have backfired at you -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are opponents of same-sex marriage trying to protect (or conceal if your prefer more negative language) the names of signers and donors if it isn't because of voter intimidation? Nice bit of WP:OR. Thre real reason opponents of same-sex marriage want to remain anonymous because they are ashamed of their bigorty. Court allows release of names. Bigots to be outed? --Dr.enh (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt if they really feel shame, but they do lose business. When I found out that a local business owner had contributed thousands of dollars, in the name of the business, to anti-civil rights causes, I took my business elsewhere.Dosbears (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Voter intimidation is a serious issue that needs to be explored." -- then start an article on "voter intimidation". This is an article on Same-sex marriage. The topic of voter intimidation as you're trying to discuss it is several large leaps away from being about SSM, and is also quite local. - Nat Gertler (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant to say voter intimidation in regards to the controversy on same-sex marriage. Opponents of same-sex marriage have complained of voter intimidation tactics used by supporters.  I guess that is what they turn to when they realize they really can't win through popular vote. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is that there are people who claim that there might be voter intimidation because of local laws that reveal the names not of voters but of petition-signers and donors, and in cases where there are people who disagree with the certain issue, which includes in some cases same-sex marriage legalization, it might be theoretically possible for folks to confront said signers and donors with something beyond free speech, and it might be theoretically motivated by something having to do with the issue of same-sex marriage. Again, that's both local and far removed from actual same-sex marriage. - Nat Gertler (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Joshua, in the 60's over 70% of Americans disapproved of interracial marriages, assuming that very same vote took place would you have said that "revealing the name of such people would stop from protecting them"? And would it be wrong to do so? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And let's not fall into the trap of acting as if anyone is revvealing the names of voters in this country. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that is not what I am saying. I'm not saying anything.  The LDS church and the Catholic Church and other conservative groups like Concerned Women for America are saying that voter intimidation IS currently happening and limiting their freedom of speech.  Nothing theoretical about it.  You can argue with me, but that doesn't change the fact that major players in the opposition to same-sex marriage say that this happening.  The LDS church even called this the "real issue" behind same-sex marriage.  You are right they don't have access to how people actually voted, but what they are doing is singling out minority groups that had a higher percentage of opponents of same-sex marriage.  Mormons, Catholics and African Americans have been targeted regardless of whether they themselves support same-sex marriage or not.  Whether you agree that this is voter intimidation or not is not the issue.  The question is whether opponents to same-sex marriage talk about voter intimidation, which it is clear that they do. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "I'm not saying anything." doesn't seem to go along with "I guess that is what they turn to when they realize they really can't win through popular vote." And no, not every lie told buy every opponent of same-sex marriage in regard to a local matter rises to the level of relevancy and weight needed to document it in this central article. (And care to cite your source for the LDS saying that's the "real issue"? The way you've been erroneously describing Oaks's words among other sources, I'm doubtful of your accuracy.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not every argument should be covered, but this argument has been covered by several mainstream sources. That alone should be sufficient evidence to include it.  The quote from Elder Oaks is "The real issue in the Proposition 8 debate — an issue that will not go away in years to come and for whose resolution it is critical that we protect everyone’s freedom of speech and the equally important freedom to stand for religious beliefs — is whether the opponents of Proposition 8 should be allowed to change the vital institution of marriage itself." He says it is critical to protect everyone's freedom of speech. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So he didn't say the real issue was voter intimidation, nor freedom of speech. Got it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * From Talk:Heterosexism Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC): I was hoping that you would see how I would find someone questioning the love of a minority group to be hurtful and why I would fight not to have that bigotry inserted into Wikipedia.... I have nothing against same-sex couples and hope them all the happiness and joy that life can bring them. I think many of them are good people and I want them to succeed. I hope the LDS doesn't see this quote from Joshuajohanson. They might find him to be disingenuous. --Dr.enh (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] This article is about same-sex marriage, not about the anxieties of oppponents of same-sex marriage. Therefore, I have deleted the section. I someone wants to write about the "concerns" and "worries" of oppponents of same-sex marriage, then I suggest he/she start Mental health of opponents of same-sex marriage. --Dr.enh (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A quote from Joshuajohanson's talk page: "In reality there is no conflict of rights because same-sex couples don't have the right to get married. The only real right in question is the freedom of religion" - I've assumed good faith for far too long, I think it's high time people kept a watchful eye on your edits. Sorry Mr. Johanson, but I don't believe your purpose here is to contribute positively to these articles. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would kindly request personal attacks to be stopped. I do not think what the LDS may or may not do if they read a comment written on another page has any relevance to the conversation at hand. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The plurality of your sources and talking points are from the LDS. Then, occasionally you disavow the LDS position and state that you beleive the opposite. Do you still claim to be editing in good faith? --Dr.enh (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My purpose is to correctly convey the controversy on same-sex marriage. I use a variety of sources and I do not feel the views I express on other pages have to be consistent with every single teaching of every single source I use.  The sources I use about the controversy on same-sex marriage are only meant to correctly convey the controversy on same-sex marriage.  Whether or not I disavow unrelated teachings of the sources I quote is off-topic.  Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware that quoting something you said was now considered a "personal attack", I guess victimizing yourself is the next best thing to do after disapproval of your disreputable sources. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)