Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 15

Missing information tag for "Freedom of Speech" and "voter intimidation"
The placer of the missing information tag is supposed to start a discussion here specifically about the supposed missing information. After having seen what he's been posting to the article on these topics, I see nothing that is relevant and of appropriate weight for this article. It seems to me there was consensus to this effect, but we may want to formalize that. - Nat Gertler (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The argument used by the opposition to same-sex marriage about the freedom of speech is well documented:
 * As recorded in the Weekly Standard, "Jonathan Turley, the George Washington professor who is a First Amendment specialist, also sees a serious risk ahead. Turley has no problem with gay marriage. But the gay marriage debate, he notes, exposes "long ignored weaknesses in doctrines relating to free speech, free exercise, and the right to association."
 * The Prime Minister of the UK said "The Government is required by the European Convention on Human rights to balance the right to live free from prejudice and discrimination with the right to freedom of speech and religion. While achieving the right balance in legislation is not a straight-forward matter, we are confident that the recognitions for long-term domestic partnerships, both for heterosexual and same-sex couples, achieve this balance.
 * The LDS church says "The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech."
 * According to the Guardian "A group called National Organisation for Marriage argues that same-sex marriage threatens religious liberties and the freedom of speech."
 * According to the LA times "The fierce fight over same-sex marriage in California and elsewhere is creating pressure to recognize a new free-speech right that could keep petition signatures secret."
 * The New York Times reports: "Concerns about intimidation and free speech have been raised in other states where knowthyneighbor.org has posted signatures... Created in 2005 amid the fight over same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, the Web site was founded on a belief that "for social change to happen, there has to be a shaming part."
 * The Traditional Values Coalition, a major opponent to same-sex marriage, says "The imposition of homosexual marriage upon Canada is having a chilling effect on freedom of speech and religious freedom in that nation"
 * Freedom of speech is also used by supporters of SSM:  The relationship between SSM and free speech has also been the subject of court cases:


 * So you have a bunch of US-specific claims, a UK release so minor that it's quoted one place on the web, and one settled court case where no free speech was abridged. So no, not a fit. - Nat Gertler (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I especially like your NYT source, here's an excerpt:


 * "Opponents of releasing the names, led by Protect Marriage Washington, the group behind the referendum, say gay rights groups are threatening free speech by intimidating petition signers. James Bopp Jr., the lead lawyer for the group, filed affidavits from people who said they felt threatened for taking their position on the issue. Larry Stickney, the campaign manager of Protect Marriage Washington, has also complained of feeling threatened, he said.


 * “He has his children sleep in the hall of the middle of the house so they won’t be exposed to the street,” Mr. Bopp said."


 * This would be hilarious if it wasn't so cynical. If references such as the above aren't considered fringe sources then I don't know what is. Why don't we just quote holocaust deniers just because they appear in the NYT and pretend there's a legitimate controversy? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your source on the Prime Minister of the UK saying "The Government is required by the European Convention on...", where did he say this? Which speech or article was it? - Linestarz (talk) 06:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was, of course, not something the Prime Minister actually said, but rather a response from the Prime Minister's Office to an online petition that 200-some people virtually signed, one of 25,000 petitions on their online system. Not exactly a priority policy statement. - Nat Gertler (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Another interesting point to consider is how this particular user originally used the reference, if you scroll up you'll see:
 * "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."
 * So not only was it a misleading source, it was a fallacious extraction of the source. All the sudden an unverified letter from the office of the PM somehow represented the entire political stance of the  United Kingdom Government on SSM & civil unions. Talk about a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Corrections to the Ancient History section
I'm new to this so forgive me if I make some mistakes. I just wanted to point out that the Ancient history information on the gay marriage page is completely wrong. I might not have submitted my attempted corrections in the right way, but my point is valid. The Romans did not permit gay marriage. The funny thing is that the evidence presented in the article actually supports my point of view that gay marriage did not exist. If anyone actually took the time to read the ancient evidence cited this would be clear.

For example, Cicero's second Philipic is cited and the author claims that a gay marriage is described therein. This is clearly not true. Here is the citation from the article, ^ Cicero Philippic 2.18.45 See old translation at: http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0021&layout=&loc=2.18.45, and here is the actual translation of that passage, "You assumed the manly gown, which you soon made a womanly one: at first a public prostitute, with a regular price for your wickedness, and that not a low one. But very soon Curio stepped in, who carried you off from your public trade, and, as if he had bestowed a matron's robe upon you, settled you in a steady and durable wedlock"

The second Philipic was a speech that Cicero wrote attacking Antonius, I did not footnote this fact because it is regarded as common knowledge, any basic introduction to Cicero's writing will corraborate it. Please notice that in the quote Cicero writes that Curio "carried you off" and "bestowed a matron's robe upon you". A matron was a married woman. In this quote Cicero was comparing Antonius to a woman, a vicious insult among the ancient Romans were rather misogynist. Cicero is not saying Antonius married Curio's son, he is saying that Curio's son made Antoinus his girl friend! A careful reading of the evidence makes this clear.

The same can be said for the references to Juvenal. Juvenal does not claim to have attended a gay marriage as is suggested. Juvenal's work is fiction. Satire to be precise. Furthermore, the wording makes it clear that the ceremony the character is going to attend is being held secretly and he hopes that one day such things will be done openly. It must also be noted that Juvenal was highly critical of men who had sex with other men.

Martial's poems also must not be used as evidence for gay marriage. Just as with Cicero, Martial is accusing his target of being a wife, i.e. a woman, and not a real man. He is not describing actual, legal marriages.

Let me be clear, the Romans did not outlaw same sex relationships. On the contrary they were common. Roman law, however, did not grant any legal status to these relationships. Personally, I have little interest in the current debate over gay marriage. I think that we should be accurate in our discussions, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellerephon1 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The start of the "History: Ancient" section begins with quoting John Boswell, "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe." (New York: Random House, 1995). Pages 80-85. What does Boswell say? It is possible that the interpretation of what these primary sources (i.e. the texts by the Romans) say is attributed to this secondary source. If that is not the case, then the quotes could uncontroversially be deleted for being in violation of the "no original research" policy. See WP:NOR and WP:PSTS. I don't have a copy of Boswell's book at hand, could someone check out what it says in pages 80-85? Gabbe (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Upon closer inspection, the quotes seem to have been added by 98.207.109.243 without any apparent relation to any secondary source, so I've reverted the section to it's pre-98.207.109.243 status. Gabbe (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't find my copy of Boswell's book, though it matters not, if (rather when) I find it I'll make comment. Regarding Bellerephon1's post, I wanted to ask, how exactly did you differentiate between a same-sex relationship and an opposite-sex one in terms of attributing which type of relationship was a marriage and which was not? I ask mainly because I'd like to see it's connection with common-law marriages (since legal recognition is not necessary in those cases) -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good question about differentiating. I'll have to dig a little to come up with references to back up my point, but there are no sources that give evidence for a same sex marriage. As I think I suggested in my comments, the sources cited in the article actually support the conclusion that Roman law did not recognize same-sex marriages. For the Romans, marriage was not primarily about romance or love. It was about the production of legitimate children. As such, the sources assume that a marriage would be between a man and a woman. It is not as if there was a law forbidding a gay marriage, but rather it would be considered a logical impossibility. In the Roman mind, if a man wanted to have sex with another man or to live with another man he could do so. It could not be called a legal marriage however, any more than a man could be called the mother of a child or a woman the father. In the mind of a Roman there would be no need to legislate against it since the very term marriage meant a legal union between a man and a woman just as the term father meant a male parent and mother meant a female parent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellerephon1 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "...but there are no sources that give evidence for a same sex marriage" - Due to the etymology of the word "Marriage" (originating in 12-13th century) there is, technically, no evidence for any 'marriage' really, though historians (and I will unpretentiously add myself to this) believe that many of these relationships were in fact marriages. Keep in mind that just because a same-sex relationship was different, that doesn't immediately exclude it from being a marriage. Just as (for example) a Polygamous Marriage and Arranged Marriage are different, that doesn't exclude either from being deemed a 'marriage.' -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Before this discussion goes completely out of hand, let me remind everyone that interpreting what primary sources mean is a perfect example of what we shouldn't be doing as editors. Please see WP:PSTS. If we want to talk about same-sex marriages in ancient Rome, we have to quote a published analysis by a reputable historian, finding a two thousand year old snippet risks violating WP:NOR. Gabbe (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit on Etymology and terminological usage
I have to object to the reference at the end of this section to Jennifer Roback Morse's article where it says she "claims that the conflation of marriage with contractual agreements is itself a threat to marriage". This seems to imply that she also, along with Alan Dershowitz, does not think that marriage should entail a legal contract by the state. I believe that this is a serious misunderstanding of her article. What she is saying is that marriage cannot be reduced to a mere contract and should not primarily be viewed as a contract by the spouses in the marriage. She is not at all saying that the state should not legally recognize marriages. Therefore I believe the reference to her and her article should be removed. Tom5792 (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the quote you cite misrepresents her views particularly ("The idea that marriage is a contract has undermined more heterosexual marriages than anything" is a direct quote that seems to support the entry quite well.) I can see the concern that coming right after the Dershowitz citation, it may be mistaken as a continuing statement for the privatization of marriage; if we swapped the order of the two, would that alter your objections? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Effects just US?
Someone just moved the entire Effects section over to the US article. While I think this is appropriate for the economic and mental health segments, which were US-specific, I am less convinced with the other sections. While the psychological studies may have been done in the US, that does not mean that they aren't informative to the larger picture. Is any medical study specifically solely about one country because it was done within that country? - Nat Gertler (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That was me. Feel free to move some stuff back, I must admit that I didn't read it all in detail, but it seemed to be all dealing with the US... KarlFrei (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done doed that. - Nat Gertler (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality needed in lede sentence
Whereas not all same-sex marriages are between two people, and whereas language in Wikipedia should be neutral and not reflect geographic partiality by saying without research that same-sex marriage is an issue in Western countries, both the statement about "two people" in the beginning and the modifier of "Western Nations" will be taken out. Please provide me a reply as to why this revision is not better than what we already have before you make any changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.5.1 (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for discussing this on the talk page. Would you be able to present some evidence, or rationale for your changes? How is same-sex marriage not a relationship? As to not saying "western", the statement is demonstrably true: Same-sex marriage is indeed an issue in many western nations. Please give a reliable source that shows it is contested in a serious way elsewhere in the world. As to making changes, you are the one who seeks to make changes. There is a note in the article asking people who want to change the lede to discuss it here first. The groundrule is: discuss on the talk page, come to agreement, then we make the change. Sunray (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that I see what you mean, and because I am unable to provide at present evidence to the contrary, I will revoke my revisions to everything except the "two people" part. It is quite obvious that not all same-sex marriages have been and are now only between "two people."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.5.1 (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Sunray (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I miss how it is "quite obvious" that not all same-sex marriages have been between two people; can the unsigned commenter point to examples where the same marriage concept that might typically be applied to a breeding pair was also applied to more than two people of the same sex with no member of the opposite sex involved, achieving the same legal or signifigant social recognition?


 * However, the complaint about the "Western nations" phrase is appropriate, as same-sex marriage continues to be an issue in South Africa. (We could also argue whether Israel counts as "Western" - and, for that matter, whether Western is an NPOV term.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

New changes.
I hope you'll pardon my boldness in making a few changes, many of which should be uncontroversial. While you can always revert these changes, I ask that you consider discussing your objections here instead so that we can come to a consensus. CarolineWH (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And I ask that if you want to edit the intro, you try coming her first and reaching consensus, because this article has a history of even small changes to he intro causing rather large and messy back-and-forth that are best worked out in talk first. I did clean up some grammar kerfuffle you left, and also removed a WP:BLP violation (accusations such as "disgraced", as much as they may apply to that particular cockroach, need be sourced). Sourcing is a concern with other of your additions. And unless you can find other sources for miscegenation comparison, that would seem to be a US-specific concern/discussion, and doesn't really belong in the intro of the general article. I also think that in rewording, you lost the concept of something in the intro, that being that "marriage" is separately a religious status and a legal status, and that conflict arises because people see granting the legal status as shoving the gay couples into the religious status. - Nat Gertler (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have nothing to say about my typos other than thanks for fixing them, but I do want to respond to some of your other points.


 * It turns out that libertarians advocating for privatization have to go out of their way to explain why contracts can't work now, so it was easy to find references. If you have any issues with these, or others, just let me know and I'll see if I can do better.


 * The miscegenation comparison is not limited to America, since South Africa has same-sex marriage now but only recently had laws against "mixed" marriages, under Apartheid. If you think this isn't clear enough, we can add references to articles that mention "Gay Apartheid", which explicitly makes this comparison.


 * I'm very sensitive to WP:BLP issues, but I'm confident that what we have here isn't one, because Paul Cameron has plenty of sources that show he was kicked out of the APA on ethics violations, and that other associations have chosen to disassociate themselves from his "research". Having said that, you may well be correct that some of these citations need to be here to back up any negative-sounding generalizations.  I think a bigger problem is my use of "disgraced" to sum up his status, which isn't so much wrong as imprecise.  The issue here is that, unless we say something, a reader might reasonably assume that he is a legitimate scientist that not everyone happens to agree with, when he's really little more than an anti-gay activist who happens to wear a lab coat.  Can you think of a better way?


 * The most subtle issue you've commented on is the distinction between marriage as a religious and civil status. There's actually a third distinction, in that some people are fine with civil unions that give identical rights (at least at the state level until Obama makes good on his promise and kills the federal DOMA), but think that the actual word "marriage" should not be applied.  I think my changes emphasized the term/status distinction, but may have done so at the expense of the religious/civil one.  I welcome any input into how we can change the article to make all of these clearer.


 * Yes, I do realize that changing the article is WP:BOLD in comparison to discussing these changes in advance. I'm going to consider the relative pluses and minuses in the future. CarolineWH (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I googled the phrase "gay apartheid", and while I obviously didn't follow every link, the ones I did follow were specifically about the question of same-sex marriage in the United States. That makes it a good item for inclusion in the Same-sex marriage in the United States article, but less apt for the inclusion in the introduction to the more general article.
 * I think that the best way to show who Paul Cameron is is to include a wikilink to his page, where he is explained in detail. That's why I inserted his name there and wikilinked it (previously, the section just made it sound like there were bunches of respectable folks making this claim; I specified who was sourced.) "Disgraced" is a problematic term; some folks view him as a hero for his stances.That makes the term contentious, and it is currently without source; WP:BLP explicitly tells us to remove such material.
 * As for any rewording, I must go nap now. I'll take a look later. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Caroline I appreciate your boldness, the only thing I ask (or rather, recommend) is before changing the lede to propose the changes here first. If this was an otherwise uncontroversial topic then I doubt there'd be a problem, but because we've had users abuse it in the past I only suggest this be done before making the changes. Thanks -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Guy, there are clearly limits to how bold we should be, so let's look at both versions here so that we can discuss positives and negatives. The first is the original, the second is my version.
 * Same-sex marriage is a civil rights, political, social, moral, and/or religious issue in many western nations. The conflict arises from the term "marriage" being used to include same-sex relationships as well as an often-overlapping government-endorsed civil status with legal benefits.
 * Same-sex marriage is a controversial civil rights, political, social, moral, and religious issue in many western nations. The conflict involves not only the legal status of marriage, but an often-overlapping government-endorsed civil status with limited legal benefits.
 * I'm going to try to touch on each of the changes, since they are largely independent.
 * a) I added "controversial" because, well, it is controversial and I wanted that to be clear. Then again, "issue" may well imply controversy, so this could be redundant.  We could keep the new word, remove it, or perhaps keept it but dump "issue".  What do you think?
 * b) I changed "and/or" to "and" because, while the issue involves only some of the above for any given individual, as an issue, it involves all of the above. Also, I find "and/or" to be a bit awkward.  I think this is more a matter of clear writing than a content issue, though.
 * c) The original says that the conflict involves the use of marriage as a term, and also involves civil unions. I find this confusing and incomplete.  In specific, while some of the conflict is over the use of the term, most of it is about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to get married, forced to use a different status ("civil union") with perhaps fewer rights, or neither.  To complicate matters, the libertarians are using this as an opportunity to campaign for making marriage a contract, which is problematic in its own right.  Now, I'm not saying that my version is perfect, but it removes the scare quotes and puts the emphasis back on the status of marriage, which is the heart of the issue, not merely the terminology.  How would you deal with this issue?
 * d) Almost forgot: I added "limited", because many (though not all) forms of civil union offer only limited rights and responsibilities.
 * I look forward to your reasoned input. CarolineWH (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do these so-called "libertarians" come out of the woodwork to suggest destroying marriage only when the gays are close to equality? Where were they before, content in their heterosexual relationships given special status by the state? Now they would rather decouple the state from marriage, so the churches can give them privileged status again.


 * It's quite similar to when activists propose changing antidiscrimination and/or hate crimes laws. In the United States, politicians used outrageous hyperbole about police states, the death of free speech, religious leaders being arrested. Yet they have no opposition to the existing laws that protect race and religion. It's really an indirect way of being homophobic, because despite what is coming out of their mouths, the result is the legislation being stalled. No one called them libertarian, they were rightfully called conservatives. It's cleaner than "God Hates Fags", but the sentiment is the same. Libertarians they are not. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remember that this page is for discussion of editing the article; it's not for arguing the issues of same-sex marriage. - Nat Gertler (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Frankly, the whole libertarian thing is sort of a side issue, so we have to mention it but not let it dominate the conversation.
 * The notion of privatization leads to both less and more than marriage, anyhow, so it's not an exact match. By less, I mean that it would entail removing all rights granted by the government to married couples (such as tax advantages).  By more, it would allow non-sexual couples to contract for the same rights that same- or opposite-sex married couples would be able to (which is to say, only those which they can grant each other, not which are granted to them).  As it stands, privatized marriage would require legal changes, since many of the core rights (such as next of kin status) cannot currently be granted contractually.
 * My personal view is that this libertarian proposal, whatever its merits might be, represents a form of opportunism, since it's ultimately orthogonal to the real issue, which is homophobia. But, as I said, that's just my personal view.  It's not going into the article unless a reliable source says it, and then only to the extent that it furthers overall neutrality. CarolineWH (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * CarolineWH, I think we're on the same side of the issue and we only disagree on the terminology. Personally I find using the word 'controversial' a bit too pleonastic for that sentence. I did like your bit on "forced to use a different status ("civil union")", perhaps we could find a way to incorporate it into that sentence? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, the current version of the sentence we're talking about goes like this:
 * "The conflict arises from the term "marriage" being used to include same-sex relationships as well as an often-overlapping government-endorsed civil status with legal benefits."
 * Based on what you've said, I'm thinking of something like this:
 * "The conflict arises over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into marriage, be forced to use a different status, such as a civil union, which is usually more limited, or not have any such rights. A related issue is whether the term "marriage" should be applied."
 * How would you change this? CarolineWH (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind that wording, it seems more specific and appropriate than what's currently there, well said. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, changed. CarolineWH (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"gay marriage"
The word "gay" as it relates to the homosexual orientation has nothing to do with same-sex marriage which derives its meaning and existence from the fact that it consists of two people of the same gender. Gay people can marry into a same-sex marriage or they can marry into a opposite-sex marriage and the same goes for straight people and all other types of people. The term "gay marriage" is not technically correct and even if its meaning needed to be used in the lede sentence, it would be better to use the term "homosexual" than "gay" which borders on slang and can mean different things to different people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.4.134 (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The goal here is not to create the language, but to reflect it; "gay marriage" is actually the most common term, it is quite common in the media, and the article should reflect that. The article makes clear what it's talking about, it leads with the technically-specific term, and I am restoring the common term as previously used. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by NatGertler (talk • contribs) 20:53, 5 December 2009


 * 1) 'Gay' means same-sex as well as people.
 * 2) 'homosexual' has the exact double meaning that gay has.
 * 3) The argument that gay people can marry, just not someone of the same sex is absurd, homophobic, and does not need addressing.
 * 4) Gay is not slang, it is standard English, and is crystal clear in its meaning, and the context makes it even clearer.
 * 5) 'Homosexual' is pejorative, and reflects your un-NPOV negative attitudes toward gay people, and those of whoever uses it. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that most people use the term "gay marriage" is irrelevant to a fact-based encyclopedia as even if most people in the world believed that 1+1=3, Wikipedia should still stick up for 1+1=2 because that is factual. You are using invective and ad hominem attacks to silence debate on this topic but I will not be bullied into silence by your antics. I did not say that gay was slang but that it bordered on being slang for the word gay has several other definitions that precede the definition of homosexuality in any standard lexicon and furthermore "gay" is used much more frequently in pejorative expressions such as "that's so gay" than "homosexual." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.4.134 (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the fact that most people use a term is not at all irrelevant when stating what something is called. In fact, it would seem to be the central fact of relevancy. One may argue that white chocolate is not truly chocolate or that Monster Island is really an isthmus, that Good Friday is lousy or that The Neverending Story ends, but that does not override the truth that they are called these things. - Nat Gertler (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on that point but if we wanted to include the reality that it is often called "gay-marriage," the phrase "often called gay-marriage" should substitute "also called gay-marriage" which makes same-sex marriage out to be some sort of exclusively homosexual institution which it is not. Also, terms like the ones you listed above can all be found in other encyclopedias, whereas only "same-sex marriage" can be found as a separate entry in well-established encyclopedias like Britannica.  Same-sex marriage is a big-tent term that embraces all forms of marriages between two persons of the same gender while "gay marriage" is a small-tent term that is exclusive and fails to realize the rich variety that is in the institution.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.4.134 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "'Gay marriage' makes same-sex marriage out to be some sort of exclusively homosexual institution which it is not." That's your personal, fringe interpretation. Gay marriage means a marriage between two people of the same sex. That's how it's used in the sources, that's how it's used in the public opinion polls (which use the vernacular to be understood), and that's how it's used in the political debates.


 * Besides, gay marriage is overwhelmingly a case of marriage between two gay people. What do you mean when you refer to "the rich variety that is in the institution"? Heterosexual people marrying gay to defraud the government? Ssahsahnatye (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You may not like that the term is used interchangably, but it is indeed used to refer to same-sex marriage on the whole. What the Britannica says is not a limitation on Wikipedia. And the claim in your edit summary that it is not needed is in conflict with WP:Naming conventions: "An article can only have one name; however significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph". (The terms I listed above can all be found in other encyclopedias? Does the Britannica really have entries on Monster Island and The Neverending Story?) - Nat Gertler (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is it written as gospel that a same-sex marriage has to be between two people of the homosexual sexual orientation? How is saying that same-sex marriage is not an exclusively homosexual institution a fringe opinion? Besides what you put which is a legitimate and common practice, there are countless examples of bisexuals and people of other orientations getting married to people of the same-sex and there is no law that says two people of the same gender who are heterosexual cannot get married to each other for any other benefit that marriage confers as marriage is about much more than sexuality.  Using the term gay-marriage is wrong and false even if it is a significant alternative.  It is like saying in the lede sentence of the regular marriage article that marriage is usually between "men and women."  Significant alternatives can only be included as equals if they are true and reflect fully and accurately what the article is about.140.180.4.134 (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is it written as gospel that a gay marriage has to be between two people of the homosexual sexual orientation? Ssahsahnatye (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How about this for a compromise: "often (though incorrectly) called gay marriage"? Gabbe (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be perfectly fine as I already mentioned. We can include a common terminology for this article that is a small-tent definition as long as we do not equate it to "same-sex marriage" by saying "also called gay-marriage."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.4.134 (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that would not be fine. The term isn't "marriage between two gay people", which one might reasonably argue is a subset; it is "gay marriage", a term unto itself. It is not incorrectly called "gay marriage"; people who use that label are using the common label. 140 may not like that it's the term of use, but it is. One might just as well argue that not all homosexuals are happy and thus "gay" is a misnomer, but a the adjective has taken a life of its own. - Nat Gertler (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I agree with you on that point but that is not what I am saying. When people use the term "gay marriage" they obviously are only alluding to homosexuals who are of the same-sex who are married or want to get married.  Right now, because that is the most common form of same-sex marriage and the reason for why it is most relevant in public and legal discourse, it is usually used by default by most people when referring to same-sex marriage.  These same people, however, would not call a marriage, e.g., between an old rich male friend and me (male) to expedite the process of inheritance a gay-marriage if we are not homosexual and that is not at all a motivation toward why we are getting married.  Opposite-sex marriages are used frequently for many other purposes other than for sexual intercourse and thus it would be a misnomer to call opposite-sex marriage heterosexual or straight marriage.140.180.4.134 (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, so how about "often (though misleadingly) called gay marriage"? Or "often called gay marriage, which may be misleading, since it does not necessarily involve a gay couple"?

Yes, yes, there is no problem with that at all as I have said time and time again. That in no way equates the two terms which is what we have to avoid.140.180.4.134 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What we have now ("often called gay marriage") is fine. That's the overwhelming circumstance, the situations 140 describes above would be rare occasions, and we shouldn't clutter the lead with fringe statements. Dayewalker (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. What we have right now is perfectly fine and should be left unchanged and considered a consensus.140.180.4.134 (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It should not be considered a consensus because it's not a consensus. Your logic is faulty, your claim that "These same people, however, would not call a marriage, e.g., between an old rich male friend and me (male) to expedite the process of inheritance a gay-marriage if we are not homosexual and that is not at all a motivation toward why we are getting married" doesn't show any support but assumption and a weak one at that. If two male actors have sex, it's still gay sex even if they're not gay. The folks who are protesting against gay marriage aren't okay with it if the two guys don't happen to identify as homosexual. Same-sex marriage is also called gay marriage, and I don't see any reason to pretend it's not just because you don't like the language. - Nat Gertler (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So you are under the assumption that all acts of sex between two people of the same gender are gay and consequently all acts of sex between two people of the opposite gender are straight? To give a simple example that refutes your faulty logic, in the case of rape, even where the man and the woman are both heterosexual, the fact that the man forcefully has sex with a non-consenting woman does not make it straight sex, even less so if the man is just doing it for the sake of violence.  The terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are psychological terms and are not to be universally applied to all situations where such feelings typically occur.  You need to separate mind from matter and then you will see more of what I mean.140.180.4.134 (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So your refutation of my "faulty logic" is to assume on behalf of me an assumption about the word "straight", and then claim it doesn't match your assumption about the word "straight"? Same-sex marriage is also called gay marriage. I understand that you wish it wasn't, but I've seen no sign of the division you want for it existing in the real world. - Nat Gertler (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this even a debate? How many people here can legitimately protest that gay marriages and same-sex marriages not used interchangeably? 140.180.4.134, if two people of the same sex decide to have sex, that would be considered 'gay sex', there is no other way to slice or dice it. That does not imply that those particular people are gay, it just so happens that what they were doing fits that particular terminology. For instance, you said:

"To give a simple example that refutes your faulty logic, in the case of rape, even where the man and the woman are both heterosexual, the fact that the man forcefully has sex with a non-consenting woman does not make it straight sex, even less so if the man is just doing it for the sake of violence" - actually, it's YOUR logic that's faulty. You've somehow come to the idea that 'sex' is always consensual when that certainly isn't the case. If he raped her, he had sex with her, it just wasn't consensual sex. Even dictionary.com defines rape as:


 * ''"rape
 * 1. 	the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
 * 2. 	any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person."''

Webster's also defines it as:


 * ''Rape
 * - Verb
 * 1. Assault sexually; force to have sex.''

So sorry, your accusations of others have 'faulty' logic is faulty in itself, he who lives in a glass house should not be throwing stones -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Historyguy1965, before you revert an edit and before you issue a diatribe against me that is off subject, first please read the whole section about "gay marriage" in this discussion page. You have not at all responded to the big-tent versus small-tent problem which is the main issue at stake here.  All you contributed was saying that there is no way around calling sex between two people of the same gender "gay-sex" while not responding to my argument at all.  As I said, two bisexuals of the same-sex who marry one another would not want themselves to be called "being in a gay-marriage" but would not mind at all the term "same-sex marriage."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.4.134 (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You accused another editor of 'faulty logic' on that particular issue, you're the one who brought it up and contradicted those two major dictionaries. "As I said, two bisexuals of the same-sex who marry one another would not want themselves to be called "being in a gay-marriage" but would not mind at all the term "same-sex marriage."" - Really, according to who? And if I'm a boy scout but would rather be called a 'girl scout', would that make me any less of a boy scout? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Historyguy1965, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and your analogy is a poor excuse to try to shut me up at best. Address the main issue without creating straw-man analogies to try to convince me and others that my point is nonsensical.  Do you really think that people who are not gay but are in a same-sex relationship would want to be called being in a gay-relationship?  This article, as it correctly states in the lede sentence, deals with the social institution of a marriage between two people of the same-sex or social gender, nothing more.  If you want to create a separate article that is just about two people of the same-sex who also happen to both be gay, go right ahead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.4.134 (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I know it's not a dictionary, which is why I brought up the issue in talk showing you that your definitions of sex were inaccurate and "faulty". Also, you keep trying to (comically) victimize yourself as if we're trying to shut you up, no one is trying to shut you up, no one has the power to do that. As opposed to whining and reverting edits by several other contributors perhaps you could try providing some legitimacy in your arguments as opposed to creating this false sense of reality. Everyone wants your contributions and ideas, but not when it outright violates WP:WQT. We are passionate about accuracy on this website. Also, it'd help if you signed your post used four tildes. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

has now been blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. Gabbe (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the page that the OED links to contains the following definition:

Per WP:PAYWALL it should not be a problem that the OED requires a subscription. Gabbe (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note here, I came back to the page and found that my comment above seemed to be taken as an excuse to declare consensus and edit war, I assure you I meant nothing of the sort. I find 140's arguments fringe viewpoints at best, and I think the article was fine equating the term with gay marriage, as was the consensus before he arrived. Dayewalker (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Seeing that there is considerable debate over whether "also" or "often" should be used, and since the inclusion of the term "gay marriage" is not absolutely essential for the article, I think it best to just leave out the parenthetical part of the lede sentence until a consensus can be reached.140.180.18.151 (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the "considerable debate" is you on one side, and a few people trying to put off a fight; you're the only one actually arguing for "often". Consensus is clearly in favor of including "gay marriage". Please stop attempting to make this alteration until and unless you achieve consensus. - Nat Gertler (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with NatGertler above, consensus is overwhelmingly against you. Please stop edit warring on the article page, and continue the discussion here. Dayewalker (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How is this? We may include "gay marriage" and "also" instead of "often" but we will also interject "misleadingly" so that we can let readers know that it is an equivalent term to "same-sex marriage" yet also that technically it is not a correct term.140.180.18.151 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I do not see any reason to redefine language for this claim. I've not seen anyone being mislead by this. - Nat Gertler (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not redefining language here but merely trying to exhibit truth even against commonly and stubbornly held falsehoods. As an example, even though in the vernacular people say that there have been 44 presidents of the United States, it should still be said that this is a misleading comment to make due to the non-consecutive terms of Grover Cleveland.  Likewise, same-sex marriage accurately defines all forms of marriage that are between two persons of the same gender whereas gay marriage, while used interchangeably with same-sex marriage, clearly does not and thus is a misleading term as I have already commented on previously in this section.140.180.18.151 (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have claimed that before, and that claim has been repeatedly shot down. You have gone against consensus to reinsert it. Please achieve consensus before any further edits to the lede. - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While people have countered that gay marriage is used interchangeably with same-sex marriage and thus it should be treated as an equivalent in the lede sentence, nobody is disagreeing with the notion that "gay marriage" is a misleading term. There is no way that "gay marriage" could not be a misleading term and given everyone's immediate association between same-sex marriage and gay activism it is understandable that such a misleading term has become so commonplace.140.180.18.151 (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, actually, I am disagreeing that it's a misleading term. Others have rejected its addition to the phrase. So far, you are its only proponent, against a variety of obections, and have repeatedly violated policy to add it. - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Gay Marriage, Retstated
I'm starting a new section, as the above discussion has degenerated into a wall of text where it seems an anonymous editor using multiple IPs is trying to change the current consensus about using the term "gay marriage" in the lead. For clarity's sake, I'm bringing the new discussion here to a subheading.

My main question is simple, are there any other editors who agree with the IP that the term shouldn't be used here? Glancing above, I don't see any other questions to the consensus but if there are, I'd love to discuss the matter here. Dayewalker (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

editing the lede line
We should alter the "Please do not edit the lede without using the talk (discussion) page first." comment line to read "...without achieving consensus on the...", so that folks don't think it just means "post a talk, then edit away!" Agreed? - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, there is no consensus for your motivation and you clearly are highly eager to do all these things because you want to silence me and stop this conversation from continuing.140.180.18.151 (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody wants to "silence" you; you just have been unable to gain consensus for your desired edits, and without such consensus, they stay out of the article. It's how collaborative editing works at Wikipedia. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You took "let's remind editors to achieve a consensus in the discussion via collaborative editing" and got "you want to silence me and stop this conversation from continuing!" out of it? lol -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nat, I think the suggested change in the lede comment is appropriate. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, only makes it clearer for newer editors. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently, not clear enough, judging by recent edits. - Nat Gertler (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"marriage"
The word "marriage" used in the lead sentence after "same-sex marriage" will be taken out because the lead sentence cannot use the topic itself or a substantial part thereof for a definition.140.180.7.18 (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've reached a consensus for this change. Also, I'm not sure why you removed this.  Anyways, I think defining "same sex marriage" using the word "marriage" is fine (and has a consensus) because marriage is defined on its own article.  Using the word union confuses things greatly since union is a word with its own history.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the previous comment: no consensus to change "marriage" in the lead to "union." Defining "same sex marriage" using the word "marriage" is fine (and has a consensus) because marriage is defined on its own article. Union is ambiguous. --Dr.enh (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, I see your point.140.180.7.18 (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont think this one is hard to figure out, this IP is probably the same previously banned IP user who was vandalizing this article the same way. I think this person is misinterpreting what a consensus is. - Linestarz (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would avoid using the term "vandalizing", as under WP:VANDALISM policy "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism". However yes, it is pretty clear that this is the same editor whose inappropriate attempts at the same edits have gotten him bounced twice now. - Nat Gertler (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

and, who were both blocked for editwarring, and all come from the same Princeton University IP range. Time to semi-protect this article? Gabbe (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This article was semi-protected for a brief period, and those IPs popped up again on the day the s-p ended. I flinch at such protection, but reviewing the last couple hundred edits indicates that IP edit here were very seldom (but not never) ultimately constructive. As such, I concur. - Nat Gertler (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

State Abbreviations
I changed two United States State abbreviations. Iowa was listed as "IO". I changed it to "IA", which is correct. Vermont was listed as "VE". I changed it to "VT", which is correct. Alanasings (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey I changed it to "VT". :)  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to include CA in the list of states that recognize but do not perform same sex marriages? The legislature clarified the state's policy reiterating the State's promise to legally recognize the 18,000s same-sex marriages previously performed in the state as well as the right retained by the state to recognize any same-sex marriage performed in any state prior to the passage of proposition 8.- Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by UCSDgrad (talk • contribs) 22:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the box in the upper right, that's not actually part of this page; go over to Template:SSM for discussing that content. - Nat Gertler (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Maps
I would suggest introducing a new colour (a different shade of blue) for the countries (and states) that allow a form of civil union/civil partnership/domestic partnership which grants the same rights as marriage (everything but "marriage" unions) or practically the same rights as marriage. This would differentiate such unions from other registered type of partnerships which grant considerably less rights. The new colour could cover countries such as Denmark, United Kingdom, Iceland, Finland, Hungary, Switzerland, and states such as California, Oregon, Washington, but not countries like France and Germany which grant considerably less rights.

In any case, I would maintain the current separate colour for unregistered partnerships which are still very different from registered partnerships.

I am quite new to Wikipedia editing so I do not know how to make the change myself, but I think such change would make a big difference in terms of showing the actual amount of rights being granted rather than the mere name (marriage, registered, or unregistered) so I would appreciate if someone could do it. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.27.137.165 (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Tierra Del Fuego?
Why is Tierra Del Fuego, Argentina in the list of jurisdictions that have legalized SSM? It was just one wedding, this doesn't mean that SSM is legal there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.69.162 (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Coquille?
Do you think Coquille should be in the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.69.162 (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Portugal
Portugal already performs same-sex marriage. Someone should post this!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.99.159 (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. The other day, they took the first major step toward that, but the bill still requires another vote and to be signed into law. The article reflects that. - Nat Gertler (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Argentina
I'm not too familiar with the specifics of Argentine marriage law, but a couple was recently wed near the southern tip of the nation. It's unclear if they were legally married in the eyes of the national government from the articles I've seen, though. See Here Ben (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Heterosexism" v. sodomy
The language of the introduction to this page is pro-gay marriage. For example we are told that one of the stated reasons for opposing gay marriage is "heterosexism," even though no one who actually opposes it uses this term. But in the case of arguments for gay marriage, we are accurately told that the opposition is said to have homophobia. Instead of falsely portraying the arguments of anti-gay marriage advocates, I suggest we use language that is actually used, in particular the opposition to sodomy. This will inject some neutrality into the language instead of allowing pro-gay marriage advocates to redefine it to suit whatever they deem fit to print. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.22.23 (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The sodomy source makes religious arguments. The lead should be a summary, not a listing of all possible arguments. Argument from tradition is listed later in the article, and it belongs in the lead, as it is distinct from arguments from religion. --Dr.enh (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does make religious arguments, but still is superior to "heterosexism," which is literally an invention of pro-gay marriage advocates. Using that term for anti-gay marriage arguments is just false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.22.23 (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying that we should advocate the position of religion? Sorry, it doesn't work like that.  Your idea that one word is superior to another because of religious advocation is false, wikipedia does not argue one side, it argues both, and the word you claim is inferior is actually the most neutral, therefore, should be used.  Not the other way around as you prefer.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 06:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing that Wikipedia shouldn't falsely attribute words to gay marriage opponents that they don't and have never used. Saying that they use the word "heterosexism" is factually wrong. They do use the word sodomy, hence this would at least be factually correct. I can only guess that the word "heterosexism" was deliberately injected by gay marriage advocates to distort the other side's position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.22.23 (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any words attributed anywhere, all I see is the lede describing the generality of the situation instead of going into specifics, like it should do(not go into specifics).—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 10:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that no gay marriage opponents would agree that their motives are in fact heterosexism. Based on principles of neutrality, it seems appropriate to allow each side of the debate to use its own language, instead of allowing one side to make up language to describe the positions of both sides. That is what I am trying to get at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.22.23 (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion about heterosexism was, I see, adopted. However, please note that in the third and fourth paragraphs, the number of characters allocated to pro-same sex marriage arguments is 440, while opponents get 373. I propose including the opposing reason, sources being here, of "rejection of sodomy" to even this out. As Robert P. George states, such rejection is founded on the idea that marriage should be about "bodily unity of the kind that sometimes generates new life."
 * Character count is not an appropriate form of balance for an article. "Different views don't all deserve equal space." Additionall, your George source does not speak to rejection of sodomy. Nor do the quotes that you google book search pulls up claim that rejection of sodomy is an argument against same-sex marriage; do you have a specific quote from that book? - Nat Gertler (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The George source does reject sodomy - in fact that's the central argument. George speaks "...of marriage as a union that takes its distinctive character from being founded, unlike other friendships, on bodily unity of the kind that sometimes generates new life. This unity is why marriage, in our legal tradition, is consummated only by acts that are generative in kind," going on to state that "acts of sodomy, even between legally wed spouses, have never been recognized as consummating marriages." You can summarize this differently than just "objection to sodomy," but that seems accurate and concise. If anyone wants to sum it up differently, I'd be open minded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.22.23 (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead is a summary. George's argument about legal trsdition is already summarized. If you want more characters, come up with a new arugment not already included in the summary. --Dr.enh (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying that something shouldn't qualify as consumation of marriages (the only place in that piece where RPG mentions "sodomy") does not qualify as an "objection to" or "rejection of" it. Making fried chicken, playing frisbee, praying - none of those things qualify as consumation of a marriage. Does my saying that qualify as rejecting frisbee or objecting to prayer? - Nat Gertler (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

While I do not totally agree with Nat Gertler's above argument, it holds enough truth that I think a better reason is called for. This is the worldwide prevalence of sodomy laws. Clearly, the leaders of societies with these laws feel that gay marriage would not be acceptable since they make gay sex itself a criminal offense. (The US also had such laws before 2003.) But these criminal aspects are nowhere discussed here. The opinions of these societies are ignored. To acknowledge their existence, we must somehow acknowledge that gay marriages would be said to involve criminal sodomy in many cultures. Another way of phrasing this would be to say that a prerequisite for gay marriage is the abolition of sodomy laws, or that sodomy laws are a related issue (see end of the second paragraph for where this might be inserted).
 * This is not an article on sodomy. To use information about sodomy laws to make a claim about same-sex marriage would constitute original research. Abolition of sodomy laws is not a prerequisite for same-sex marriage. Marriage does not inherently require sex; there are some jurisdictions which require consummation, but it is far from a presumptive legal inclusion.... and far more mixed-sex couples engage in sodomy than do same-sex couples. - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a prerequisite for same-sex marriage. This is not original research, it's just common sense. No jurisdiction would legalize same-sex marriage while also making its consummation a crime.
 * There is a range of world opinion that considers the consummation of a same-sex marriage to be a serious offense. That is clearly relevant information, although since there are separate pages on sodomy laws and LGBT rights by country we need only include some brief references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.22.23 (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This may well be the case, but you need to attribute the statement "Abolition of sodomy laws is a prerequisite to same-sex marriage legalisation" to someone. It's not sufficient to refer to "common sense". If this seems odd to you, please read WP:A. Gabbe (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And not just to attribute to someone, of course, but to attribute it to a reliable source on the matter. However, the concept that two laws may seem at odds with each other in intent may seem silly, but it happens all the time. Near where I live, we have localities licensing marijuana distribution stores... despite the fact that marijuana distribution remains illegal in this country, by federal law. - Nat Gertler (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources are always good. Ok, so for example see Newsweek at the time of the Lawrence v. Texas decision. Does that say explicitly that ending sodomy laws is always a prerequisite for gay marriage? No, but it says it might be. Similarly, Scalia argues in his dissent that the logic used might lead to "homosexual marriage." (Rick Santorum took a similar view.) Since these sources only say might, I'll agree to retreat from always. However, they've still outlined a possible connection. 67.83.22.23 (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that newsweek PR you linked to does not say that ending the sodomy laws might be a prerequisite for gay marriage. Scalia saying some logic might lead to gay marriage does not mean that no other path would. Santorum is discussing whether the end of sodomy laws might require gay marriage, not vice versa, and even he doesn't believe it so, in that he believes the law can still be changed to protect his vision of marriage. None of this supports what you were trying to hang on it. - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. You admit, however, that repealing sodomy laws is said to be a possible path to gay marriage. Given the obvious connection between criminalizing the consummation of a marriage and legally recognizing the marriage, I think this "possible path" is worth noting in the article.67.83.22.23 (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "You admit, however, that repealing sodomy laws is said to be a possible path to gay marriage." Not the sources you give, no. What Santorum and Scalia are saying, roughly, is that the particular logic used in this particular case using this particular method of repeal might also be applied to restrictions against SSM. So, no, what you claim is not what the articles said nor what I've said... and given that this particular theoretical is built around the specific American constitutional system, that would seem to have no reasonable weight to place it in this article. - Nat Gertler (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Newsweek says that Lawrence "may embolden gay-rights activists to push even harder for everything from gay marriage and..." Therefore, one may affect the other. Santorum and Scalia are also arguing that legally one decision may affect the other. That they're all US sources is the only relevant point in Nat's preceding statement. I can't look up any more sources right now, or spend any more time on this article period, so I'll agree to limit conclusions to the US situation. The US is still a significant country. 67.83.22.23 (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop trying to turn this into your original thesis on the relationship between sodomy laws and SSM. You were putting material about law changes in 1811 in a Current Status section, you were misusing references (this does not say that SSM has been legalized only where sodomy laws had been removed), you removed current status information on Nigeria from the current status section. These bits of inappropriate and unsourced material do not help the article. - Nat Gertler (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the Nigeria thing. That was not intentional. Thank you for correcting the problem. On the other issues, the existing map details criminalization of homosexuality as well as same-sex marriage. I was providing a very brief commentary relating current status of gay marriage outside the West (which this page text almost completely ignores) with criminal bans on gay sex, which is certainly called for, given the clear relationship between the two.
 * There are only a small number of countries that have same-sex marriage, and I went through and checked each one to verify the statement. They are all listed in the source which you deleted.
 * The issue of "consummation" is an interesting point, which I had assumed would simply generalize, but as you point out, it might not. I will omit this term.67.83.22.23 (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The "existing map" contains criminalization because it is not a map specifically for this article; it is a template map designed for a range of articles, and includes information that's directly relevant only for some of them (just as you'll find the template listing the status of SSM in Mexico on a page about same-sex marriage in France. That you have done original research to find if it correlates does not mean that it is appropriate for this page. There are many other things which all of the countries listed also have in common. - Nat Gertler (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN: Material which you should take time to read, thoroughly, 67.83.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Portugal
Since January 8th: Same-sex marriage in Portugal (=legal!) Maybe someone can make an update (in the maps?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.0.131 (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article says: "The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, and South Africa are the only countries in which the legal status of same-sex marriages are exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriages".
 * However, this is not true as adoption is possible to opposite-sex marriages in Portugal, but not to same-sex marriages. Somebody should correct that.86.141.58.20 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing we will want to clear up is whether adoption is actually tied to marriage in Portugal. If hetero couples can adopt whether or not they are married and gay couples cannot adopt whether or not they are married (once SSM passes), then it is true that the legal status of marriage is the same in both cases; gay couples would still be being discriminated against, but it would not be as part of the legal status of marriage. But if straight married couples can adopt and straight unmarried couples cannot, then ability to adopt is part of the legal status of marriage and the exclusion of gay couples would indeed mean a difference in the legal status conferred. - Nat Gertler (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the law passes like it is now, this will mean that same-sex couples have all the rights of straight couples when it comes to marriage. Adoption law is a different law, and already discriminates same-sex couples from straight couples living under a "facto union", the first ones can't adopt, and the second can. So all the discriminations will be on the adoption law, and not on the marriage and facto union laws. Hope it helped.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.217 (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Helps a lot. - Nat Gertler (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Portugal has not yet legalized SSM. Yes, Parliament voted for a bill, but thatbill still needs to go through committee and then through another vote, as noted here. - Nat Gertler (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi I am Portuguese and perhaps yuo need some explaining of Portuguese politics because it seems to me that your confusing things... the bill has passed in Portugal's Parliament which is the highest institution in Portugal. The law only needs ratification by the president (which is due to occur soon). The president can veto it, but only once, and with leftist majority in Parliament the law would easily pass a second round of voting by MPs. --193.136.74.103 (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. We're not saying the law is unlikely to pass a second reading, merely that it hasn't yet. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we only say something is law once it has become law, not once it is very likely to become law. Gabbe (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Portugal must be in the list (top at right) of countries who recognise SSM just as Mexico DF is, with the * to specify that the law is in process and that first marriages are to arrive in around April 2010 (see BBC article). I repeat, the case is identical of the Mexico DF one, so please, can anybody list Portugal? It was there this afternoon but somebody put it out. Or if you put it out then do the same with M DF. Thx. 81.60.142.225 (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's a very different situation than the DF. The DF has passed a law with a future start date in it. Portugal has not yet passed a law - they took a significant step toward that, but further steps are required, as the BBC article notes. It's kind of like if the House Of Representatives in the US had passed a bill.... that doesn't mean it will pass the Senate or get the president's signature. - Nat Gertler (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd propose also to add a new color for the maps which will include countries who recognise SSM but deny children the right to be adopted by same sex married couples. It'll include obviously only Portugal, but is a significant difference and, remember, Belgium and the Netherlands began just like that their SSM laws. We could also simply put a sign or a * beside the country 81.60.142.225 (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference removal
People keep removing the reference to Robert P. George's articles. First, someone claimed it did not mention religion but was in a religious section, which is perhaps understandable, so then I embellished it with another source about its author showing the connection to religion. Then captain noodle removed even that. Is there some reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.22.23 (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That an author has a connection to religion does not make every statement he makes a religious statement. Even the Pope can say he likes a donut without having it be a religious statement. - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I will replace it with another source directly from the Catholic Church that makes the same argument. 67.83.22.23 (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The WP:NOR policy says that we must be able to attribute information to "sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." In the article the description from the Cathecism saying that homosexual acts
 * close the sexual act to the gift of life
 * is used to substantiate the statement
 * In many cases, this conventional purpose of marriage is seen as procreation, with the sodomy involved in homosexuality therefore being extraneous.
 * As I see it, this is neither directly supported by the cited source, nor is it clear how the source is relevant to the topic of same-sex marriage. You need to find a source that "directly and explicitly" (again, see WP:NOR) supports the statements you want to make. Gabbe (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just about to post much the same statement, having just rv'd this addition away. The cited section does not reference same-sex marriage, which is indeed the topic of this article. We cannot treat every objection to homosexuality or to sodomy as if the speaker were discussing SSM. - Nat Gertler (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's possible that the statement should be moved to a different section, probably "Judicial and Legislative," and the original George source reinstated, where (as a judicial scholar making a judicial argument about gay marriage) it would be more relevant. These objections are a consequence of the original source being removed. 67.83.22.23 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to apply to what the "Judicial and Legislative" portion is actually about. And you're apt to run into a central problem with using this source, which is one of weight. It is an individual's opinion column, just one man's opinion, so even if it talked about the things you try to cast it as being about, the statement is of dubious import. - Nat Gertler (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN: Material which you should take time to read, thoroughly, 67.83.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I will keep this in mind for future reference. 67.83.22.23 (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of context
This article omits a crucial reality. Reading this article, except for the map, we would be completely unaware that most of the world's population lives in countries where neither same-sex marriage nor civil unions have ever been legally recognized (or probably even seriously debated).

In effect it says, "Some people favor same-sex marriage. Other people don't. Here's a list of countries that have same-sex marriage, and a couple that don't. Here's some arguments from both sides."

I have tried to help correct this lack of context. However, even the summary statements that gay marriage is largely not practiced outside the West (the sole exception being South Africa), or an acknowledgment that gay marriage has historically only happened after decriminalization of homosexual sex (which many non-Western countries still haven't done), were removed.

Probably my sourcing was bad. Fine. But until somebody puts statements in this article that clue readers in to the overall, typical situation on gay marriage in Asia and Africa, it will suffer. 67.83.22.23 (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no such lack. This article is quite explicit about the limited areas is granted or recognized, through listing the locations, through depiction on the map, through statements like that describing South Africa as the second nation outside of Europe to legalize it. Tying it to such an ill-defined realm as the West would not define it any better. - Nat Gertler (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 67.83.22.23, I have no idea what you're talking about. Give me an example. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick Question
Noticed this has changed in the lede:


 * "Opposition to same-sex marriage arises from a rejection of the use of the word "marriage" as applied to same-sex couples or objections about the legal and social status of marriage itself being applied under ::any terminology. Other stated reasons include direct and indirect social consequences of same-sex marriages, parenting concerns, religious grounds[8], and tradition. Many supporters of same-sex marriage ::attribute opposition to it as coming from homophobia [9][10][11][12] or heterosexism and liken prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage.[13]"

My proposal is to include "...parenting concerns, religious grounds, tradition, and homophobia" as opposed to the current wording because can we really deny that [some] people are against SSM due to the idea that it makes them uncomfortable? It's not as if the sentence reads "ALL opposition stems from homophobia" but rather, some do. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not clear to me what change you are proposing. --Dr.enh (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The objection to that version is it says that a stated reason is homophobia, and there was no reference to anyone stating their reason is homophobia - a not-unreasonable concern of interpretation. - Nat Gertler (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Alrighty, current version will do I suppose -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Children and the family
The quotation from Stacey and Biblarz under opposition is out-of-context and misleading. The proper context is, "Thus, while we disagree with those who claim that there are no differences between the children of heterosexual parents and those of lesbigay parents, we unequivicolly endorse their conclusion that social science research provides no grounds for taking sexual orientation into account in the political distribution of family rights and responsibilities." Since this is already included in the consensus statements of supporters, I am deleting the entire Stacey and Biblarz from opposition. --Dr.enh (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC) The

Sick breeds Sick - and children pay the price!
Very sad children are sidelined in this debate. As if any child would want to inherit sick genes. Children should be the No. 1 priority in this debate, not religion or adult wants! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.227.11 (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bearing in mind that this is not a forum for discussing the general topic of same-sex marriage (see WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK), do you have any specific, explicit suggestions for improving this article you'd like to discuss? Gabbe (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Bible/Lack of nuetral POV
There is a reference to the African tribes/religions not recognizing same sex marriages. This is true of the bible as well. According to the Bible, same sex relationships and marriage is a sin. I think this should be included. PeshawarPat (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an entire section discussing religion; interpretations of the Bible vary greatly in this regard, and it would be quite POV to put this in as a statement. - Nat Gertler (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that I read the article very thoroughly, I have to agree with you Nat. It seems coming from a person who never read this article before today and a couple other articles related to SSM that they are slightly sqewed in favor of SSM. These are written almost as same sex marriage is an entitlement, which many (the majority of California voters, for example) do not beleive it is. There is no recognition of it at the federal level and is only a law in a few states. At best, it is somewhat of a "social experiment."

As background, I don't hate gays, and have some lesbian friends, but personally, I don't believe gay marriage should exist- civil unions seem sufficient. I just wanted to tell you my POV. I am trying to be objective here.

My point of all of this is that my kids are on wikipedia, and I feel the articles should read in a nuetral manner. My guess is these articles were written by proponents of gay marriage, and likely a little of POV has leaked into the articles. To have it read as if gay "marriage" is some kind of right is POV in and of itself and I don't want my kids reading this thinking gay marriage is a legitimate entitlement.PeshawarPat (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I see the source of your POV concerns. The things that you state to show that it's not an entitlement - that it's only legal in a few countries and a few of the United States, where it does not get federal recognition - are in fact explicitly stated in this article, and most of that information is in every (or nearly every, I won't try to verify at the moment) same-sex marriage article on Wikipedia, via the template you'll see on the upper right of the page. The only place entitlement is specifically invoked on this page is in citing the comments of the head of Slovenia, which would seem appropriate to accurately describe the situation in that country. This article certainly doesn't hide that there are those who oppose SSM. - Nat Gertler (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That users last paragraph should be removed per Talk, as it is not relevant to improving the article. C T J F 8 3  chat 06:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "I don't want my kids reading this thinking gay marriage is a legitimate entitlement." - Honestly, it doesn't really matter what you think your kids should or should not consider a legitimate entitlement. If you don't want your kids to believe one plus one is two then that's your prerogative, but to have everyone believe in the same thing is not only misleading, it's wrong. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Portugal and lusophobia & Nepal
It seems to me that there is a lot of lusophobia going on around here, especially by this Net something. Portugal has passed a law to introduce gay marriage before the end of April and this is hardly reflected in the text. Every time someone tries to change this it is taken out. I wonder why this person hates Portugal so much?--83.152.244.71 (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read Assume good faith? It seems like a guideline that is relevant here.  What is the specific change you want to make, and why? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The bill needs to be reviewed in committee before coming back for a final vote in parliament, and after that needs to be ratified by the President. Until that happens it is not yet a law. Don't worry, the moment the bill becomes law it will undoubtedly be mentioned here, but we shouldn't be getting ahead of ourselves before then. Gabbe (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And far from being "hardly reflected in the text", the passage of this law through Portugal's Parliament is specifically mentioned twice, once in the Modern section and once in the Current Status section. I think this is well covered here. - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There is not update about Nepal on the map???

Proposed addition for lead
On reading the lede, it strikes me that a fairly key aspect of the article isn't really included, namely, the legal recognition of same-sex marriage in several jurisdictions since 2001. It currently gives the impression that it's more of an abstract social issue rather than a legal reality. How would people feel about adding, as the second sentence of the first paragraph: "Since 2001, seven countries and various other jurisdictions have begun recognizing same-sex marriages," or something similar.--Trystan (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good concern. I wouldn't want to insert it as the second sentence there, simply because it would come between the statement of it as an issue and the discussion of it as an issue, rather than as a situation. "Since 2001, seven countries and various other jurisdictions have begun granting same-sex marriages, and the recognition of such marriages is now a civil rights, political, social, moral, and religious issue in many places." (You want to avoid saying seven countries recognize the marriages, because then you get into Israel, which recognizes but does not grant SSM.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage in the LEDE
I was going to add this in, but I saw the article warning asking for discussion before edits are done.

There is no mention at all about the opposition to same-sex marriage on the grounds that there is (in the eyes of the opposition) little or no logical difference between allowing same-sex marriage and incestuous or polygamous marriage. There is an excellent analysis of the issue at the Volokh Conspiracy, a pretty respectable legal blog by a UCLA law professor (http://volokh.com/posts/1153181622.shtml). I feel like this article is not NPOV in its current form as it is presenting a straw man to readers unfamiliar with the topic by encyclopedically stating that all opposition the same-sex marriage comes only from religious or traditionally grounds, when in fact, there are other concerns from a jurisprudential perspective.Jstanierm (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I reverted your addition, in part because your description said that you hadn't seen any opposition...please wait longer than an hour for opposition to be posted. Some of us have day jobs.
 * I support inclusion of this (provided the source is fine...I don't have the background necessary to investigate) but I'm not sure if the lede is the right place for it. I'd like to see input from other editors before we put it back in. Quietmarc (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I waited an hour for discussion but get a response in 5 minutes after the actual edit :$.
 * Anyway, like I mentioned the lede mentions arguments against with regards to religion, tradition, morality etc which are all pretty weak argumets. I don't see why the more substantive opposition shouldn't be noted. Jstanierm (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The argument you mention isn't substantive, nor does the Volokh article speak to the concern you claim. Rather, the Volokh piece speaks to certain methods that one might use to achieve the change in the law in some jurisdiction might have other results. It is not same-sex marriage itself would be the same as those other types of marriage. This is a tertiary argument, and does not merit placement in the lede. (And no, you waited less than an hour after posting the comment to edit the change, and both the reversion of your edit and the comment on your edit took more than five minutes after your change. But in any case, more concern about what's in the article than what is in talk should come as no surprise.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you read the blog? Volokh is addressing the slippery slope arguments against same-sex marriage.  There is opposition to same-sex marriage on these grounds.  It doesn't really matter how good it is.  I want the article to include a sentence noting this argument, and I have cited a source that shows that the argument is being made.  What is the problem?Jstanierm (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read the blog. That is how I was able to discuss that Volokh was speaking to the concern that a certain method of achieving same-sex marriage may face slippery-slpe consequences ("if indeed same-sex marriage wins using the 'right of all New Yorkers to marry the person of their choice' argument") And I've seen plenty of folks who have argued against same-sex marriage, and the slippery slope has never been the reason for their opposition, merely an argument they try to use to get others to support their belief. - Nat Gertler (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I propose we re-add the material I had written earlier, namely there is opposition which states that: "Recognizing same-sex marriage, some say, will make it more likely that the law will one day recognize" polygamous and incestuous marriages.


 * (See the Volokh Blog above and, cf., David Orgon Coolidge & William C. Duncan, Reaffirming Marriage: A Presidential Priority, 24 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 623, 640 (2001); George W. Dent, Jr., The Defense of Traditional Marriage, 15 J.L. & POL. 581, 628-31 (1999); Stanley Kurtz, Beyond Gay Marriage: The Road to Polyamory, WEEKLY STANDARD, Aug. 4, 2003. Some supporters of same-sex marriage endorse such slippage. See, e.g., David L. Chambers, What If? The Legal Consequences of Marriage and the Legal Needs of Lesbian and Gay Male Couples, 95 MICH. L. REV. 447, 490-91 (1996); JUDITH STACEY, IN THE NAME OF THE FAMILY: RETHINKING FAMILY VALUES IN THE POSTMODERN AGE 126-27 (1996).) Jstanierm (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's exactly what the blog is saying. I think it's saying that some of the arguments for same-sex marriage don't guard against the slippery slope fallacy. I agree with you that the slippery slope argument is used, but there HAVE to be better sources out there that say it, without having to interpret this writer (which edges into original research...). Find a better source, I say, and we can work it into the article somewhere.Quietmarc (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See above. I am adding the material.Jstanierm (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Should you do, it will be promptly reverted. You were bold, but your change was reverted so that there could be a discussion, and 2 people then disagreed with you. There has tp be more discussion before you re-enter that content.Quietmarc (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I want to note that you did not disagree. You said you agree, but better sources must be found.  If you now disagree and have a source that states that opponents do *not* argue this then please present it otherwise please leave it as is.  Also, the edit is in regards to an NPOV issue see below.Jstanierm (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(Undent)Also, the lede has this sentence: "Other stated reasons include direct and indirect social consequences of same-sex marriages, parenting concerns, religious grounds,[8] and tradition. Supporters of same-sex marriage often attribute opposition to it as coming from homophobia[9][10][11][12] or heterosexism and liken prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage.[13]" Your suggestion looks like it might fall under the banner of "indirect social consequences." I -don't- have an objection to including your suggestion as a part of this list of arguments, but see no reason why it should be given preference.Quietmarc (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As the article is currently written there is a sentence in the lede which mentions the proponent's argument that those opposing same-sex marriage are likened to those opposed to mix-raced marriage. This is the same slippery slope argument (only in reverse and being presented by the opposite side).  In order to remain NPOV, we ought to include this slippery slope argument of the opponents or remove both.Jstanierm (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If I was better at wikilinking I'd suggest a few wiki policies for you to review before continuing with your edits. But since I'm not, I'm going to suggest that you allow this discussion to unfold. It may take a while, but as I said, many editors have other obligations and cannot leap into the fray instantly. Give this a day so that people can chime in. You may have a point, and you may have supporters, but we won't know that if you keep making disruptive edits. Quietmarc (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Above you agreed that the material belongs in the article if more sources were found. I did so, and I included it in the article.  If you feel something is now wrong feel free to edit the material, but it is inappropriate to completely remove it.  I wonder why you find this sentence to be so objectionable: "Opponents to same-sex marriage argue that recognizing same-sex marriage as a universal human rights issue will make it more likely that the law will one day recognize other forms of unions that are also currently illegal such as incest or polygamous marriage."  It has more than half a dozen citations.Jstanierm (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone objects to the consensus that has been reached here, please DISCUSS before simply removing cited material.Jstanierm (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jstanierm: 1) You alone do not make a consensus. What I "agreed" to was that in principal you might have a point BUT that a)the source was not valid. b) your additions were possibly not appropriate for the lede c) that time should be given for more editors to contribute to the discussion.
 * 2)Once you have made an edit, and it has been reverted, the onus is on YOU to seek consensus from other editors before re-adding your content. You are now in violation of 3RR. Leave the page as it originally was so that editors have TIME to discuss your changes. I happen to be at work, and cannot dedicate my time to a long discussion regarding this suggestion. I expect that other editors are in similar situations. For some, it is the dead of night. Leave at least a day for this to be resolved. The article will still be here tomorrow.Quietmarc (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is a poor source, as the opinion of one professor. C T J F 8 3  chat 18:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Jstanierm, first read about WP:CONS so you understand what a consensus is. Next, why would you want to include an argument that deliberately (and admittedly) uses the slippery slope logical fallacy? Does the article on marriage include an argument along the lines of "legalizing man and woman relationships will only lead the way to incestuous relationships"? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Slippery slope is not necessarily a fallacy. It can be a valid argument.

I think this is a legal argument that applies specifically to judicially created SSM. The argument is that if we find a constitutional right to SSM based on equal protection, then we will have no legal grounds for denying that same protection to incestuous marriages. This argument does not really apply to SSM enacted by legislature. Two very different things.

Edit warring by User:OscarMilde
This appears to me to be a single purpose account engaging in a disruptive editing pattern, solely related to homosexuality. William Avery (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * and hopefully blocked soon. C T J F 8 3  chat 04:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This topic needs some pro and con articles
Given the political and social significance of this subject, it needs a point-counterpoint on the merits of the case, rather than whether or not it is simply legal or illegal. Just like how socialism and capitalism have articles that list some of the most common pro and con arguments in favor of them, so too, does same-sex marriage deserve such an article. The topic is so politically and socially relevant at this point in time, that there's no reason why it shouldn't have one.Wikieditor1988 (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Burden of proof
Destinero's been doing some good work on the Children and Family section. However, one item he's introduced and reintroduced after a removal is of concern: "the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents". There is no such thing as a fixed official general "burden of proof", it various from audience to audience and intent to intent. The burden of proof is different in a court of law than in a casual conversation. The source he's citing indicates that it is showing the "standard [...] generally adopted in behavioral and social research", and that's all well and good, but it's not a standard that should be presented without context. This article does not ust exist to cover behavior and social research; it reflects social debates, legal debates, and more. As such, if a claim of what the burden of proof is to be made, it should be explicit in what context... but I think better still that it should be removed altogether, as the goal of this article should not be to show proof, but to show relevant facts. This article is not a debate. - Nat Gertler (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is very important fact to be included in the article. I have no problem to provide context. "The null hypothesis (in this case, that same-sex and heterosexual couples do not differ) cannot be proved. A more realistic standard is the one generally adopted in behavioral and social research, namely, that repeated failures to disprove the null hypothesis are accepted provisionally

as a basis for concluding that the groups, in fact, do not differ. The overall methodological sophistication and quality of studies in this domain have increased over the years, as would be expected for any new area of empirical inquiry. Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. empirical research to date has consistently failed to find linkages between children’s well-being and the sexual orientation of their parents. If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents." http://wedding.thejons.net/homework/optional_readings.pdf We could either rephrase, which could be very difficult to cover same meaning, or quote, which I prefer in that case. Maybe we should quote Pediatrics and Journal of Marriage and Family sources as well to prevent copyright issues. --Destinero (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "as a basis for concluding that the groups do not differ" - there's part of the problem right there. It is not the job of Wikipedia to reach conclusions. If you want to report the conclusions of others, that's much more in line with Wikipedia. You can probably even cite the article your pointing to and say that research has found that there is no real difference in outcomes, or somesuch. It's a n appropriate source for that. - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Edit
(oops! edit conflict)

Okay, now that it's quieted down, perhaps we can take a look at the proposed edit. Jstanierm proposed:

"'Opponents to same-sex marriage argue that recognizing same-sex marriage as a universal human rights issue will make it more likely that the law will one day recognize other forms of unions that are also currently illegal such as incest or polygamous marriage.[8] There is also a rejection of the use of the word 'marriage' as applied to same-sex couples or objections about the legal and social status of marriage itself being applied under any terminology. Other stated reasons include direct and indirect social consequences of same-sex marriages, parenting concerns, religious grounds,[9] and tradition. Supporters of same-sex marriage often attribute opposition to it as coming from homophobia[10][11][12][13] or heterosexism and liken prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage.[14]'"

I don't support that wording for a variety of reasons. The first is that is gives undue weight to the slippery slope argument. While it is one argument against that I've heard, it is by far not the most common or notable, so placing it at the start of the paragraph doesn't make sense to me.

The current wording is:

"'Opposition to same-sex marriage arises from a rejection of the use of the word 'marriage' as applied to same-sex couples or objections about the legal and social status of marriage itself being applied under any terminology. Other stated reasons include direct and indirect social consequences of same-sex marriages, parenting concerns, religious grounds,[8] and tradition. Supporters of same-sex marriage often attribute opposition to it as coming from homophobia[9][10][11][12] or heterosexism and liken prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage.[13]'"

I interpret "Other stated reasons include direct and indirect social consequences..." to include the slippery slope. I don't have an objection to adding it to the list ( "...include direct and indirect social consequences of same-sex marriages (such as leading to legalized polygamy), parenting concerns..."), but I don't believe it's necessary.Quietmarc (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The problems that I have (or at least among the problems that I have) with the addition to this of the lede is that it tends to be a midescription - the slippery slope concern, at least when seriously presented, is not that SSM will lead to incest and polygamy and marrying dogs, but that the logic used to support it would also support such outcomes, which is a concern specifically when the right to SSM is introduced judicially. This makes it a very tertiary claim. It also seems to be a very US-centric claim (and the sources I recognized were certainly US sources focused on US policy, including specifics to the US legal system). Both of these things would seem to make placing this in the lede of this article WP:UNDUE. (And there's also a bit of a loop there; if they claim it leads to polygamy, and you ask what their problem is with that, you'll generally find that again it goes to the religion-and-tradition stances, which makes it not actually a separate objection.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The "slippery slope" argument is redundant. I mean, Stefan Lindskog (then chairman of the Swedish Bar Association) wrote an op-ed in 2005 arguing against legalising same-sex marriages because doing so would still limit marriages to two people in a monogamous relationship. In his view, the number of people marrying, or what kind of sexual relationship (if any) they shared among them, should be completely irrelevant, at least from a judicial perspective. Gabbe (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the slippery slope thing above, most people understand that homosexuality is not the same as incest and polygamy which do have serious biological, psychological and social consequences. I know that there are groups who make these arguments, but they said that about gays and lesbians adopting children. And then the courts started allowing it, I think Florida was the first state.  And the world didn't come to an end.  There are no negative consequences to that any more than any other adoption, that I am aware of.  Might be a good idea to mention the adoption thing as a positive counter weight to the slipper slope stuff. Malke  2010  06:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is arguing that the slippery slope argument is a good one. I think the question is whether it's notable enough to be mentioned in the article along with all of the other (IMO) bad arguments against gay marriage.Quietmarc (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and even if mentioned, whether it belongs in the lede (no), or whether it belongs down in the controversy section (say, judicial vs. legislative), as a concern of the effect of court-based legalization of SSM. - Nat Gertler (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ...which, I agree with you on the lede. I think a sentence or two could go in where you suggest, but the source provided that I have access to isn't strong enough to warrant it. I'm back at work again today, but if I can manage to do some digging I'll see if I can come up with something. I know I've heard the slippery slope argument, so it's just a matter of whether anyone important and/or reliable has said it (preferably with a quick repudiation of its merits).Quietmarc (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Find someone notable who prominently proposes this slippery slope argument, then it can go in. Without a good source, it's undue weight. Gabbe (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it belongs in the lead at all. Homosexuality is a normal variant in a biological system.  However, incest is not and neither is polygamy.  This slippery slope argument seems like WP:SYN to me.  Seems more like an old wives' tale than a legitimate argument.  Maybe mention could be made in a "Myths" section, but not in the lead. Malke  2010  19:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I think we need to be careful to discern that what Wikipedia is presenting in the lede are the arguments against and for same-sex marriage. The validity of the arguments themselves -- or your own personal opinion about the validity of the arguments are secondary to the fact that these are arguments that are being presented.


 * As to whether or not it belongs in the lede: The article currently has a sentence relating an opinion/argument of the *proponents* for same-sex marriage. This sentence says that proponents liken the opposition to the similar opposition to bi-racial marriages in the past.  Bi-racial heterosexual marriage has as much to do with same-sex marriage as same-sex marriage has to do with polygamy, etc.  For example, someone against bi-racial marriage on the grounds that if it were legalized then the liklihood of a future legalization of same-sex marriage is arguing a slippery-slope fallacy.


 * In addition to Volokh, the following are citations which should sufficiently show that the this slippery slope argument is being made by the opponents:
 * David Orgon Coolidge & William C. Duncan, Reaffirming Marriage: A Presidential Priority, 24 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 623, 640 (2001);
 * George W. Dent, Jr., The Defense of Traditional Marriage, 15 J.L. & POL. 581, 628-31 (1999);
 * Stanley Kurtz, Beyond Gay Marriage: The Road to Polyamory, WEEKLY STANDARD, Aug. 4, 2003.
 * Also, some supporters of same-sex marriage actually *endorse* such slippage. :::::::::See, e.g., David L. Chambers, What If? The Legal Consequences of Marriage and the Legal Needs of Lesbian and Gay Male Couples, 95 MICH. L. REV. 447, 490-91 (1996); JUDITH STACEY, IN THE NAME OF THE FAMILY: RETHINKING FAMILY VALUES IN THE POSTMODERN AGE 126-27 (1996)


 * As the article currently stands, there is an NPOV issue in that the proponent's point of relating same-sex marriage to bi-racial marriage is being explictly presented; whereas, the opponent's same point of relating same-sex marriage to polygamy is not being explicity presented. I hope this clears up some confusion.  And I am sorry for the edits yesterday, but I was frustrated (to see a banal well cited sentence describing an obvious phenomenon being constantly reverted by editors who couldn't bother to discuss on the talk page.  (I want to thank Quietmarc for being reasonable through it all, and I personally apologize to him for my hastiness).Jstanierm (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "I was frustrated (to see a banal well cited sentence describing an obvious phenomenon being constantly reverted by editors who couldn't bother to discuss on the talk page." Excuse me? Of the reversions made to your edits yesterday before you got the boot, all but one was made by either Quietmarc or me, and we've both been discussing on the talk page. (And to that editor, you owe an apology, as you posted your assumption that he had not read the talk page, as though someone who had read the talk page wouldn't have found that you had been re-adding material against consensus.)
 * If you want to argue for the exclusion of the misogyny law comparison from the lede, there is certainly an argument to be made... but as a matter of tact and tactic it may be more effective to do so without generally slamming the other editors involved on this page.
 * BTW the Volokh source is problematic to use, as it falls under the guidelines and concerns for self-published sources. - Nat Gertler (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that Volokh is an example of an acceptable SPS. A UCLA law professor would generally be considered an established expert on the relevant field (i.e., in this case, the potential effects of new law.)  Whether he is or isn't  acceptable really doesn't matter, because you may have noticed I cited several other published sources.  I also believe you meant miscegenation rather than misogyny :D.Jstanierm (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than the SPS questionability of Volokh have you got any other concerns regarding the proposed edit to the article in light of what I have stated above?Jstanierm (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually now that I review the citation, Volokh's blog links to his prior writing published article which is more indepth Eugene Volokh, Same-Sex Marriage and Slippery Slopes, 33 HOFSTRA L. REV. 1155, 1163-1165 (2005).Jstanierm (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of my previously-stated concerns still apply. - Nat Gertler (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, your claim as to what the relevant field is for the Volokh citation is off, as he's being used to support not a claim about the law, but a claim about the assertions of SSM opponents. Nor can we cite him simply as an example of opponents arguing the slippery-slope assertion, as he is not an opponent and he makes it clear he doesn't hold much respect for the slippery-slope arguments. As for all the other sources you cite, do you know what those sources actually say? It's hard to prove the relevancy of a source if you're simply copying your source list from someone else's work (footnote 1), rather than actually referencing them. - Nat Gertler (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Law review articles are available online through databases such as Westlaw or Lexis Nexis. I mentioned that Volokh's expertise in response to your claim that he is a self published source; he has other writings on the same subject that are not self published so I don't see the relevancy at this point.  (Nevertheless, if Volokh isn't an expert in your view I wonder who is...)Jstanierm (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Law reviews are not generally considered expert sources for the views of movements; they are focused on the analysis of the law and legal proceedings. Analysis of the legal view of slippery slopes does not go to the heart of the statement that the reference supposedly supports. As for the remainder of the references, if you don't know what they say, how can you use them as references? It is not enough to simply cut'n'paste references from another article and assume that they say something relevant and supportive of your statement. - Nat Gertler (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This article about same-sex marriage. In the lede, the issue of same-sex marriage is said to be a human rights issue, an equality under the law issue, a political issue.  The article says marriages are legal and social institutions.  The article then goes on to explain why some favor changing the law to recognize same sex marriage, and it explains why some oppose changing the law to include same sex marriage.
 * I don't see why a lawyer, a law professor, a politician, a judge, a law review article etc would not be considered an expert on the subject (if not they then who). Also, the entire issue of being an expert was in regards to Self Published Sources only (Wikipedia states that a SPS may be used if the author is a recognized expert).  None of the citations are SPS -- and if they were they are still experts.
 * As I have told you law review articles are easily accessible due to the wonder of the internet, and I highly suggest you follow you own advice and read the citations above (and yes to answer your question I have verified the articles).
 * I don't know if you're going to object to online news articles, but this is more for your own personal edification, Nat Gertler, to help you understand that argument of incest to polygamy is an argument that is being made. (They are non-US for your pleasure) Please remember we are considering sources for the purpose of demonstrating that this is an argument that is being made. We are not evaluating the argument or criticizing the argument. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/11/27/australian-gay-marriage-could-lead-to-incest-and-polygamy-religious-figures-say/
 * http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012207.html Jstanierm (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (reseting indent) Being an expert on the law and able to apply that to SSM does not make one an expert on opinions about SSM, any more than being an expert in chemistry and able to talk about salts makes one an expert on salt use in baking. (Nor, for that matter, does Volokh make a robust claim in that regard; about the most he says is that "some say", not measuring it as a significant stance in a movement.)
 * Anyway, you invoked the Volokh source on a "e.g." list, which means you were using it as an example of an opponent making such a statement, which is clearly not true. But that also points to another problem: if you're trying to build a general case out of a list of examples, then you are engaging in WP:SYN. (As for your claims that you've actually read and referenced the things mentioned in the footnote you copied, I've seen you make enough false statements regarding the editing on this article not to take that at face value.)
 * By the way, that "LifeSiteNews" example you used as a "non-US" source is a US-cohosted site article that cites just one SSM opponent on the link between gay marriage and polygamy - and that's American Stanley Kurtz. - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you ought to assume good faith. If you are just going to reject all of these citations out of hand then we are never going to see eye to eye.  Because of this dispute I am going to place a POV lede tag to get others to contribute.  These sources show that there are opponents who object to a change in the law for the concerns listed above.  I don't see why a sentence that says: "Opponents argue against legalizing same sex marriage with concerns that it will lead to polygamous or incestuous marriage" can't be included given that it is clearly true.  Whether you like their argument or not -- there *are* opponents who make this claim.Jstanierm (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that a sentence like that or some variation thereof could be included, if it is reasonably placed and properly sourced. Your citations are not being dismissed out of hand; they are being dismissed because they are a list of examples of individual opponents - and in some cases, non-opponents - voicing a slippery-slope concern, which is not appropriate support for the blanket statement made. If you cannot see eye-to-eye with concerns over WP:SYN, then you may want to take it up with the people who craft that policy. - Nat Gertler (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize that not everyone has access to law review articles so I will cite a concise statement made in one of those I have listed above:
 * "Polygamy, endogamy, and marriage with minors and animals are also invalid and, unlike gay marriages, often criminal. Hence, rather than casually distributing honor to everyone but gays, the law strictly confines the honor of marriage to the one form that has worked best: monogamous, exogamous, heterosexual marriage. The other side of that coin is that validating gay marriage would logically necessitate validating these other forms of marriage" George Dent, TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE: STILL WORTH DEFENDING 68.111.52.166 (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is an example of one person making that argument. It would be a reasonably source to make the claim that "George Dent says that validating gay marraige would necessitate validating polygamy." To take three or four such examples and to use them to make a blanket statement about "opponents" is WP:SYN. - Nat Gertler (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am glad we are beginning to see eye to eye. I want to point out that you're slightly misreading the quote I selected from his work.  That is to say, he is not saying it would necessitate *only* polygamy.  He says that all other forms of marriage other than the currently accepted -- "monogamous, exogamous, hetereosexual" -- would be validated.  A more precise reading would say: "George Dent says that validating gay marriage would necessitate validating other forms of currently prohibited marriage, i.e., incest and polygamous marriage.
 * Also, what do you think of the sentence in the lede, which says that: "Supporters ... liken prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage." This assertion has only one citation -- a USA TODAY online article by Gail Mathabane, a journalist.  Should the article be reworded to say: "Gail Mathabane, a journalist with USA TODAY, likens prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage."?  Jstanierm (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (sigh) No. I did not "misread" Dent. I was not presenting a quote as a restatement of what he said, but was presenting an example of a line that could be supported by that quote as a reference.
 * As for the Mathabane reference, I made a very similar change in another article earlier today, for referencing that particular work. However, first off, Ms. Mathabane is not a USA Today journalist, she merely wrote an opinion piece for them (She works for Kaiser Permanente), and second, such a sentence does not earn a strong place in the lede... and, as I said before, there are arguments for excluding that sentence anyway from the lede (although I suspect there are better references available to support its statement.). NOTE: Please don't mistake my statement on this as consensus; I am merely one editor on this article. - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Include it. The slippery slope is a decent argument. Gay marriage really dimishes the special meaning of traditional marriage if people from the gay lifestyle consider themselves married to one another. Why stop there? Perhaps I want to marry my pet terrier? OscarMilde (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's ignorant, a dog is not a person. C T J F 8 3  chat 05:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The "slippery slope" argument can be included as one of many arguments used by opponents against SSM. However, it is a classical informal fallacy, as well as being an Appeal to Consequences, and should not be used in an authoritative way as a rational reason to oppose SSM. mKleid 17:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)\
 * Yes, it is simply a matter of being one of many arguments used by opponents of SSM. However, I think you should distinguish that when discussing society and law arguments that would otherwise be considered informal or formal fallacies often are very relevant.
 * Appeal to Authority is one logical fallacy that is, nonetheless, *very* respected in legal matters.Jstanierm (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed split
I propose that the article is split so that 'Same-sex marriage' remains focused on the facts of same-sex marriage and a separate article on 'same-sex marriage issues' (or perhaps a more appropriate name) is created to summarize issues for countries where same-sex marriage is controversial. For a layman reader who happens to reside in a country where same-sex marriage is legally protected and associated employment and pension rights are equivalent in a legal sense (such as in Spain), the article tends to drift into areas of current lobbying for rights that are not all that relevant for a long term encyclopaedic article. Ash (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. This article may have a lede that says something to the effect of: this article is about same-sex marriage as it is currently by various governments.  See -- for a discussion of proposed implementations of same sex marriage in other governments etc....Jstanierm (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. We have Same-sex marriage in... for the various areas which have them that can go into the specifics, but SSM is a situation in flux for a significant portion of the world. To avoid covering that conflict in the central article would be inappropriate. - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I think there's a wiki policy about splitting controversial topics into articles on that topic and an article on issues or controversies (WP: Fork? Maybe?)Quietmarc (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Found it! WP:POVFORK (I hope the link works)Quietmarc (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The POVFORK guidance is intended to avoid splitting an article into unbalanced separate articles. That's not quite the scenario under discussion as the intent would still be to have balance articles, it's just a question of how much depth to a summary of controversies is retained. Ash (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * POVFork can be intentional or unintentional. The split that's suggested would lead either to two POV articles or to two articles with so much overlap they might as well be merged. Gay marriage, itself, is pretty straightforward (aside from some interesting history). Most of what makes it notable is the controversy.Quietmarc (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Education controversy section
Someone has been repeatedly editing the POV statement "Teaching same sex marriage in public schools has been a controversial issue due to prejudicial views of intolerance" into the article, with the references being a "personal essay" as a self-published source. I've already given this the ax once. Would appreciate some back-up on this. - Nat Gertler (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. C T J F 8 3  chat 09:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you too Orionsbelter (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It has been disappearapated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nat you coined a new term ;) -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tax and Revenue implications of allowing Same Sex Marriages
If at all possible could the tax and revenue implications of allowing same sex marriage be outlined?

I know that both state and federal governments would lose a tremendous amount of revenue because of joint tax filing, inheritance tax from the death of a same sex spouse, health benefits, et al.

Gay men and women are the highest earners as a group in American today, I wonder if all the Social Security from men that died with AIDS need to be paid to their spouse would we ever have has a surplus in 2000?

Are the moral and ethical attacks on homosexual just a way to make it ok to steal from them legally?

Does anyone have statically accurate information on the fiscal aspects of these arguments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.78.10 (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As your concerns are specifically with the US, a more appropriate article for them to be covered in is Same-sex marriage in the United States. - Nat Gertler (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The IP makes a good point, but I think it would be hard for him to find these statistics because the department of statistics in every state, county and local municipal juridictions within all fifty U.S states do not keep stats based on sexuality. The choices on a death certificate, for example, would be single, married, divorced, widowed/widower.  In terms of sex, it would be male, female, etc. Malke  2010  05:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But even if all of the roughly half-million AIDS deaths through 2000 in the US were gay males, and even if they all had surviving spouses, with a year 2000 surplus of $230 billion, wiping out that surplus in that year would've meant paying each spouse over $400,000 in spousal benefits in that year. If that were what Social Security paid out, well, we'd see a lot more mysterious deaths, I can tell you that. Add in that AIDS tended to hit the younger crowd and that gay men are less likely to be raising children, and you've eliminated a lot of the eligibility for widower benefits. - Nat Gertler (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you

I would argue based on the data you presented (thank you) that the deaths in the 80's and 90's up to 2000 where mostly 30/40/50 y.o. gay men (assume all where gay men of course that was not the case) thus they had paid in a long time. Taking .5 million people (very sad) at a ss tax max of 5k per year for only 10 years is 250 million. So that is money that "freed up" since their were no spouse to collect it. As a side note correct me if I am wrong the social security trust fund became assesable for government use (regan) right around the time AIDS appeared?

Controversy seems slightly one-sided
The heading "Controversy" appears not to be completely neutral. I applaud the section, in that it covers both sides to some degree. The writing is, for the most part, matter-of-fact and in an encyclopedic style. However, reading this section, and being sympathetic with both sides, I wonder if some of the arguments of those opposing same-sex marriage could be filled out a bit more. Unfortunately for supporters of same-sex marriage, the article appears to have been written primarily by proponents of same-sex marriage, thereby weakening it. Perhaps I am being too sympathetic to one side over the other. What are some of your thoughts out there? Hackerj23 (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What would you add? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could figure out what--if anything--should be put in the place of a paragraph that was removed earlier. I proposed we include something along the lines of the following (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage&oldid=337798486 for convenience:


 * Opponents of same-sex marriage respond by claiming that research on children parented by homosexuals is biased, poorly conducted, and unscientific.[138] They point to journal article reviews by Lerner and Nagai (2000), Baumrind (1995), and Williams (2000) that indicate that research supporting the same-sex marriage argument "suffer[s] from severe methodological flaws,"[139], is "based on small samples of convenience, retrospective data, or self-report instruments subject to social desirability biases,"[140] or fails to publish "significant, but left unreported" data contrary to its conclusion.[141] They point out that some research has been thrown out due to blatant bias concerns, such as during the 1997 Florida hearing Petitioner v. Floyd P. Johnson.[142] Critics further suggest that important research contrary to LGBT movement has been overlooked or has not received its due scrutiny, like a study concluded by Stacey and Biblarz in 2001. After reviewing 21 studies on homosexual parenting and its effects on children, Biblarz and Stacey, the latter a proponent of gay-marriage, report the following: "Our careful scrutiny of the findings [the researchers of the 21 studies] report suggests that on some dimensions--particularly those related to gender and sexuality--the sexual orientations of these parents matter somewhat more for their children than the researchers claimed."[143]


 * My concern is that--in the absence of a paragraph like this one--the article is too weak because it appears somewhat biased. I have sympathy for both sides of this debate and would appreciate any input as to what would be appropriate. Perhaps we could come to a conclusion as to what would be fitting for the article, if anything.Hackerj23 (talk)
 * NPOV is not stating oponnents claims 10 years old and superseded. What their claimed is not true today = no reason to include. This is the same situation as with evolution or flat earth concept. --Destinero (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this concept of "sympathy for the other side", we aren't here to sympathize with anything, we're here to present facts. You may sympathize with flat-earthers or the Ku Klux Klan but including their "arguments" in an article about the earth, or the black race, or gay marriage must be done in discretion (and this goes for ANY side of the argument). People who are against SSM are either against it because they dislike gay people in general, or they're religious. I think it'd be more reasonable, and fair, if we didn't include pseudo-scientific (and unsubstantiated) arguments because including such arguments makes no sense but to give discredited organizations and researchers undeserved prominence. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This argument is ignorant. There is no need to characterize all opponents to SSM as strawmen religious homophobes.  Some opponents have no religious or personal opposition to homosexuality or even recognized civil unions.
 * Many opponents object to the proponent's refusal to accept civil unions as a viable alternative. These proponents instead demand  redefinition of marriage.
 * In America there are many constitutional guarantees for individual liberty, but there is *no* constitutional protection of family rights (e.g., a right of a father to raise his child, etc.). Traditionally the US courts have *discovered* (i.e., not instituted) marriage as a basis for upholding these rights.  Those who engage in heterosexual marriages are widely considered to plan to have biological children -- those who do not are exceptions.  Homosexual marriages would be widely considered to not plan for biological children -- those who do being exceptions.
 * Marriage is a bundle of contracts and obligations, marriage is also a legal vehicle with regards to understanding the family unit with an emphasis on children.  By redefining marriage to include same-sex unions, the law would recognize that marriage is a bundle of contracts while at the same time tacitly removing the concept of children from marriage.  In America, redefining marriage is a legal issue with far reaching (unintended) possible consequences.
 * For example, I have no issue -- religious or otherwise -- with homosexuals, but I do recognize that by refusing civil unions and demanding redefined marriage a very radical change in the law may take place affecting all families. Of course, these fears with regards to the law may be unfounded or incorrect; nonetheless, a society ought not rush blindly into progress.  The issue of same-sex marriage in public is toxic with little discussion focused on substantive points of law and more on chants and slogans and attacks.Jstanierm (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What is this "redefinition of marriage"? This play (and monopolization) of words is at the heart of this silly, weak argument constantly presented as legitimate. Words are not static, they change. Heterosexual monogamous marriages are nothing more than subsets of the varying types of marriages that exist (from polygamous marriages to arranged marriages to child marriages). Whether you like it or not, same-sex marriages have existed in the past, there is nothing to redefine as much as to include. You also said "Marriage is a bundle of contracts and obligations, marriage is also a legal vehicle with regards to understanding the family unit with an emphasis on children." - excuse me, emphasis on the children? According to who? Is a formerly convicted child molester, who's served his time, prevented from marrying? Is a deadbeat father with 7 estranged spouses that have left him prevented from exercising -his right- in another marriage? Marriage is about love and kinship between individuals, not the vehicle to propagation as many unmarried couples have children with little to no problems. You may take a personal issue with SSM and civil unions (as you've kindly pointed out) but every major psychological and scientific organization disagrees with your "logic", and I happen to agree with them. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is true that at the heart of the same-sex marriage debate is the definition of the term "marriage". The vast majority of cultures currently agree (and have long agreed) that marriage is only between one or more men and one or more women. While exceptions may arise from time to time, these should not be the basis for any definition.
 * Also true is the fact that words and their definitions change. The precise definition of "marriage", as a prime example, is being scrutinized. But to say that marriage has various "subsets", including same-sex marriages, is premature. One way a definition may be set is by history and tradition. Marriage has long been (and to a very large extent is today) a religious or sacred rite. One of the oldest texts available, the Bible frequently uses the term marriage, and in no case does it include the "marriage" of two members of the same sex to each other. In virtually all serious texts written before the 1950's that I have studied, the term "marriage" implicity refers a union between men and women, whatever else it was. If a text intends to denote a same-sex marriage, some qualifying term is always or nearly always attached.
 * Another method for determining the meaning of words is by how they are commonly used or viewed. A 2009 poll reported by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reveals that American popular opinion endorses civil unions for homosexuals but rejects the term "marriage" for homosexuals. Thus, the majority of Americans wish to reserve (and retain) the definition of "marriage" for unions only between men and women.
 * One alternative to a historical or populace definition is a definition decided by a philosophy. This is a valid basis for deciding definitions--many philosophers and scientists frequently create useful definitions, and rightly so--but these definitions are generally less wide-spread and commonplace. Further, there are plenty of legitimate philosophies on either side of the debate, so to arbitrarily choose a particular one over the others is unjustifiable.
 * Since both history and popular decree define marriage as being a union between men and women (and since social science defines it as something else only relatively recently), it is safe to say that a possible "redefinition" of marriage is currently under examination.Hackerj23 (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I also want to present the facts. Unfortunately, there are not currently a lot of indisputable facts to go around, and even those are difficult to discern. The SSM and flat-earth concepts are very different and cannot be reasonably compared. The SSM issue is a debate, with some science on both sides. It is still largely discussed and major scientific resources are being invested to learn more about the topic. The flat-earth issue is not a debate, since there is no current research or major disscusion on the matter nor is there any scientific evidence that I am aware of in support of it. While I admit I do not have access to all published journal articles on the subject, my recent investigations have shown that the science on same-sex parenting deals primarily with children up to and including adolescents. Some opponents of SSM insist that this does not adequately address the potential problems with same-sex parenting on children. Until this and other issues have been thoroughly resolved, the SSM debate remains such and cannot be compared to the flat-earth concept.
 * Current research does indicate that there is little difference between hetero- and homosexual parenting couples. However, opponents of SSM are not without scientific footing, and their views should be included. Please consider the following from a recent (2004) journal article: "Offspring of lesbian mothers were also no more likely to report same-sex sexual attraction or a gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity than were those from heterosexual families. They were, however, more likely to have considered a gay or lesbian relationship as a possibility for themselves and to have been involved in a same-sex relationship, suggesting that although sexual attraction and identity may not be related to parental sexual orientation, the likelihood of considering or entering a same-sex relationship may be associated with parents’ sexual orientation."
 * I agree that Wikipedia is not a place to draw conclusions on a current political debate. This is why I think it helpful and necessary to include current ideas from both sides, including opponents of the SSM debate. What are some thoughts of other Wiki editors here?Hackerj23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC).
 * The problem with that particular observation is that it would be WP:UNDUE weight to put it in this particular article. For one thing, it's about same-sex parenting, not same-sex marriage. The link to marriage, particularly to paint it as a negative, is indirect and circular (SSM may lead to same-sex parenting, which may lead to kids who aren't as repressed against same-sex activity, which is bad because, umm, it may lead to same-sex parenting?). It doesn't claim that there is a qualitative difference, only that there is some detectible statistical difference on some item. (As a sign of how minor this item is, it isn't even mentioned or alluded to in your source's summary.) There are articles for which the observation of this smaller difference would not be undue, such as LGBT parenting... and in fact you can find reference to it there. (As for that being a recent journal article, while 2004 is relatively recent, the article is merely citing the result from a study more than twice as old.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * NatGertler, your point is very well taken. My reason for quoting the study I did was not to present a case against SSM, but only to show that the opponents of SSM have relatively more recent literature from which they can draw in possibly establishing their stance (as a response to an above comment). My real motivation is to return to the question of whether or not to include in "Same-sex Marriage" the paragraph quoted near the beginning of this section (or one like it). I am open to further criticisms of that paragraph or other suggestions.Hackerj23 (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That paragraph is absolutely unsustainable here; for all its talk of "Opponents" saying this and "They" say that, such claims are actually all just sourced to one person, and the source doesn't even identify him as an opponent of SSM. (As put forth, he's objecting to APA process, not to SSM.) Oh, and add to that that the author is past-president of NARTH, making this likely fall into self-published source concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "My reason for quoting the study I did was not to present a case against SSM, but only to show that the opponents of SSM have relatively more recent literature from which they can draw in possibly establishing their stance (as a response to an above comment)" That's completely false! Every reference (reviews of literature by most prestigeous article journals in respective fields) from the lead paragraph of Same-sex marriage is not more than 4 years old! And all of them could be seen as a strong scientific and professional evidence and consensus on the issues related to same-sex marriage. --Destinero (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"The SSM issue is a debate, with some science on both sides. It is still largely discussed and major scientific resources are being invested to learn more about the topic." - I'm sorry, what is this "science" that you say exist on both sides? And it seems the consensus amongst every major legitimate scientific and psychological organization is pretty obviously "one-sided", in favor of the obvious of course. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The science to which I refer is that children of homosexual parents are slightly more likely to be homosexual themselves, for example. This would probably only be used as an argument against SSM by claiming that this is not biologically advantageous; that is, the more humans that pass on an environmentally-influenced trait not leading to child-rearing potential is inferior on evolutionary grounds. That is science that could back a claim opposing SSM parenting, at least. In that case, however, I agree with Nat that it would best be included in another article, as it does not address SSM per se. Thanks for your input. --Hackerj23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC).
 * "The science to which I refer is that children of homosexual parents are slightly more likely to be homosexual themselves, for example." Where is that science? [[Michael Lamb|]Michael Lamb (professor)] put it clearly: "Children raised by same-sex parents are not more likely to have same-sex orientations themselves"
 * Golombok, S. & Badger, S. (In press). Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: A follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers in early adulthood. Human Reproduction. "Although attitudes towards homosexuality have become more accepting in recent years, as demonstrated by the introduction of same-sex marriage and civil partnerships, an outstanding concern by policymakers and legislators is that lesbian mothers will have lesbian and gay children, an outcome that is considered by some to be undesirable as illustrated in the tabloid press. Irrespective of opinion on this matter, the present study shows that this is not the case. Not only do the findings replicate an earlier longitudinal study of the sexual orientation of adults raised from childhood in lesbian mother families (Golombok and Tasker, 1996) but also they confirm these findings with young adults reared in lesbian families from birth."
 * Tasker, F. L. & Golombok, S. (1997). Growing up in a lesbian family: Effects on child development. New York: Guilford Press.
 * Wainright, J. L., Russell, S. T., & Patterson, C. J. (2004). Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex parents. Child Development, 75, 1886-1898.
 * http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf#page=24 --Destinero (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) WP:SPECULATION 2) Since when are Christians strongly supporting abortion which goes against their ideology? --Destinero (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)